Conference quark::human_relations-v1

Kath,
Thank you for better stating what I attempted to convey in my reply to 905.
I agree 100% 

-j

How much people need to "survive" is a relative thing.  While visiting my family
over Thanksgiving, I heard from one of my brothers that a friend of his was no
longer engaged to be married.  The reason - he (the friend) only made $40k a
year. The girl's father made some 6 figure income, and she didn't feel that she
could survive on the "small" salary that he made.

I think that you need to separate what is needed to survive from what is needed
to live comfortably.  We don't need big houses and fancy cars to survive, but
we do need them to live comfortably.  What people need to survive hasn't changed
much since our parents were our age (yes, the prices have gone up), but the
number of comforts available has increased dramaticly.  The increasing numbers
and availability of comforts blurs the line between comforts and necessities,
so that people feel that they constantly need more to survive.

Rich

    I think you also need to define the term "survival".  It means
    different things to different people at different times.  When I first
    left me ex survival meant feeding, clothing and housing my daughter. 
    At $4.25 an hour I couldn't even afford to cover day care without help. 
    Now my perception has changed and survival means paying my bills as
    well as being able to pay a sitter on an occassional night out.
    
    Nanci
    

Another term that will stand better definition is 'equality'. The
free enterprise system neither assures nor encourages full equality
for all. Rather, it attempts (rather feebly at times) to offer equal
**opportunities** for all. 

Since each of us is different than anyone else, even if we start
with equal opportunities, we end up with non-equal wealth. Take a
millionaire and a pauper, strip both of everything they have in this
world and start then both --materially equal-- in a new free
enterprise society. Come back in a bit and you will find that the
millionaire is again a millionaire and the pauper is again a pauper.
Our socio-economic system not only condones, but actually favours
this inequality. 

I do not believe that "One of the major movements in our society is
equality. Equality between men and women, between blacks and whites,
between homosexuals and heterosexuals, etc...", unless it's limited 
to equal **opportunity**.

I do believe that the outcome of ensuring equal **opportunities**
will not be full equality. This means that there will always be 
secretaries and business managers, the latter making ten times as 
much.

Fair and even comfortable living standards for minimum wage earners 
is a totally separate issue. It has nothing to do with equality.

-- Ron 

    I don't feel like writing a long essay in economics, but suffice to say
    that I belive government's interference of the marcket should be kept 
    to the minimum.  Capitalism isn't ideal, I have known some math Ph.D
    cab drivers when I was in California, but as Churchil once said: 
    "It is the worst system except everything else."
    
    Eugene

    This is a tough subject.  
    
    First, it gets into:  *is* there inequity in how certain jobs are
    compensated?  Is there a real reason for it (longer training, more
    skills, greater responsibility) or not (historical/social reasons like
    "men need more money than women do, so they should get paid more". The
    doctor-nurse example is not a good one, because to me there are
    differences in training (I know a lot of doctors-in-training and the
    process is inhuman and painful beyond belief):  the original one,
    secretary-truck driver is probably better.
    
    Second, if you agree there's inequity, how do you handle it? 
    Across-the-board increases for all those in the less-well-paid position?
    Across-the-board decreases for all those in the more-well-paid position?
    Doing nothing and letting "society" regulate it?  S-l-o-w-l-y?
    ???
    
    I think that what is needed is closer looks at how money is
    distributed, and if job action is needed to make things fairer, it
    should be taken. I don't believe everyone should be paid the same, but
    I DO believe that it is appropriate to do job evaluations to find out
    what skills are required, and to make sure that pay differences are
    based on reality and not historic assumptiona. 
    
    I disagreed with 905.34.  It stated:
        
             I don't agree in the least bit with the statement
             "until all women make as much money as all men.....until
             secretaries make as much as truck drivers."  You can never,
             nor SHOULD you ever fight for anything more than equal pay
             for equal skills, because demanding anything more is
             demanding for the inequality to go in favor of women, and
             that is dead wrong in my book.
    
    I AGREE it would be bad for the inequality should go the other way. 
    But I don't think that's what was suggested. Furthermore, I don't think
    that this particular example would cause that to happen.  I have driven
    6-10 hours a day cross-country, for 3 weeks.   I have done secretarial
    work.  Secretarial work was harder, both mentally and emotionally. 
    Physical requirements (driving vs. running around all day in high heels
    (!) were not significantly different.  :-)
    
    The skills required of a truck driver (ability to drive a semi in all
    weather, on schedule, in all kinds of traffic, and navigate possibily
    unfamiliar territory) are, to my mind, not as complex-technical-
    interpersonal-organizational as the skills required of a secretary
    (ability to type, wordprocess, order supplies, set up calendars and
    appointments, deal with interruptions and more than one task at a time,
    operate xerox, slide machine, phone system, work equally well with
    boss(es), co-workers, supporting staff, prioritize work).
    
    So why are truck drivers paid more?  For this particular example, I
    have to think that it's something 905.43 referred to:  social value
    placed differently on different kinds of work, BECAUSE of the people
    who traditionally do the work.  I think that's wrong.  I don't think
    people are currently getting equal pay for equal skills.  And I don't
    like WHY that happens.  I think something should be done about it,
    because we are a society, not a "pure free enterprise model".  In a
    free enterprise model, one part of the work force is not harrassed or
    discouraged from applying to well-paying jobs that another part of the
    work force is free to take.
    
    Supply/demand has something to do with it, but not everything.  
    
    Pam
    
    P.S.  At DEC, there are options, true.  But should we limit our
    discussion to DEC alone?  (Serious question about the scope of this
    topic!)

    
    	RE: .6
    
    	 So, by your assumption, being a secretary is more demanding than
    	that of a truck driver. Okay, let's break it down further. Does a
    	secretary have to drive alone cross-country in their job? Does a
    	secretary have to give up seeing and being a part of their
    	childrens development because they have to be on the road? What if
    	a secretary has a mechanical breakdown with her equipment, does
    	it have potential to cause them or others great harm or even
    	death? There is more to the picture than just "well I have to
    	have training that a truck driver don't have". Things such as
    	dangers in the job, conditions the job imposses, etc.
    
    	I'm not defending truck drivers, or picking on secretaries. I do
    	feel that those of the last few replies have singled out truck
    	drivers and just looked at what skills are needed to drive a truck
    	vs. what skills it takes to be a secretary. Sure secretaries 
    	require special skills, but I don't think any pay scale should be 
    	based on just skills alone. Surely we must take into account
    	work conditions, requirements made of the job on your personal
    	life, dangers to you and others, etc.
    
    	G_B

>        <<< Note 914.6 by CADSYS::PSMITH "foop-shootin', flip city!" >>>

>    I AGREE it would be bad for the inequality should go the other way. 
>    But I don't think that's what was suggested. Furthermore, I don't think
>    that this particular example would cause that to happen.  I have driven
>    6-10 hours a day cross-country, for 3 weeks.   I have done secretarial
>    work.  Secretarial work was harder, both mentally and emotionally. 
>    Physical requirements (driving vs. running around all day in high heels
>    (!) were not significantly different.  :-)

         You're forgetting quite a few aspects of the truck driving
         profession.  Truck driving is not a 9-5 job.  Truck drivers
         have to live out of suitcases, be gone from their homes and
         families for days/weeks at a time.  They must (or usually do)
         help to load and unload the contents they are carrying.  They
         must be fully aware that they have a hug vehicle on the road
         at all times which is a VERY high stress, mentally draining
         position to be in (I just confirmed this with an ex-truck
         driver).  They must be able to fill out paperwork accurately
         and consisely.  The emotional strain of being on the road for
         days/weeks without the family, living in the truck or in a
         motel, eating greasy food, etc is very high.

	 As my ex-truck driver friend just stated, driving a truck is
	 physically, emotionally, and mentally draining.  That at the
	 end of each 10 hour stint of driving it is not possible to do
	 anything but sleep.

	 
>    So why are truck drivers paid more?  For this particular example, I
>    have to think that it's something 905.43 referred to:  social value
>    placed differently on different kinds of work, BECAUSE of the people
>    who traditionally do the work.  I think that's wrong.


	 I think you're wrong.  Look at the higher salaries people get
	 just for working nights (what is it?  15% higher or something
	 like that?) Considering the time away from their normal lives
	 (family, friends, etc) truck drivers have to go though, I
	 think pretty hefty pay is in order.

	 
         And comparing skills for truck drivers and secretaries is
         like comparing apples and oranges.  The skills are different,
         and herein lies the problem in determining "equal pay for
         equal skills."


	 I'm still appalled at the low salaries secretaries and others
	 make, but I don't feel that secretaries/truck drivers are an
	 equal comparison. Simply because of the fact that both jobs
	 are not 9-5 type jobs, only one is.


	 kath

re .6, 
    
    The real issue is who decides who should get pay for how much.  Right
    now it is determined by the market with a bit of government
    intervention (min. wage and etc.).  I think the market is the best
    place to determine the pay.
    
       
>    I think that what is needed is closer looks at how money is
>    distributed, and if job action is needed to make things fairer, it
>    should be taken. I don't believe everyone should be paid the same, but
>    I DO believe that it is appropriate to do job evaluations to find out
>    what skills are required, and to make sure that pay differences are
>    based on reality and not historic assumptiona. 
 
    Again the problem is who decides what is fair and unfair.  How are you
    going to evaluate the pay for a math Ph.D cab driver?  Now suppose you
    designed your "fair scale", what are you going to do about it?  Are you
    going to pass laws to enforce the "fair scale"?  Let me just say that
    the Soviet Union and Mainland China tried that, and it doesn't work.
    I say let's leave it to the market to decide.      
  
>    I AGREE it would be bad for the inequality should go the other way. 
>    But I don't think that's what was suggested. Furthermore, I don't think
>    that this particular example would cause that to happen.  I have driven
>    6-10 hours a day cross-country, for 3 weeks.   I have done secretarial
>    work.  Secretarial work was harder, both mentally and emotionally. 
>    Physical requirements (driving vs. running around all day in high heels
>    (!) were not significantly different.  :-)
    
    As to why truck drivers make more than secretaries, I can only say
    that difficulties and skills required for the job are only part
    (sometime a very small part) of the reason that determines the job's
    pay.  I think everyone would agree that it takes a lot more hard work
    and special talent to become Einstein than to become Pat Sajak, but how
    much did Einstein make in his entire life and how much did Sajak make
    in a year?  Well, that is the free market.  You may or may not like the
    way it is, but you see it is very easy to point out something that
    doesn't look right, but it is not enough to say something is not right.  
    You have to come up with an alternative.  Today, the world has gradually 
    come to realize that the free market system is indeed as Churchil described:
    It is the worst system except everything else.
    
    Eugene

	 Eugene has a very good point here.

	 I don't feel that "historically female" positions should be
	 compared to "historically male" positions.  It is just
	 totally impossible to make the comparisons (BTW, the
	 secretarial position was at one time predominantly male).

	 The free enterprise system, and society together label what
	 jobs get what pay.  That is how the free market works, it
	 wouldn't work with mandates and wage adjustments.  As long as
	 there are people that need work and are willing to work for
	 low wages, there will be low wage jobs.  (Whether those jobs
	 deserve to be low wage jobs or not is another story.)


	 Equal opportunity for jobs is pretty much available
	 everywhere now within the free enterprise system, and equal
	 pay for equal work (within job classifications) is getting
	 there.  With the free enterprise system, isn't this all we
	 can hope to reach for?

	 Should we? Can we?  in the free enterprise system hope to
	 cross-compare previously gender-oriented jobs so that their
	 pay is comparable?  Is it possible to compare difficulty of
	 skills that are not within the same categories?  Isn't it the
	 job of the free enterprise system to place the jobs within
	 the pay rank where they should belong due to demand/supply of
	 skills/workers???


	 kath

    Free enterprise is a myth when it comes to individual salaries.  While
    market conditions may have some impact of the range of salaries for a
    given type of work, structural conditions in enterprises have much more
    impact on any given individual salary.  Enterprises are far from
    "free," try just doing what you want to do around here for the next
    three months and see what that gets you.
    
    By and large, those who got there early enough to run the enterprise
    determine the rules, and tend to set those rules to their advantage.
    
    In addition, most businesses are run on some pretty negative assumptions
    about what people can and will do.  Work is divided and separated into
    functions based on the assumption that people must be controlled and
    directed, rather than that they are capable of self-direction and
    learning.  Most pay systems are designed to control costs rather than
    reward performance and contribution.  People are treated as individual
    parts which are interchangeable and bought and sold like nuts and bolts
    -- at the lowest negotiable price.  Ergo, unions.
    
    Work can also be organized on the basis of redundant skills instead of
    redundant parts, and people paid on the basis of the number of
    different skills they have and therefore different jobs they can do
    without supervision, saving the costs associated with control, and
    adding the value of creative energy and broadened problem solving
    capability.  Enterprises organized this way tend to be more successful
    by various criteria... and also pay people more... they also tend to
    have fewer scuzzy jobs.
    
    ref.  Marvin Weisbord, "Productive Workplaces: Orgainzing and Managing
    for Dignity, Meaning, and Community," Jossey-Bass Publishers, San
    Francisco, 1989.
    

    re .11,
         The free market (or free enterprise) system operates at the
    inter-corporate level, not intra-corporate level.  Within each
    corporation, the business can be run as it wishes within the confine of
    law.  Ultimately, it has to compete with other corporations
    for market and talent.  If a particular business does not pay its
    people enough (when I mean "pay", I do not just mean salary.  I mean
    many other benifits including pleasant working environment and etc.),
    talented people will join the competitors.  If it pays too high, it
    will drive up the price of its product too high and losing market to
    the competitors.  Hence, managers of different corporations find an
    equalibrium level of pay scale which they feel is optimal.  Their
    judgement and actions are then judged by the market that
    determines who will gain or lose business.  This is how each job's pay
    is ultimately determined by the market force.
    
    As to pay people according to their skills, I would again bring back
    the example of the math Ph.D. cab driver.  Now this guy has a lot more
    skills than any ordinary cab drivers.  Should he be paid more than an
    ordinary cab drivers simply because the knows how to calculate PI to
    one billion decimal places?
    
    Let's also remember that in the market place, it is really a "survival
    of the fittest" game.  That means the popular corporate structure is
    the end result of a long search for efficiency.  If you (or Marvin
    Weisbord) can do better, by all means, do it.  I personally think it is
    just a nice but vague talk.  You need to come up with a detailed plan
    as to how the new idea can be implemented.  We are talking about real
    world.  I also feel that there are so many types of business, and any 
    All-In_One solution sounds awefully naive to me.  
    
    Eugene
    
    P.S. My thoughts of the day is: "Ideas are cheap, I can come up with
    one every day."  :-)

    There is not really a "free" market where people get paid more
    bcause the people resources for that job are scarce. Look at
    nursing. I've seen several passes at this situation where nurses
    were scarce but wages did NOT go up. Women are expected to do this
    and get their rewards by "helping" people.

    In my personal experience I had a degree and was registered in both
    x-ray and radiation therapy technology. I dealt with people's lives
    everyday. Back in the days before ER doctors were commmon place I
    often worked with just the ER nurse (this was at night)moving and
    x-raying people with broken necks and other life threatening
    conditions. If we made a mistake someone could be paralyised for
    life. I would make judgement call over the phone to the doctor on
    call on what I thought the x-rays indicated.

    Then I took 6 months of training and entered Mutual of Omaha as a
    programmer trainee at $100 a month more than I ever made at the
    hospital. I certainly worked hard to get where I am but I've always
    felt a bit guilty knowing this job really wasn't as important in a
    very personal way. There I made a difference to someone's life in an
    immediate and critical way, now it's all rather fuzzy. liesl

    The Ph.D. cab driver is a poor example and does not refute the pay for
    skill approach.
    
    Exactly what skills does a Ph.D. cab driver possess?  Driving skills
    and possibly research skills... but more likely the academic skills
    necessary to acquire a Ph.D.  Pay for skills relates to skills to do
    various jobs or tasks.  Skills are not the same as knowledge.

re .14 (Webb)
>    The Ph.D. cab driver is a poor example and does not refute the pay for
>    skill approach.
    
>    Exactly what skills does a Ph.D. cab driver possess?  Driving skills
>    and possibly research skills... but more likely the academic skills
>    necessary to acquire a Ph.D.  Pay for skills relates to skills to do
>    various jobs or tasks.  Skills are not the same as knowledge.

Well that example is specifically directed at the following:

>    Work can also be organized on the basis of redundant skills instead of
>    redundant parts, and people paid on the basis of the number of
>    different skills they have and therefore different jobs they can do
>    without supervision, saving the costs associated with control, and
>    adding the value of creative energy and broadened problem solving
>    capability.

The Ph.D. cab driver certainly has more "skills" than the ordinary cab driver. 
The fella I knew has competent research skills in some obscure math.
But this example isn't really crucial to the point I was trying to make
that is who gets to decide what skill should get what pay.  Also the current 
free enterprise system allows almost a free hand as to how private corporations
are run.  So there is nothing there to prohibit anyone starting a corporation 
based on your philosophy.  Assume you can turn your corporate philosophy
into a detailed plan (a very BIG IF, and this is the most crucial point), 
the question is then will such corporation be survivable in the market place.  
I am pretty sure that similar things have been tried (given that the free 
enterprise system has existed in the west for a long time), but probably 
failed because such corporation couldn't compete in the market place 
(I admit I don't have an example).

re .13, (liesl)

Well, it all comes down to what one means by "fairness" and "free market".
A market with no government intervention is by definition a free market.
Of course, there is no such thing as absolutely free market.  Government is 
needed to set some minimum neutral rules under which all individuals and
corporations operate, e.g. enforcing contracts between different parties,
anti-trust, and etc.

On the other hand, fairness is hard to define.  What one sees as fair may 
be unfair to someone else.  The only way, in my opinion, to resolve this
issue is to define fairness as whatever the market determines.
Hence, by definition, it is fair :-) Q.E.D.

Finally, the market is by and large self correcting.  Most people (reflected
by the market) feel that nurses are underpaid, so there are less people 
going into that profession (and liesl is out of nuring already :-)).  
There is indeed a shortage of nurses right now.  Eventually, hospitals 
will raise their pay and as they do more people will go into the field 
and finally reaching an equalibrium.

Eugene

    In a skills for pay system the skills are related to the work... not
    just some abstract set of skills in a vacuum... this is not just a
    matter of opinion... it's been done and it works.
    
    You can quote myself back to me and restate your opinions forever...
    and it doesn't make your point... BTW, what is your point?
    
    R.
    

    re .16,
    
    IMHO, had you made it clear as to what you meant by "skills" in the
    first place, there wouldn't have been any misintepretations.  As to 
    "it has been done", I would like to know what legislations have been 
    passed to enforce your "fair scale" (as far as I know, there isn't 
    any such legislation).  As to "it works", I would like to know some 
    concrete examples as to how such legistations have worked, and this 
    is my point. 
    
    Eugene                   

    
         RE: .0
         Kathy, you have some rather interesting views
     
         On the "free enterprise system" (or whatever term one
         chooses to use)...
    
         I think the real beauty of the "f.e.s." is that if one
         identifies a need for a product/service then one can
         (witin legal requirements) provide such product/service
    
         The "f.e.s" will continue to flourish
         UNLESS
         one day we wake up prisoners to Imperialistic Rule
    
    
         On equality...
    
         I think that Martin Luther King is to be given credit
         for raising the level of awarness and the drive for
         the "movement to equality" as you referred to it.
    
         I'm not too sure however, if we will see this issue
         come to acceptable terms in my lifetime. It's sad,
         but some ideas die hard, if at all.
    
         
         I do not believe that the inequality that exists is due
         to the "f.e.s" nor do I believe it is a problem of the
         "f.e.s"...it has become a problem that needs to be addressed
    
         Asking business to solve social problems is, the height
         of stupidity.
         Waiting for our Government to rectify social injustices
         will not get us any farther ahead either....
         Dr. King was right...until people recognize it themselves
         and move to do something about it, the problem will
         continue to exist.
    
         I'am certainly not one to think individually I can solve
         all social ills...thats ludicrious...but, I can and I do
         make my opinions known to those elected officials that I
         vote for.
    
         Kathy, you got on a pretty wild subject, hope you find
         what you're looking for
    
         Christopher

    Christopher,
    
    I'm confused.  You write that we shouldn't expect the free enterprise
    system to do anything, but then you write that Martin Luther King
    went about it the right way.
    
    What King originally did was set up a boycott of a privately-owned
    bus company, and used economic pressure to force integration.
    
    It looks like you think that bus company wasn't part of the free
    enterprise system.  What have I missed?
    
    							Ann B.

> .18 by GLDOA::RACZKA 

>                 -< Is this your usual dinner conversation??? >-

Depends on who I am with and what's for dinner.  ;-)

    
>         I'am certainly not one to think individually I can solve
>         all social ills...thats ludicrious...but, I can and I do
>         make my opinions known to those elected officials that I
>         vote for.

I don't think our elected officials should be the one's to do anything about
it, but rather society as a whole must alter it's way of thinking from the
"ME ME ME" to thinking about others.....

>         Kathy, you got on a pretty wild subject, hope you find
>         what you're looking for

Actually, I'm not really looking for anything, but to heighten awareness that
even though we want something, the way our society functions does not
always allow us to get what we want.

kath

    RE: .19  Ann B.
    >> I'm confused.
    I will not take issue with that!
    
    >> You write that we shouldn't expect the free enterprise system
    >> to do anything,
    Ann...you should be a journalist!  :-)
    What I said, was that the inequality that exists is not a problem
    of the free enterprise system
    
    >> but then you write that Martin Luther King went about it
    >> the right way.
    Again, your showing that your reading skills are in need of
    excercise.  :-)
    What I said, was that Dr. King should recieve credit for raising
    the awarness of the people regarding the inequality that does still
    exist
    
    As for a "boycott of a privately-owned bus company"...
    Thats a pretty good example of excercising ones constitutional rights,
    and in case you are in a trance, protests happen almost everyday.
    A good example of this is Eastern Europe....the people have
    united and decided to do something....I said that in my earlier
    reply as well
    
    >> What have I missed ?
    Sorry for the pun, but you've missed the bus  :-)
    I'm glad my reply struck a nerve.
    
    
    RE: .20 Kathy
    How about dinner  ;-)
    
    Christopher

>        <<< Note 914.21 by GLDOA::RACZKA "down on Fascination Street" >>>
    
    
>    RE: .20 Kathy
>    How about dinner  ;-)


	 Well, an invitation from a person with a P_N from The
	 CuRE....

	 

	 How can I resist? ;-)

	 kath

    re .17
    

    Pet Foods, Kansas city... TRW Ball Bearings, Indianapolis (I think...
    not sure of the location)... there are numerous others.  read the book
    I referenced in the original note.
    
    I don't want to put my credentials here... but this is what I do for
    work... and the principles of sociotechnical design are well
    established.  I never used the term "fair scale" in the sense that you
    mean it -- don't put words in my mouth... and it's not something that
    is "legislated."  Forward looking companies have installed such methods
    because they improve productivity.  One example exists in our own
    company... though it has not been fully exploited.
    
    To put it bluntly, you are talking "opinion" and don't have knowledge
    of what has been done in this area.
    
    I would be equally over my head if I started talking about what made
    for effective hardware designs or how to do structured programming. 
    This is an arena in which there is a working body of knowledge, a
    technology, and practitioners of that technology.  It is not widely
    practiced because of deeply held beliefs about management, control,
    etc. among the managers of most firms.
    
    Run a library search using the term "Sociotechnical Design" and see what
    you turn up, if you don't believe me.
    
    R.
    

    

    re .23,
    
    Look, I never defined what your "fair scale" was other than 
    whatever you were proposing, so how could I put word in your mouth.
    
    Again, the free enterprise system operates at inter-corporate level
    (forgive me for repeating it again, but if you insist on making issues 
    with me where there are none, I will just have to repeat to make
    my point clear).  That means if these company can make it in the free 
    market with whatever "fair scale", more power to them.  Maybe these are
    the most efficient methods to run those particular industries.  The only 
    thing I have been arguing against is government regulation of salaries 
    for private industries.  And without government regulation, free market
    rules by default.  Is that clear?  
    
    Eugene

    Eugene,
    
    I looked back at my notes and I never even used the term "fair scale"
    so (once again) don't put words in my mouth...
    
    As far as free enterprise regarding salaries on an inter-corporate
    level, there are still structural blocks to competition.  Most
    companies participate in one or more of the two or three major wage
    survey consortiums run by companies like Hay.  In these survey groups,
    they agree to share each other's wage information on which they base
    "competitive" wages.  The process is designed, in part, to inhibit price
    competition for labor.
    
    It is a convenience for management to use these devices, but it tends
    to perpetuate the system as it is and not allow for innovations which
    (read my lips) are proven ways of getting both better productivity and
    better pay for the producers.  This is not just pie in the sky stuff.
    It has been done in a number of places and it works.
    
    Your own determined adherence to opinions in the face of actual
    knowledge and information about this is evidence itself as to why this
    is not more widely used.  There are a lot of widely held and deeply
    believed msiconceptions about how pay works and the extent to which
    skilled labor is a "free" market.  I will grant you that there is
    competition, but my point is that it is badly flawed for structural
    reasons both within and between companies.
    
    Seriously, read the book, you will find it enlightening.
    
    R.
    

re .25,

     Isn't it obvious that the definition of "fair scale" is embbeded below?
     I suppose you wouldn't expect me to insert the following everywhere
     in my responses?

>    Work can also be organized on the basis of redundant skills instead of
>    redundant parts, and people paid on the basis of the number of
>    different skills they have and therefore different jobs they can do
>    without supervision, saving the costs associated with control, and
>    adding the value of creative energy and broadened problem solving
>    capability.  Enterprises organized this way tend to be more successful
>    by various criteria... and also pay people more... they also tend to
>    have fewer scuzzy jobs.

    What exactly is the change you want to make in the free market system?
    Let me also remind you that the only institution that can change 
    the free market is the government.  Any private parties participate
    in the market have to follow the supply-demand rules of the market.
    
>    It is a convenience for management to use these devices, but it tends
>    to perpetuate the system as it is and not allow for innovations which
>    (read my lips) are proven ways of getting both better productivity and
>    better pay for the producers.  This is not just pie in the sky stuff.
>    It has been done in a number of places and it works.
 
    One would think if these ways are proven to be superior, these companies 
    would have outcompeted the other "inferior companies" (hope you don't 
    accuse me of attributing another term to you).  So why do so many "inferior 
    companies" still exist?

>    Your own determined adherence to opinions in the face of actual
>    knowledge and information about this is evidence itself as to why this
>    is not more widely used.  

    Whether I know it or not is not the point.  In a free market system, 
    all "superior system" will stand out by themselves and all "inferior
    system" will be outcompeted.  Isn't that obvious?  

>    There are a lot of widely held and deeply
>    believed msiconceptions about how pay works and the extent to which
>    skilled labor is a "free" market.  I will grant you that there is
>    competition, but my point is that it is badly flawed for structural
>    reasons both within and between companies.
 
     Would you kindly tell us exactly where the flaws are and what concrete
     actions should be taken according to you?
   
>    Seriously, read the book, you will find it enlightening.
    
     I have read many books in economics especially in macro-economics 
     and finance.  These are classic text books used to train economists.
     As such I feel myself qualified in discussing economic issues
     at least in notes.  In a conference like this, all essays should be 
     self-contained and arguments should stand on their own.  I am sorry, 
     but if I go out and read all the books suggested in NOTES, I wouldn't 
     have time to do anything else.  I am sure if I suggest you to read
     any of my economics books, you would probably have done the
     same (note I said probably).    
    
     Regards,

     Eugene                  

    I pass... you don't have the time to read... I don't have the time to
    educate you.
    

I am really turned off by .27's parting shot, "I don't have the time
to educate you.".

'Education' is a multifaceted concept. It refers to the process of
acquiring knowledge. But, it also denotes general command of 'being
a human being' attributes. 

-- Ron

    If I may speak in Randy's defense (complete with putting words in his
    mouth):
    
    Education, besides being a process of acquiring knowledge, is also a
    process of accepting knowledge.  From Randy's point of view, Eugene
    wasn't accepting that knowledge; consequently, further attempts would
    be a waste of his (Randy's) time.
    
    Therefore, Randy calmly bowed out of the process.
    
    If I am misrepresenting anyone in this exchange, I apologize. 
    This is how I see it -- I may be wrong (Ghad knows, I've been
    wrong before.)
    
    					andrew

    re .29
    
    I think you are wrong.  You will understand why you are wrong after 
    reading through the NYNEX Yellow Pages of Boston.  If you refuse to 
    do that, you are refusing to accept knowledge.  I will pass this 
    one since I don't have the time to educate you.
    
    Eugene                                                      

    I choose not to invite myself to this argument.
    
    					regards,
    					andrew

    Thanks, Andrew... and yes, Ron... the response I left was a little acrid...
    
    And Eugene,... I apologize for my impatience.  Perhaps I have tended to
    personalize the argument because I have about eighteen years of work
    experience in this area, as well as between four and five years of graduate
    education.  It is what I work with for a living... like if we were
    talking about how to diagnose and take out a sick appendix... I'd be
    the practicing surgeon.
    
    I do think that in the interests of making the case for your beliefs in 
    the efficacy of the free enterprise system, Eugene, you have either not
    understood or not wanted to admit that you understood what I was
    explaining, and have consequently twisted my offering to fit your frame
    of reference and then rejected it as not having any value.  You are
    certainly free to do that, but I suggest that you may be more
    interested in making a point or defending a belief system than in
    having a useful discussion.
    
    I apologize for becoming impatient and for expressing it in a way that
    was offensive.
    
    I submit to superior argument.
     
    R.
                                             
    
    

    

    re .32,
    
    Randy, no apology is necessary.  I want to make one point clear though. 
    I never argue for argument's sake.  Nothing would make me happier if
    someone can prove me wrong (as this has already happened in various 
    notesfiles I have participated) because that means I learn something new.
    Finally, if you are working to improve DEC's efficiency and make it
    more profitable and at the same time give our secretaries more money,
    all power to you.  And I am certainly not going to argue with anyone 
    who is going to operate on my appendix.
    
    Eugene

"Let me also remind you that the only institution that can change the free
market is the government.  Any private parties participate in the market have to
follow the supply-demand rules of the market."

Not quite true.  Anyone is free to make a contribution to change the free
market.  The problem is that you either need a sizable portion of the market to
make a sizable impact on the market, or have the government decree the change.

"So why do so many "inferior companies" still exist?"

Because most companies measure success directly by dollars & cents, and there
are a lot of strategies which have merit which does not show up easily by that
measure.  Either the benifits are less tangiable: happier employees, better
jobs, or they are less attributable: happier employees produce more, etc...
Also it takes a certain amount of thought, skill, and risk to try nonstandard
strategies, and a lot of companies/people are not up to it. 

Jim.

    re .5
    
    Churchill was referring to democracy as a form of government, and made
    no reference explicit or implicit to capitalism.  The two are not the
    same.

    re .35,
         I may be wrong, but that is not what I remembered.
    Eugene