Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Re .0, Mary, I think you're very brave to put this in a Digital
    notesfile.  I agree with you on the maximum wage, but I wouldn't
    expect too much support from any other noters I know of(unless Winton
    Davies is reading =wn= now :-) ).  I think it's an excellent idea.
     I don't think anybody needs anymore money than $1Million a year.
     But, you have to remember what this country was founded on - greed,
    ruthlessness, and hard work, and that if you manage to get something
    (such as unlimited wealth), that no matter how you got it, you have
    a right to keep it.  It is my opinion that most people with high
    tech jobs are just too content to give a damn (now anyway).
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, Mary,  I concur...
    
    /bruce

    I disagree. Artificial limits on peoples personal accomplishments,
    and yes making money is an accomplishment, only serves to keep everyone
    down. Are we going to limit everyone and everything to what people
    need? Who needs a car that can go 80 miles an hour? Who needs snack
    food? Who needs notes? Who needs a job that they enjoy? (Millions
    of people exist well with jobs they hate. They're nice but you don't
    *need* it.)

    People need to know that the limits to their success are bounded
    only by what they themselves set as limits are. Artificial limits
    needlessly limit people to some pre-determined other persons view
    of what they are, need and can be. Otherwise you remove the incentive
    for work. You remove the need and desire to accomplish things; to
    take risks; to grow as a human being by such limits.

    What is to be accomplished by such a limit on income? Perhaps money
    will be spread more evenly (I doubt it though) but the total amount
    of money will be diminished because people will not have the same 
    incentives to increase the total sum of money. Not only that but
    people who don't think that the people who are making the big bucks
    now will not come up with creative non-cash ways to benefit themselves
    are seriously underestimating those people.

    			Alfred

    Well stated, Alfred. (I can hear the collective groan now)
    
    I find it strange that some people wish to set limits on people whose
    talents they value less than others. I do not hear limits on the number
    of paintings a painter can paint per year, nor do I hear a call to
    limit the number of songs a musician can play. I do not hear anyone
    saying that Mother Theresa should only be able to help x amount of
    people this year. Everybody has talents. Some people have a talent for
    making money. Some people who do not have this particular talent wish
    to artificially limit the amount that certain talented people can make.
    It is a ludicrous idea.
    
    Why are you all so caught up with how much money everybody else has?
    On one hand, you decry materialism. On the other, you attempt to
    ameliorate your material position at the expense of others. It is an
    irreconcilable position.
    
    I have no problem in taking money away from people who earn it
    illegally. But when somebody plays by the same rules that you do, it is
    totally unfair to penalize them due to your own inability to take
    advantage of the rules. Should we limit how fast running backs can run?
    Should we limit the number of books an author can pen?Of course not.
    In limiting the amount that one can enjoy one's talents, you infringe
    on their ability to pursue happiness. I find this to be inconsistent
    with our constitution.
    
    The Doctah

    Re .4, I do not believe we are all playing by the same rules now.
    
    I think that most of us have so far to go before we are earning
    anywhere near a million dollars a year that I cannot believe this
    limit would affect our incentive.  In fact, I recently read that
    Ken Olsen's yearly salary (not worth of course) is $950,000.  That
    would indicate to me that this one million maximum income would
    not detract from the salaries of any DEC employees.
    
    What bothers me the most is the allegation (which I've heard many
    times in this type of discussion) that those of us who would like
    to limit personal wealth are only speaking out of jealousy.  Is
    it completely beyond your imagination that we might actually be
    concerned about the welfare of all the people in our country or
    our planet, and that we just want to see justice and fairplay?
    
    Lorna
    

Interesting question and an issue that I see both sides of. There is
a general problem in this country of a wide disparity between the rich
and the poor. I don't think that is generally healthy for society. I also
don't think it is healthy to limit what people can do.

But responses 3 and 4 indicate that people only work for money. I don't
believe this is true - but I do think that we measure success by how much
money one makes. Do you really think if there was a limit of $1 million
on income that those making over that would stop working? I doubt it.
Especially if the  money they would make over that went to some national
cause and they got credit for it. 

One of the problems we as a society have is the only measure of success
being monetary. Given that then people want to make more and more money
because that shows they are successful. And money gives power - power
is another measure of success. 

I think the change has to be much more fundamental and that we need to
start measuring success differently - or at least not limit our definiton
so much.

    
    I would suggest that the real problem is that there are people in our
    society who are not worth a living wage. That is, what they are trained
    or able to do is either so terribly unimportant to society as a whole
    or can be done better or more cheaply by machines or foreigners. The
    bad answer to this problem is to mandate that every person who works is
    worth $x/hr. What then happens is simply that the whole scale gets
    moved up. After all, a dollar is not wealth, just a measure of wealth. 
    A 'worthless' person used to be worth $3.85/hr, now a 'worthless' person 
    is worth $4.25/hr. 
    
    Now all you libertarian/conservative types can stop grinning. The
    better answer is to decide that every person *is* worth a living wage,
    by definition. This means our society valuing more of the great variety
    of things people do. Putting more value on teaching and less value on
    stock trading. Putting more value on music and less on guns.
    
    While I'm not sure I want to put it into the tax code, I'm perfectly
    comfortable saying that anyone who makes more than a million dollars a
    year and does not give the excess (and indeed most of the million) to
    'charity' is a pig.
    
    Finally, on the incentive question, I would suggest this is classism at
    its most pernicious. People work because it is a basic human need; it is
    at the core of our feelings of self worth. It is only when we work
    incredibly hard, doing jobs noone else wants to do, and then, at the
    end of the day, not have enough to pay for rent or food or clothes for
    the kids that we realise that our society has decided that *work* is
    not what is valued. In our society, work is just another commodity to
    be bought and sold as the supply and demand allow. Maybe that doesn't
    bother a hunk of gold or a bunch of grapes, but it sure as hell bothers
    me.
    
    

     You almost make sense. Then you come up with the classic:
    
>Putting more value on music and less on guns.

    Boy, does that help your argument! Great show.
    
    The Doctah

Note 577.3           
CVG::THOMPSON 

> If you can't be rich no one should be?  

Too much money in the hands of too few people equals a depression.  Thats
a given.


>    I disagree. Artificial limits on peoples personal accomplishments,
>    and yes making money is an accomplishment, only serves to keep everyone
>    down. 

Do you have some basis for this statement?  Setting a maximum income of
$1 million isn't going to keep anyone *too* far down.  I'll bet its a
far cry from your yearly income and mine as well.

>    Are we going to limit everyone and everything to what people
>    need? Who needs a car that can go 80 miles an hour? Who needs snack
>    food? Who needs notes? Who needs a job that they enjoy? (Millions
>    of people exist well with jobs they hate. They're nice but you don't
>    *need* it.)

The needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few.  We (as a country)
cannot survive if we continue on this path.  Freshman economics will tell
you that.

>    People need to know that the limits to their success are bounded
>    only by what they themselves set as limits are. Artificial limits
>    needlessly limit people to some pre-determined other persons view
>    of what they are, need and can be. Otherwise you remove the incentive
>    for work. You remove the need and desire to accomplish things; to
>    take risks; to grow as a human being by such limits.

Oh sleeping beauty... can you not see that artificial limits already
needlessly limit most of us to some pre-determined other persons view
of what we are, need and can be?  What to you call the minimum wage?


>    What is to be accomplished by such a limit on income? Perhaps money
>    will be spread more evenly 

Yes, money will be spread more evenly.  


>    (I doubt it though) but the total amount
>    of money will be diminished because people will not have the same 
>    incentives to increase the total sum of money. 

Now, don't you feel silly saying this?_:-)  People don't increase the money
supply, the government prints money... and they do not print it according to
how much incentive people have. 

>    Not only that but people who don't think that the people who are making 
>    the big bucks now will not come up with creative non-cash ways to benefit 
>    themselves are seriously underestimating those people.

No Alfred, we do not underestimate them.  We simply deal with the situation
one step at a time.  We won't borrow trouble by second guessing them, we
can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Mary
Note 577.4           
WAHOO::LEVESQUE 
    
> Everybody has talents. Some people have a talent for making money. Some 
> people who do not have this particular talent wish to artificially limit the 
> amount that certain talented people can make.

One cannot hoard art or music but money is the lifeblood of our economy.
It must flow freely through our society for our economy to properly function.
It is not flowing freely at the moment.

> But when somebody plays by the same rules that you do, it is
> totally unfair to penalize them due to your own inability to take
> advantage of the rules. 

In another note you say that big business does not play by the same rules that
we do and thats the way it is.. we should accept it.  Which is it anyway?
Do we all play by the same rules or don't we?

>    In limiting the amount that one can enjoy one's talents, you infringe
>    on their ability to pursue happiness. I find this to be inconsistent
>    with our constitution.
    
Greed isn't one of our Constitutional rights.

Mary

      <<< Note 577.7 by DECWET::JWHITE "God>Love>Blind>Ray Charles>God" >>>
    
>    While I'm not sure I want to put it into the tax code, I'm perfectly
>    comfortable saying that anyone who makes more than a million dollars a
>    year and does not give the excess (and indeed most of the million) to
>    'charity' is a pig.
    
    Please, I would ask you to compare such people to something other than
    the lowly pig.  No pig I know would think of hoarding anywhere close to
    a million dollars.  In addition, while I occassionally find pigs to be
    quite tasty, I could never bring myself to consume such a person as you
    described.
    
/Mike 'Snort' Richard

         Ok...I give up. I heard the word one too many times.
         
         I really think that "greed" is not the phenomenum
         you are all talking about....as it relates to our
         society. Individuals indeed can be greedy, [as I
         am sure all of us have seen...]
         
         But...
         
         The behavior you are describing in these notes does
         not compute as "greed".
         
         Given:
         
         	We have an economy based on capitalism
         
         	We have a society based on individualism
         
         	We equate success with achieving both of the
         	above
         
         Then:
         
         	For someone to gather material goods to
         	him/herself, for him/herself, in excess
         	what one needs to just survive...is not
         	"greed" but "success".
         
         Please note I am offering no opinion on whether this
         is right/correct/moral/nice/ etc. I positing a
         simple analagy....if all a is b, and all b is c,
         then all c is *not* a. Hmmm?
         
         It appears to me that these notes are attaching a
         value judgement to a person's ability to meet the
         moral and economic tenants of our society; and a
         negative one at that. "Greed" is a judgemental term
         denoting aspirations to possess more than an individual
         "deserves"...but in our society, any individual
         "deserves" just as much as he/she can get...and is
         encouraged to do so. In fact "taught" to do so.
         
         "Little Dick the Match Boy" would not have understood
         your denounciation of him...or his dreams.
         
         Melinda

    The base note did not explain to me how the author thinks setting
    a maximum wage would distribute the wealth to the poor of the world.
    Call me dense, but could you explain?
    
    							Pat

    Re: .12
    
    I went to examine that very question.  Frankly, I don't think the
    idea can be implemented.  People make up to $1 million and "the
    rest" gets tossed in a fund.  Where does "the rest" come from? 
    Does it come from a salary over $1 million?  Well, then, no one
    sets their salary over $1 million and they arrange more perks for
    themselves.  Does it come from income in excess of $1 million? 
    I'm not sure that's even constitutional (not that this has stopped
    the IRS).
    
    Not only is it impractical, it's pure busybodiness.  Who are you
    to tell me what I can and cannot earn?  Who are you to say how much
    money I can have?  Who put you in charge of my finances?  I highly
    resent anyone interfering in my life like this -- and I don't have
    anywhere *near* a million dollars.

    
    People who argue against *any* form of gun control are want to say
    that it is a "foot in the door", or "the thin end of the wedge".
    
    Similarly I would say that a maximum wage, whilst philosophically
    an attractive idea is politically the thin end of the wedge.
    
    Once you've set a maximum wage - it doesn't matter how high - it
    can be slowly lowered as the minimum wage is raised until, lo and
    behold, everybody earns the same, regardless of the job.
    
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    Interesting comments...
    I think the basenoter was NOT saying the person couldn't make
    more than a million, just that the excess would be put into a 
    "trust" fund...like a savings account.  Then, years the person
    does not earn a million, they can withdraw from their trust up
    to the million dollar limit.  Its the INTEREST on all this money
    which gets used for the homeless, less fortunate, 'welfare' types.
    
    Means I don't have to pay more taxes, you, or anyone can 'earn'
    as much as they want as long as the excess gets put into the 
    bank, and there are $$ available for those programs which forever
    seem to get cut from federal funding. 
    
    Now, how would it be monitored, established, verified, adhered
    to???  WHo knows...the programs in place NOW aren't even well
    monitored, adhered to, or verified.... Maybe if they were there
    would be less need for more taxes!
    
    deb
    

I don't really think that a "maximum wage" is possible,
ore even desirable.  I do think that the concept is worth
thinking about though, just as a means of thinking about
the uneven distribution of wealth.  

I think it it _is_ obscene, however, that the 'haves' in this
country think it so vile that we establish a minumum wage
that would allow those with jobs to make enough money to
keep them above the poverty level.  Some put forth the
argument that many people working at minumum wage do not
require the income to keep a 'family' above the poverty level.
True, perhaps, but many _do_.  How many families
are on 'welfare' because one or both parents make only minumum
wage and have skipped out?

And should workers be paid according to their familial responsibilities
rather that the nature of their work?  Sounds suspiciously 'welfare'-like
to me.

Our schools turn out people who can get only minimum-wage jobs.
Why don't we make it possible for them to live decently?

And Trump, Miliken, et.al. couldn't survive without the workers
who take out their garbage, clean their clothes, etc...  What's
wrong with appropriately rewarding the whole team?


/bruce
    

    Hi Deb,
    
    I think you may be misinterpeting (and generously) some of the aims of the
    base note. This same note is in another notesfile, and the direction
    that it took is slightly different. What I see here is another
    "redistribution of wealth" sceme from social planner busybodies, who
    want to "rob Peter to pay Paul". In any capitalist society, there will
    be a gradient of incomes, from high to low, depending on what business
    feels the job is worth and what someone is willing to work for. Since
    greed usually enters the first catagory (see, I'm not totally
    rightwing), the second will often be the governing factor on how low a
    wage one can get away with paying. As long as there is someone who will
    work for minimum wage, jobs with that payscale will exist. In areas
    with labor shortages (NH for example), a job for minimum will stay
    opened forever or the pay will be raised.
    
    My problem with the proposed idea is that wages should somehow be
    leveled out in some way, by ARTIFICIAL means. Manipulating the economy
    will only make a bigger mess out of it than it is now. As was mentioned
    earlier, limiting max income (or taxing it so heavily that earning the
    dollars is not worth it) will only generate ways around it like perks.
    This is a common approach in such countries as England, with high tax
    rates.
    
    Unless you plan to totally restructure American society, any plan to
    redistribute wealth (and that's the key word here, regardless of what
    the author wants to call it) will be a disaster.
    
    Eric 

    FWIW- Trump is well known for rewarding his people, and gives millions
    to charity to boot. (The new TRUMP board game's profits are all going
    to a worthy cause {medical research?})
    
    The  Doctah

Some of the previous replies say seem to imply that making money is
our purpose here on earth.  Is this so?  Do you think having money
will make you happy?  What about everyone else?

Is is a given that one needs to be rewarded with "wealth" for work?
Is this what really satisfies us in the long run?  Or does it mean we
are making cages more comfortable?

There was an interesting Utne Reader issue a while back that addresses
some of these issues.  One of the ones I found most interesting was on
Ben And Jerry's.  They have a salary structure such that the
difference between the highest paid and lowest paid worker could not
exceed 5 times.  I thought this was an attractive idea although it did
present problems for the more matieristic employess.  On the other
hand, the sense of family and involvement and personal satisfaction
was high.

Personally, I don't work to make money.  I make more than enough money
and money does not make me happy altough it can temporarily distract
me from looking at things I need to look at.

Other societies have not functioned on the principle of making profits
and on individualism (ie, egoism).  The purpose of living was to help
the extended group (family) and care for Mother Earth and all her
children.  These folks seem to have a much better time of it than us. 
Meanwhile, we are all fighting each other to get to the top of pryamid
where by definition there is only so much room.  And the cost is our
environment and happiness and meaning in life.  Maybe its time for a
new model of why we are here in this earth.

john

	RE: Lorna's comments regarding KO
	KO made about $950,000 is salary last year. He also made
	an other $9,000,000 through stock options. So actually he
	made almost $10,000,000 last year. Seems to me a million dollar
	cap would have affected him a little. 

RE: 577.9 
>> If you can't be rich no one should be?  
>
>Too much money in the hands of too few people equals a depression.  Thats
>a given.

	Given by who? Also I don't think we have anything close to that
	in this country and it's not likely to happen *becuase* we don't
	place limits on who can make lots of money.

>>    Are we going to limit everyone and everything to what people
>>    need? Who needs a car that can go 80 miles an hour? Who needs snack
>>    food? Who needs notes? Who needs a job that they enjoy? (Millions
>>    of people exist well with jobs they hate. They're nice but you don't
>>    *need* it.)
>
>The needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few.  We (as a country)
>cannot survive if we continue on this path.  Freshman economics will tell
>you that.

	I more or less agree with your first sentence however I believe
	that the many need to know that there are no upper limits and it
	is only the desire of the few to hold people back.

	I have only take Senior and graduate level economics which must
	explain why I can't see that the lack of upper limits on income
	is leading to disaster. Please explain.

>>    People need to know that the limits to their success are bounded
>>    only by what they themselves set as limits are. Artificial limits
>>    needlessly limit people to some pre-determined other persons view
>>    of what they are, need and can be. Otherwise you remove the incentive
>>    for work. You remove the need and desire to accomplish things; to
>>    take risks; to grow as a human being by such limits.
>
>Oh sleeping beauty... can you not see that artificial limits already
>needlessly limit most of us to some pre-determined other persons view
>of what we are, need and can be?  

	I know that there are artificial limits caused by prejudice etc.
	I believe that we must change that. You appear to be saying that
	they are a good thing as that is the only way that saying they
	are there supports your view on upper income limits.

>What to you call the minimum wage?

	A lower limit. I thought we were discussing upper limits.


>>    (I doubt it though) but the total amount
>>    of money will be diminished because people will not have the same 
>>    incentives to increase the total sum of money. 
>
>Now, don't you feel silly saying this?_:-)  People don't increase the money
>supply, the government prints money... and they do not print it according to
>how much incentive people have. 

	You're joking right? The amount of money in the world has a
	tenuous connection, at best, to the face value of paper money 
	printed. Or didn't they cover that in your Freshmen economics class?


				Alfred

Re: .21
           
> Personally, I don't work to make money.  I make more than enough money
> and money does not make me happy altough it can temporarily distract
> me from looking at things I need to look at.
  
John, do you have any more rich relatives, so that I don't have to work
to make money? 
    
If not by work, where then do you get your money (or shouldn't I ask)? :-)
                                                                          
I think that what you're saying is that *you* have decided that you
have enough money to take care of *your* needs, within your own value
system.            
    
There are others in the world, though (it's not just in America), whose
"needs" are far greater than what you and I may require for our happiness.
    
But, should you or I decide that the needs of these other people are
"wrong", if they're not harming the environment or injuring others?      
    
  Alan  
    

    So if Donald Trump buys yet another yacht or whatever, it must be
    because he needs it...
    
    And if thousands of people don't have a home or food or anything
    at all, it must be because they don't have any need for them...
    
    After all, everybody's needs are different and who are we to concern
    ourselves with whether anyone else's needs are met?          
    
    Is that the idea?
    
    -Tracy
    

Note 577.11          
SUPER::REGNELL 


>         Then:
>         
>         	For someone to gather material goods to
>         	him/herself, for him/herself, in excess
>         	what one needs to just survive...is not
>         	"greed" but "success".

How about when that excess far exceeds what one needs to survive?  How about
when that excess begins to exceed the GNP of some countries?  The question is,
how much is too much?  

>         moral and economic tenants of our society; and a
>         negative one at that. "Greed" is a judgemental term
>         denoting aspirations to possess more than an individual
>         "deserves"...but in our society, any individual
>         "deserves" just as much as he/she can get...and is
>         encouraged to do so. In fact "taught" to do so.

Then are ghetto youngsters correct in taking the quick and dirty route
to success by becoming drug dealers?  Not according to this logic.
We have one set of standards that we all live by,.. not one set of
standards for some of us, and others for the rest of us.
         
> "Little Dick the Match Boy" would not have understood
> your denounciation of him...or his dreams.
         
Melinda, Little Dick the Match Boy did not earn $551 million dollars
a year.  Believe me,... his dreams are quite safe with me.


Note 577.13          
ACESMK::CHELSEA 


>    Not only is it impractical, it's pure busybodiness.  Who are you
>    to tell me what I can and cannot earn?  Who are you to say how much
>    money I can have?  Who put you in charge of my finances?  I highly
>    resent anyone interfering in my life like this -- and I don't have
>    anywhere *near* a million dollars.

Everything that you have said about a maximum wage can also be said 
about a minimum wage.  The minimum wage holds down the average,
while the upper level wages are not even figured into government calculations.
If it is undemocratic to have a maximum wage, then it is also undemocratic
to have a minimum wage.  Eliminate the minimum and let the businesses pay
whatever the market demands.   No maximum should mean no minimum either.


Note 577.15          
HAMPS::PHILPOTT_I 

    
>    Similarly I would say that a maximum wage, whilst philosophically
>    an attractive idea is politically the thin end of the wedge.

The wedge was driven by the minimum wage, a maximum would only bring
things back into balance.  If we do not want to set a ceiling for out
top level wages, why do we set a floor for our bottom?
    
Note 577.16          
IAMOK::ALFORD 


>    Maybe if they were there would be less need for more taxes!
    
Absolutely deb, thats the whole point.  Thank you for pointing it out.


Note 577.18          
NSSG::FEINSMITH 

>    I think you may be misinterpeting (and generously) some of the aims of the
>    base note. 

No, I don't think she is, and I entered the base note so I am best qualified to
interpret the aim_:-)


> Manipulating the economy will only make a bigger mess out of it than it is 
> now. 

The economy is constantly being manipulated.  What do you think the Federal
Reserve does?

>As was mentioned earlier, limiting max income (or taxing it so heavily that earning the
>dollars is not worth it) will only generate ways around it like perks.
>This is a common approach in such countries as England, with high tax
>rates.

How does one get 551 million dollars worth of perks?  What in the world is
worth that much?      

>    Unless you plan to totally restructure American society, any plan to
>    redistribute wealth (and that's the key word here, regardless of what
>    the author wants to call it) will be a disaster.

Well Eric, since it is already rapidly becoming a disaster, we have little
to lose then.


Note 577.19          
WAHOO::LEVESQUE 

>    FWIW- Trump is well known for rewarding his people, and gives millions
>    to charity to boot. (The new TRUMP board game's profits are all going
>    to a worthy cause {medical research?})
    
Gee Mark,  as much as I admire Donald Trump's philanthrophy, we cannot 
    always rely on the kindness of strangers._(Blanche DuBois_:-)


Note 577.22          
CVG::THOMPSON 

> who? Also I don't think we have anything close to that
> in this country and it's not likely to happen *becuase* we don't
> place limits on who can make lots of money.

This doesn't make sense to me.  Perhaps we are not using a common 
definition of terms.  Please, if you would be so kind, define 
'depression' and 'recession' as used by the financial community.


>	I have only take Senior and graduate level economics which must
>	explain why I can't see that the lack of upper limits on income
>	is leading to disaster. Please explain.

    I am quite impressed and very intimidated by your credentials, 
    none-the-less I shall try to answer as best I can.

    There is only so much money available (that the paper is no longer 
necessarily backed by silver or gold is understood).  Our society thrives
on that money flowing freely throughout the economy.  When most of the
money is in the hands of a small percentage of the population, a severe
recession or depression can result.  We have set lower limits and yet
we find it impossible to set upper limits.  Why?

We do not all play by the same rules, some of us have no rules.  Ivan
Botsky, as a guest lecturer, taught that 'greed is good'.  I submit
that this attitude has created a disparity within our economic system
and within our society.

I applaud all efforts to keep the privileges of wealth confined to the
wealthy, however I submit that it has gone too far.  Our system, both
social and economic, is out of balance.

>The amount of money in the world has a tenuous connection, at best, to the 
>face value of paper money printed. Or didn't they cover that in your 
>Freshmen economics class?

Actually Alfred, it hasn't been so very long since the dollar could be
turned in for silver.  The face value of paper money is somewhat of a
collective illusion, isn't it?  Inflation quickly converts it to the
value of kindling.   

The money mongers of the world have created many of today's problems.
The World Bank has certainly contributed to Third World Debt and 
can usually be found behind projects that are distroying our environment
(who usually funds the Rain Forest destruction?).

I'm sure that the very wealthy appreciate your defense of them, I can't
imagine a more needy or deserving group of people.      
If Donald Trump out of gratitude invites you out on his yacht for the 
weekend.   Have a lovely time_:-)  And try not to forget us little guys?
                                                                        
    
Mary_:-)

    I have a relative who -- through no fault of her own -- is very,
    very rich.  Her investment income is a few million a year.  I
    would guess that, at the outside, she spends maybe $150K per year
    on herself, her house, et cetera.  The rest goes to buy wilderness
    land, and to charitable endeavors that appeal to her.  She does
    fundraising as her job -- and when you were dealing with the large
    sums she is trying to winkle out of peole, it's a full time job,
    and one for which she has received training:
    
    	"<Name> and I had the entire pitch carefully explained
    	to us, but I knew the guy we were going to be talking to,
    	and I knew he'd never sit still through the whole thing.
    	So we agreed that <Name> would hold him down, and I'd
    	tickle him, and then we'd grab his wallet.  [The description
    	became more silly.]"
    
    I really can't see anyone else doing a better job of spending
    her money, nor can I see her being anywhere near as happy if
    she were *forced* to donate money.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    A lot of people make good union wages building and repairing
    yachts.
    
    This scheme would throw a lot of boatyards out of work.

>    There is only so much money available (that the paper is no longer 
>necessarily backed by silver or gold is understood).  Our society thrives
>on that money flowing freely throughout the economy.  When most of the
>money is in the hands of a small percentage of the population, a severe
>recession or depression can result.  We have set lower limits and yet
>we find it impossible to set upper limits.  Why?
    
    There is not a limited amount of money available. Thus the rest of
    your argument falls apart. Not only that but the money 'owned' by the
    rich does flow freely throughout the ecomomy. It is invested in things
    an thereby fuels growth. BTW, don't expect me to support the
    governments right to set the minimum wage either.
    
>Actually Alfred, it hasn't been so very long since the dollar could be
>turned in for silver.  
    
    Which proves what? 
    
    			Alfred

    Methinks we have some room for drastic disagreements here.  Since
    I, too, have only had freshman economics (formally) I'll just leap
    in to discuss the statement that disturbs me the most about the base 
    author's premises and its implications in the proposal.  Lots of
    other things said here bothered me, but this paragraph is nonsense.
    
        > There is only so much money available (that the paper is no longer 
        > necessarily backed by silver or gold is understood).  Our
        > society thrives on that money flowing freely throughout the
        > economy. When most of the money is in the hands of a small 
        > percentage of the population, a severe recession or depression 
        > can result.
    
    I almost don't know where to begin.  First, I dispute your premise
    that the world economy is a zero-sum game, that there is only so
    much money available; you are implying that innovation and hard
    work do not create wealth.  I posit that wealth can be created and
    thats why the standard of living is so much higher in countries
    that promote the creation of wealth; people go out and earn their
    rewards.  This directly contradicts your premise that "there is
    only so much money available".
    
    Second, even supposing for a moment (which is hard to do, but I
    read a lot, so I'm practised at "suspending my disbelief") that
    there was a fixed amount of money, and it was concentrated in the
    hands of the wealthy...what do they do with it?  They don't prevent
    it from "flowing freely through the economy"; in fact, they promote
    that behaviour as it brings them the best return on their investments.
    Do you understand the phenomenon of "capital flight"?  Thats when
    people pull the money they can control out of third world economies
    because of the restricted potential for return, and invest it in
    a freely flowing economy which you described but I'm not convinced
    you've understood.  You want to see a recession or depression caused
    by the actions of the people with capital, do as the third world
    does and make it unprofitable for people to keep their money in
    those economies, by putting an arbitrary ceiling on their maximum
    ROI.  I'd rather not see it here, thanks all the same.  People with 
    capital make it available for innovators and do the most to create 
    wealth and promote that economy that raises standards  of living, 
    funds R&D, etc.  This *is* what you called money freely flowing 
    through our economy, it does make our society thrive...and it comes 
    the more readily when you permit the people who create the most 
    wealth the freest hand in conducting their own affairs.  
    
    I hope this doesn't come accross with too much vitriol.  I just
    see your proposal as very dangerous to our economy and I think you
    make such a suggestion without understanding what effects it would
    have.  No personal attacks are intended.
    
    And, now I'll wait for the credentialed economists among us to shoot
    me just as full of holes ;-).
    
    DougO

Note 577.27          
SX4GTO::HOLT 

>    A lot of people make good union wages building and repairing
>    yachts.
>    
>    This scheme would throw a lot of boatyards out of work.

:-) ... no arguing with that_:-)


Note 577.28          
CVG::THOMPSON 


>    There is not a limited amount of money available. Thus the rest of
>    your argument falls apart. Not only that but the money 'owned' by the
>    rich does flow freely throughout the ecomomy. 

Yes, but much of it today is being invested in very risky and questionable 
kinds of leveraged buyouts.

>    BTW, don't expect me to support the
>    governments right to set the minimum wage either.

Oh darn!  That where I was heading in the first place!  Towards 
reversing that precedent.  Oh well (sigh) you're no fun at all sometimes.

    
	>Actually Alfred, it hasn't been so very long since the dollar could be
	>turned in for silver.  
    
>    Which proves what? 
    
That I'm old enough to remember_:-)


Mary
                                                                        

    Re: .16
    
    >Then, years the person does not earn a million, they can withdraw
    >from their trust up to the million dollar limit.  Its the INTEREST
    >on all this money which gets used for the homeless, less fortunate,
    >'welfare' types.
    
    What right does the government or anyone else have to determine
    how much of my money I can spend?  Why should I grant anyone else
    full power over my possessions?  Why should I believe that it's
    going to stop at money?  After all, how many cars does a person
    need?  How big a house does a person need?  If I have more space
    or cars than I need, what's to stop the same argument from being
    used to compell me to share out the excess?  I strongly resent the
    intrusion into my private life that this represents.
    
    >maybe not this, but something needs to be done
    
    Definitely not this.  Not only is it impractical and obtrusive,
    but it's an entirely artificial measure.  It's apparently derived
    from an oversimplified view of the economy and it doesn't address
    the root cause, only the surface symptom.  The problem is not that
    some people are earning too much, the problem is that some people
    are not earning enough.  I have yet to see a convincing argument
    that over-earning causes under-earning.  Until one comes along,
    over-earning is not a problem.  Address under-earning.  Figure out
    what causes it.  Fix the causes.  Fix the problem.  The proposal
    in .0 is appealing because it's so simple.  That doesn't mean it's
    the best solution or even a good solution.  In fact, given a complex
    problem, I distrust simple solutions.  It's hard to see how a simple
    solution can adequately address all the facets of a complex problem.

    I would like to address Alfred and Doug on the issue of money in
    circulation for investment purposes, capital flight, and the productive
    capacity of capital.
    
    The only purpose of capital for a capitalist is to make more capital.
    They decide on how best to do this. This is why we see capital flight
    or *any* movement of capital. The capitalist will attempt to move
    capital where it will be of the greatest return.
    
    However there are situations where investing of capital does not
    produce more capital. This is one reason capitital is moved, but
    what if the capitalist cannot find a place to profitably invest?
    They will widthdraw their capital (money) from circulation. They
    will take defensive measures not to loose too much capital (like
    they will lay off workers). This not only takes the money out of
    circulation but also reduces what commodities are produced and what
    is available to consume. This is called a ressesion. This can be
    quite agrivated and cause a depression.
    
    re .23 (Alen)
    
>   There are others in the world, though (it's not just in America), whose
>   "needs" are far greater than what you and I may require for our happiness.
    
    I will admit that my needs and desires are *much* more than I am
    able to attain at present. But I do not believe that money in my
    pocket will achieve what I desire. Sure, I would not mind more money,
    but this is *not* the solution.
    
    I have hopes that this world will be radically altered. We have
    seen an industrial revolution and information revolution. Most of
    our ancestors could never imagine what we have now, and all the money
    to be had in let's say 1850 could not get it to them. What would
    make us think that we could buy our destiny now? This is very short
    sighted.
    
    Should people have a lot of money now? Do they need it? Since Mary
    started this topic, I have been thinking about this (oh well before
    too).
    
    Well, last night, I had a chance to ask a very wealthy person what
    were some of his thoughts on this subject. I asked Bill Gates, Chairman
    of Microsoft Corp, what the role of money and wealth was in his
    creativity and success in his life. He said that his parents were
    faily well off and that money was not his main driving concern.
    He said that the wealth that he has now will enable him to sponsor
    some projects in the future that he might not otherwise be able
    to do. But other than that he said that money was not *that* important
    to him.
    
    He did not say a whole lot, he got wisked away by somebody and
    out the back door. He did not object to the question and seemed
    pretty sincere.
    
    What if I were Bill Gates? I think I would be playing the same game
    as I am now, but at a higher level. I would have to ask myself: what
    could spoil my game? I might say that what good is technology if
    people are getting angry because they don't have enough food or
    their children don't get medical care or get hooked on drugs. Do
    I offer them better and cheaper software?
    
    I might be the nicest guy in the world but would have the gnawing
    feeling that my world might fall apart. What good would my wealth
    be if I were considered the enemy because I had much wealth and
    others were starving? Could I give my money away, maybe *only* keep
    a million a year for myself? Would that solve anything? Should I
    get all my other rich and nice pals to do likewise? Would that solve
    anything? None of this would.
    
    The problem is in the system. It is a small few that control the
    vast majority of the wealth. Even if they would try to share it
    they could not know the needs of the poor masses. Even if they were
    nice guys or women.
    
    Les

    re .32,
    
    Les, I must take issue with some of your premises, too.
    
    > The only purpose of capital for a capitalist is to make more capital.
     
    You went and *asked* Bill Gates what his purposes were, and he told
    you something different.  Well, Les?  You said he seemed sincere,
    so he wasn't lying.  Is he merely ignorant?  Or do you think he
    isn't a capitalist?  I am *not* being rhetorical; your premise doesn't 
    match reality.
    
    My point is that your premise (which I will shorten, no disrespect
    intended, to "socialism") paints the world in false stripes; the 
    "bosses" (545.87) against the "masses", the capitalists against
    the workers.  There is no room in your scheme for someone who values
    creativity, does innovative work, and accepts the rewards of the
    society in which she exists, as just payment and as incentive to
    continue her productive ways.  Nah- if successful, she's a capitalist
    with no other purposes than "increasing capital".  Too simplistic.
    
    Think about this, please: if something is *not* productive, would
    you continue to pour scarce resources (capital, material, or labor)
    into it?  I think the train-wreck character of most socialist economies
    provides us a graphic example of why not.  Having an individual look
    out for their own interests makes sure that those resources are
    used wisely and productively.  I hold that this is "the system"
    and I think it ensures that resources are used for productive
    purposes more than they are wasted.
    
    Capitalists will indeed withdraw their capital when it suits their
    desires.  In this fashion, they achieve the most success and waste
    the fewest resources.  Unless the governments involved have so
    restricted opportunities for productive work, this should *not*
    cause a recession at all.  And I hold that you can't lay a
    government-caused recession to the door of the capitalists.

    DougO

    re .33 (Doug)
    
>   > The only purpose of capital for a capitalist is to make more capital.
     
>   You went and *asked* Bill Gates what his purposes were, and he told
>   you something different.  Well, Les?  You said he seemed sincere,
>   so he wasn't lying.  Is he merely ignorant?  Or do you think he
>   isn't a capitalist?  I am *not* being rhetorical; your premise doesn't 
>   match reality.
    
    I do not personally know Bill Gates, I only met him once. However,
    I have been fairly closely following his career and/or his company's
    fortunes since 1975. I intend no disrespect for him.
    
    I have however, known several capitalists, a couple quite well and
    have met and talked to many more. I also have met the CEOs or other
    top management of some big corporations. For the most part, I respect
    at least some of what they have done.
    
    But back to Bill Gates, he does not only do nice things for us all,
    but also has to compete with other corporations. Most of his
    responsibility as CEO of Microsoft is to keep the company profitable
    and make money for the stockholders. If this *happens* to coincide
    with his fun and the betterment of technology, then fine. However,
    it is the profits that take precedence over the fun and/or betterment
    of the technology or any other *potentially* good thing.
    
    He could quit and cease being an active capitalist. He could just
    spend his money on life's pleasures and/or his projects without
    making more capital. His present renumerations are not necessarily
    all capital. But if he did this he would not be a capitalist, at
    least not an active one.
    
    He was at the Boston Computer Society, IBM PC users group meeting
    as the guest the other night. I watched him while he was talking,
    it was obvious that he was having a good time being a capitalist.
    He was putting in jabs at Lotus and other competitors with a relish.
    
    He is the head of a major corporation, but we as workers at DEC
    also root for "our" company against Sun and some other competitors.
    
    But this does not solve social problems, or even technical ones
    that are beyond the capabilities of "our" individual comapanies.
    Workers at Sun and others root for "their" companies but success
    is not always in the interest of progress. And progress is not always
    in the interest of these companies. I am sure some of the financial
    people at DEC would rather be back in the good ol' days when we
    did not have to be fighting it out with these darn workstations
    that are so hard to make money on. Sheesh, people don't even want
    to let DEC make a profit on PCs, no grattitude.
    
    Les 
    

    re .34; Two points, Les-
    
    1- So does Bill Gates have an "only purpose" or not?  ("The only
    purpose of capital for a capitalist is to make more capital",
    remember?)  Or are you backpedaling away from this assertion?
    [ Looks like dialectics to me; you had nothing to lose by making
    the assertion, until you were called on it. ] 
    
    2- Pouring resources into unproductive ends- Les, you didn't answer
    this point.  Its been tried, remember?  Attempting to accomplish
    socially desirable (according to whom, btw?) goals with centrally
    managed economies caused many countries unbearable hardship, lowered
    standards of living for the masses, etc.  Capitalists don't waste
    resources in this fashion.  If you don't address this, I take it
    you agree with me.  [ Ignoring my arguments when you can't counter 
    them also looks like dialectics. ]
    
    DougO

Note 577.29          
SKYLRK::OLSON 

    
>    I almost don't know where to begin.  First, I dispute your premise
>    that the world economy is a zero-sum game, that there is only so
>    much money available; you are implying that innovation and hard
>    work do not create wealth.  

Please distinguish between "money" and "wealth", they are not the same
thing.  Money is defined as a commodity that is legally established by the
government as an exchangeable equivalent of all other commodities and used 
as a measure of their comparative market value.  Although money was once
exchangeable for it's monetary gold or silver equivalent, it no longer is.
Our financial communitity now lives in a house of cards build of green paper
and ink and held together by trust...  a trust that is rapidly disintegrating.

Wealth is defined as assets and property considered in terms of their monetary
value.  

Innovation and hard work do not necessarily create wealth, nor have they
ever been a guarantee of wealth.


>    I posit that wealth can be created and
>    thats why the standard of living is so much higher in countries
>    that promote the creation of wealth; people go out and earn their
>    rewards.  This directly contradicts your premise that "there is
>    only so much money available".
    
Wealth and money are two different things.  If money were constantly printed 
without regard to the world's available money supply, inflation run rampant
and paper money would be worthless (as would most coins as they are now
usually copper sandwiched between silver).  


>    Second, even supposing for a moment (which is hard to do, but I
>    read a lot, so I'm practised at "suspending my disbelief") that
>    there was a fixed amount of money, and it was concentrated in the
>    hands of the wealthy...what do they do with it?  They don't prevent
>    it from "flowing freely through the economy"; in fact, they promote
>    that behaviour as it brings them the best return on their investments.

The "best return of their investments" may not be best for society.  The
leveraged buyout is a very risky venture with a very high investment return.
The American people subsidize acquisitions through the deduction of interest on
the debt used in the leveraged buyout.  Many companies have been acquired 
by hostile takeovers and then stripped of their assets bringing a quick
profit on the investment but certainly not contributing to the long term
interests of this country.


>    Do you understand the phenomenon of "capital flight"?  Thats when
>    people pull the money they can control out of third world economies
>    because of the restricted potential for return, and invest it in
>    a freely flowing economy which you described but I'm not convinced
>    you've understood.  You want to see a recession or depression caused
>    by the actions of the people with capital, do as the third world
>    does and make it unprofitable for people to keep their money in
>    those economies, by putting an arbitrary ceiling on their maximum
>    ROI.  

Instead, why don't we see what happens when the Japanese pull their investments
out of our economy because they are becoming nervous about leveraged buyouts,
or because they have lost faith in the financial community due to the
corruption of their own government officials.  What happens to our House Of
Cards then?


>    I'd rather not see it here, thanks all the same.  People with 
>    capital make it available for innovators and do the most to create 
>    wealth and promote that economy that raises standards  of living, 
>    funds R&D, etc.  

Then why has the average American's standard of living been falling during
the past few administrations?  Why is America's Research and Development
90% funded by the department of defense, making the results "classified"
and unavailable to the commercial sector and suitable only for military
purposes?  Why is there such a gap growing between the rich and the poor?
Where has the "trickle down" effect gone?

What happened to the S&Ls?  In yesterday's New York Times there was an article
stating that the S&L crisis is far, far worse than we have been led to believe.

>    This *is* what you called money freely flowing 
>    through our economy, it does make our society thrive...and it comes 
>    the more readily when you permit the people who create the most 
>    wealth the freest hand in conducting their own affairs.  

The last two administrations have shared your attitude.  I submit that this
mindset is quite wrong.  To illustrate what happens when "you permit the 
people who create the most wealth the freest hand in conducting their own
affairs, I would like to quote from a New York Times article (yesterday's)
about how similar attitudes have corrupted our economic, judicial, and 
political systems.  

Consider the following; A Bureau of National Affairs estimates that the 
dollar cost of corporate crime in America is "over TEN TIMES greater than the
combined larcenies, robberies, burglaries, and auto thefts committed by
individuals.  

One in five of America's five hundred largest corporations has been convicted
of at least one major crime or has paid civil penalties for serious
misbehavior.

In his book With Justice For None, (I am quoting from the New York Times book
review here) "Gerry Spence argues that most law schools train students 
primarily to protect the powerful in our society; and that most judges as 
well as legislators are the lackeys of big-money interests.  He says 
many laws are designed to protect large corporation from people."


>    I hope this doesn't come accross with too much vitriol.  I just
>    see your proposal as very dangerous to our economy and I think you
>    make such a suggestion without understanding what effects it would
>    have.  No personal attacks are intended.

No personal attacks taken or intended from me either.  But I believe that
attitudes like yours have nearly corrupted our economy and political system
beyond redemption.  And it appears that you don't truly understand the
state of our economy at this point in time.
    
Mary

      
	SKYLRK::OLSON 
 
    Forgive me for butting in but I can't help but notice that you have
    just hit on one of the points made by the two year MIT study:  
    
    
    >2- Pouring resources into unproductive ends- Les, you didn't answer
    >this point.  
    
    "In a stinging indictment of current practices, MIT reported American
    industry to be mired in long-outdated strategies, concentrating
    far too much on short-term gains, squandering human resources and
    pursuing financial gimmickry to the detriment of useful production."
                                                                       
    American Capitolists *have* been pouring resources into unproductive
    ends Davo, furthermore we have a pattern of so doing that bespeaks
    a glum and difficult future.
    
    >Its been tried, remember?  Attempting to accomplish
    >socially desirable (according to whom, btw?) goals with centrally
    >managed economies caused many countries unbearable hardship, lowered
    >standards of living for the masses, etc.  Capitalists don't waste
    >resources in this fashion.  If you don't address this, I take it
    >you agree with me.  [ Ignoring my arguments when you can't counter 
    >them also looks like dialectics. ]
    
    I beg to differ once again.  I need not point out that American
    standard of living has been consistantly dropping or that our
    government and the Federal Reserve has a great deal of central control,
    but I do have to point out that the American capitalist has badly
    neglected his most precious resource... the American worker.  The
    MIT study confirms this fact.  The American capitalist can do nothing
    by himself.  Either we do it together, or we don't do it at all.
    That is the realization of life in the 1990's.
                                      
    Mary

         
    Note 577.31     
    ACESMK::CHELSEA 
    
    >What right does the government or anyone else have to determine
    >how much of my money I can spend?  
    
    I don't think the issue of how much an individual can spend has
    come up.  Probably because it might be impossible to "spend" 551
    million dollars a year.
    
    >Why should I grant anyone else full power over my possessions?  
    
    I don't believe this issue has come up either.
    
    >Why should I believe that it's going to stop at money?  After all, 
    >how many cars does a person need?  
    
    How many cars does a person need?  ... 2, 10, 500, would three thousand
    cars be enough for you?  In establishing the parameters, I would
    gladly accept any number you put forth.... whatever it was, it would
    be an improvement over the unlimited amounts that exist now.
    
    >How big a house does a person need?  
    
    Pick a number, as big as you want.  Would you like 1,000 houses the
    size of Texas?  Any number would be satisfactory and an improvement
    over the unlimited range of excesses that are being experienced
    now.
    
    >If I have more space or cars than I need, what's to stop the same 
    >argument from being used to compell me to share out the excess?  
    >I strongly resent the intrusion into my private life that this represents.
                          
    The numbers we are talking about are so huge in scope that they
    far exceed the private life of an individual, these kinds of excesses
    can encompass the survival of millions.  Is your (or any one
    individual's) private life worth more than the survival of so many?
    
   > Definitely not this.  Not only is it impractical and obtrusive,
   > but it's an entirely artificial measure.  It's apparently derived
   > from an oversimplified view of the economy and it doesn't address
   > the root cause, only the surface symptom.  The problem is not that
   > some people are earning too much, the problem is that some people
   > are not earning enough.  I have yet to see a convincing argument
   > that over-earning causes under-earning.  Until one comes along,
   > over-earning is not a problem.  Address under-earning.  Figure out
   > what causes it.  Fix the causes.  Fix the problem.  The proposal
   > in .0 is appealing because it's so simple.  That doesn't mean it's
   > the best solution or even a good solution.  In fact, given a complex
   > problem, I distrust simple solutions.  It's hard to see how a simple
   > solution can adequately address all the facets of a complex problem.
   
    Are income taxes artificial and intrusive?  Can you please point
    out the real problem for us and propose a solution?
    
    Thank you,
    
    Mary

    re .35 (Doug)
    
>   1- So does Bill Gates have an "only purpose" or not?  ("The only
>   purpose of capital for a capitalist is to make more capital",
>   remember?)  Or are you backpedaling away from this assertion?
>   [ Looks like dialectics to me; you had nothing to lose by making
>   the assertion, until you were called on it. ]
    
    You don't even need dialectics. Go back and read your own paragraph
    here. I never said Bill Gates had only one purpose. Never did I
    say that a capitalist must only do one thing. I did not even say
    that a capitalist must make more capital.
    
    Maybe my statement is a little confusing. Lets replace "for a capitalist"
    in my statement above with "for anyone." It is not "only" the job
    of capitalists to make more capital from capital but some managers
    have that job also.
    
    But in any case, profits must be made and they must be reinvested
    or the capital will eventually cease to be capital.
    
    But we got off on this tangent from the question of how much does
    a person need to be motivated and to be creative. A capitalist does
    not have to give him or her self a large salary to be a capitalist,
    they just have to have control of a fairly large amount of monies
    or other value that is used to make profits and continue the growth
    of the capital.
    
    Mr Gates or any similar person would not have to have an enormous
    amount of spendable income to have much power. Just the fact that
    they are a CEO or some such makes people stand up and listen. It
    would not at all matter what their life style was. Even other employees
    of large corporations that have some authority of that company,
    say to buy, gives that employee power. I have seen this myself.
    I have had authority to make $ millions in purchases.
    
>   2- Pouring resources into unproductive ends- Les, you didn't answer
>   this point.  Its been tried, remember?  Attempting to accomplish
>   socially desirable (according to whom, btw?) goals with centrally
>   managed economies caused many countries unbearable hardship, lowered
>   standards of living for the masses, etc.  Capitalists don't waste
>   resources in this fashion.  If you don't address this, I take it
>   you agree with me.  [ Ignoring my arguments when you can't counter 
>   them also looks like dialectics. ]
    
    Capitalism does waste resources, it would be pretty silly to deny
    it. It does not matter what fashion.
    
    On the question of centrally managed economies, we all know that
    I am a scialist. I also know that there has been some pretty good
    examples of what a planned economy can accomplish. The Soviet Union
    was a good example. It was a very poor country that was *then*
    devistated by WW-I and their civil war. That government industrialized
    itself and became a world power without internal capitalism. It
    did not need capitalism.
    
    But socialism is not an idea that can work in isolation. Marxist
    socialism is one that can only work on a world scale. Stalin and
    his followers up to this day turned away from world revolution and
    their people are paying for this.
    
    Cuba is the only example of a country that is on the path of world
    revolution. Their economy is doing quite well considering their
    isolation and the hostility of one of their northern neighbors.
    Cuba does not have the poverty and misery that the U.S. has for
    instance.
    
    However, the example of Cuba is on a relatively primative level.
    They will have no more chance of succeeding than the Soviet Union
    did unless there is world revolution.
    
    I believe the capitalist system is coming apart. You really do not
    have to look beyond our own borders to see this. The poverty is
    increasing, the homelessness is increasing. Health care is beyond
    the reach of many and this country's health statistics are slipping.
    
    The majority of the Third World is much, much worse, and has been
    getting worse for years now. Most living standards have dropped
    significantly and social problems are on the rise.
    
    Now, back to the point of this topic. I am interested in what motivates
    people to produce. I do not think that it has to be monies and other
    resources greatly beyond what is available to most of us. That is
    why I brought up Bill Gates. I thought he was genuinely enthused
    by some of the things he was doing. That's why I approached him
    with the questions that I did.
    
    If we really did need to reward people with ridiculous amounts,
    wouldn't this be a condemnation of our society, or maybe of humanity?
    I am much more optimistic about ourselves to believe we need to
    be bribed to be creative.
    
    Les
    
    
    

    Yesterday's New York Times had an article on "productivity".  It
    said that in times of crisis, management has found that employees
    can really respond and come through with record accomplishment in
    record time.  It recommended that management use the crisis model
    to increase productivity without having to hire additional people
    or pay overtime.
    
    **There was no mention whatsoever of the effect (if any) that working 
    constantly in a crisis situation might have on an individual.  There
    was no concern about increased stress or about burnout.
    
    This just appeared to me to be another example of Corporate America's
    preoccupation with short term gain over long term results.  
    We really do need to rethink our attitudes in this country.
    
    Mary
        

    re .22, Alfred
    
>	RE: Lorna's comments regarding KO
>	KO made about $950,000 is salary last year. He also made
>	an other $9,000,000 through stock options. So actually he
>	made almost $10,000,000 last year. Seems to me a million dollar
>	cap would have affected him a little. 
    
    Are you sure?  The IRS doesn't count a person's stock options
    for income tax purposes until the shares are sold.  Did Ken really
    bail out off all that DEC stock last year?  Tell me it's not so!

    Les- 
    
     Please move to Cuba. It's so much better there. 
    
    Mary-
    
     I don't think that there has to be an abandonment of capitalism.  What
    is really needed is some smart thinking. I guess we have to examine the
    question of why are the poor poor? It seems to me that some people
    think the answer is "because big business wants it that way." or
    "because the wealthy exploit the poor." or "the economy prevents the
    poor from becoming self-sufficient." I think that all of those are
    wrong.
    
     I think there are several reasons that the poor are poor. Probably the
    biggest reason is that the poor do not make enough money (duh!) usually
    due to a lack of marketable skills. It seems that this can be redressed
    through education. Another major problem is the inability to gain the
    maximum benefit from the money you do have. I have seen "poor" people
    waste money on "wants" instead of spending it on "needs." When you have
    a limited supply of money, you cannot spend it foolishly or
    extravagantly. I have seen this happen too many times. Another subset
    of the poor were once self-sufficient but no longer are due to
    catastrophes of one sort or another. The last group is the indolent.
    They are simply too lazy to work. Oh, another group is too enslaved to
    a chemical dependency to work.
    
    Out of all these groups, few cannot be helped. There is a way to get
    out of the hole of debt. It is a long road, and not well paved either.
    
    The ones that bug me most are the ones who have fallen prey to some
    sort of catastrophe. I think it would be helpful to offer some sort of
    assistance to these people.
    
    Actually, I can see helping all of the people ('cept perhaps the lazy).
    But it has to be help. We can't do it for them otherwise it does no
    good at all. Too often we try to help by providing. Few really need to
    be provided for- most just need a leg up. We should be giving more
    loans and fewer grants.
    
    The Doctah

    re .42 (Marc)
    
>   Les- 
    
>   Please move to Cuba. It's so much better there.
    
    This is another example of the worn out "America, Love it or Leave
    it." It is a simple way of ducking the issues.
    
    It is also an example of one presumable supporting the right to
    express oneself, *exept* if one strongly disagrees with what is
    expressed.
    
    Les 
    

RE: .38
    Mary, this note wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to comment
    anyway...

  > I don't think the issue of how much an individual can spend has come
  > up.  Probably because it might be impossible to "spend" 551 million
  > dollars a year. 
    
    I'm not so sure about that.  And even if it *is* indeed impossible to
    "spend" 551 million dollars a year, I am confident I could personally
    manage to "spend" $1,000,001 a year.  That's more than your proposed
    law would allow me to spend. 

  > How many cars does a person need?  ... 2, 10, 500, would three thousand
  > cars be enough for you?  In establishing the parameters, I would gladly
  > accept any number you put forth.... whatever it was, it would be an
  > improvement over the unlimited amounts that exist now. 
					...
  > Pick a number, as big as you want.  Would you like 1,000 houses the
  > size of Texas?  Any number would be satisfactory and an improvement
  > over the unlimited range of excesses that are being experienced now. 
    
    That's purely a matter of opinion.  I for one believe it would be far
    worse, not an improvement, for it would take away one of the basic
    freedoms our country was founded on.  And I believe your opinion on
    this subject appears to be a minority one. 
    
  > Are income taxes artificial and intrusive?
    
    The way the tax system works now, yes, they certainly are!

RE: .0
    
    I'm still not through asking for clarification on this one.
    
  > Everything in excess of that amount could be thrown in some sort of
  > trust fund and earn interest.  Every year, we could use it to subsidize
  > a minimum wage, reduce the national debt, repair the infrastructure,
  > provide medical services for the elderly and indigent. 
    
    I still contend that a BOD isn't going to vote a $2M/year salary
    for a corporation president if it's illegal for him to keep more
    than half of it.  Why on earth would they want to do that?
    
    But even assuming they did, suppose I'm the $2M/year president. Half my
    annual salary goes into a fund and produces income for the things
    you've listed above.  That means I don't give anything to the arts.  It
    means I don't have the option of directing my charitible contributions,
    for example, to cancer or AIDS research.  It means someone else gets to
    make those decisions for me.  With *my* money. 
    
    While feeding the poor, subsidizing a minimum wage, reducing the
    national debt, etc. are all admirable goals, there are plenty of other
    worthy places to put our money. Those who earn it should most certainly
    retain their freedom to decide where it goes...
    
    							Pat
    

    re: Roberta
    
    What are you waiting for? Quick, hurry to the "Best Songs" note. I put
    a few of my favorite songs there. Surely you can find something
    objectionable there. Time's a-wastin' on your personal vendetta... :-)
    
    The  Doctah

Just a comment on work incentives.

I have a friend who works as an insurance salesman who specializes in
corporate/industrial insurance.  He works on commission, so he takes in
a tidy sum.  He used to work 11 months per year and take a month's 
vacation.   Now he works 8 months per year and takes 4 months of vacation.
Why?  He discovered that after US and Mass taxes he was taking home the
same amount, and he saw no need to work three months for nothing.  Yes,
he does enjoy his work, but he enjoys his vacations better.

    
    I deleted my note (.44 I think) because after I wrote it I realized
    that Les had said the same thing (His note was being written at
    the same time as mine so I couldn't see it first).
    
    Doc, if you think I have a personal vendetta, that's a shame because
    it's not true. It's just that you say such ridiculous things, you
    make yourself an easy target :^)        
    
    I really can't figure out if you are in this file because you are
    interested in what women think and in women's issues, or because you
    want to inundate everyone with your reactionary dogma.
    
    Roberta
    
    P.S.  I'm not a big Led Zeppelin fan, but I'll let it slide. :^)

    re: Les
    
     I don't think I am ducking the issues at all. You, by your socialistic
    agenda, espouse a revolution to radically change America. Of course, by
    the time you're done, it won't be America anymore. You disagree very
    strongly with our entire system. You speak longingly and lovingly of
    Cuba's system. I don't understand why it is necessary to make the
    entire world socialistic. You claim that socialism must be the world
    government to be effective. Why? Why can't you just go to where things
    are so much better. Obviously, the majority of Americans don't want a
    socialistic government.
    
     Your agenda far exceeds your ability to look objectively at the
    problem IMO. You seem to be saying that the solution to all our
    problems is to vaporize our current form of government, and replace it
    with socialism. Unfortunately, the constitution is rendered null and
    void in the process. I am not willing to go along with this, and I'm
    willing to bet that the majority of Americans won't either.
    
     I think that our country has a great foundation. It is facing problems
    with modern society, brought on in no small measure by a judicial
    system that caters to the perpetrator while running roughshod over the
    rights of the victim. I think our country needs some changes, but not
    the earth shattering socio-economic revolution that you would just LOVE
    to see.
    
     When I say "Got to Cuba," it is not because I am ducking the issues.
    It is because I feel that you would be happier there. They have exactly
    the kind of government you claim to want. I think that before you try
    to dismember our entire government, you should try living there for a
    few years and really experience the life. I think you might just get a
    different sense of perspective than you get from your little pamphlets
    that tell how great everything is. From your description, it sounds
    like Cuba is the ultimate paradise. This is irreconcilable with the
    information I have regarding Cuba. Perhaps you should take a short (2-3
    year) vacation to our sunny little neighbor. then you can report to us
    what you've seen. And don't take any money- you shouldn't need it there
    (according to your notes, you'll get everything you need for nothing).
    What a country!
    
    The Doctah

     
Note 577.49          
WAHOO::LEVESQUE 
     
    If I may just jump in here for a moment to comment on the following:
    
    >I think that our country has a great foundation. It is facing problems
    >with modern society, brought on in no small measure by a judicial
    >system that caters to the perpetrator while running roughshod over the
    >rights of the victim. 
    
    If you are interested in our judicial system, you might want to
    read With Justice For None.  
    
    "In "With Justice For None", Gerry Spence, the author of "Trial by
    Fire" and other books, embraces most of us as clients and passionately
    argues for basic changes in the way justice is carried out in the
    United States.  
    
    Mr Spence attacks insurance companies and large corporations that
    care for profits at the expense of the health and sometimes the
    lives of people; he scorns lawyers who represent the insurance
    companies of large corporations that take unfair advantage in
    negligence and product liability cases.  He argues that most law
    schools train students primarily - albeit inadequately and, at times,
    sadistically - to protect the powerful in our society; and that
    most judges as well as legislators are the lackeys of big-money
    interests.  He says many laws are designed to protect large
    corporations from people.
    
    A comfortable reader is tempted to dismiss such sweeping attacks
    out of hand.  But Mr. Spence is not a kook.  He had years of
    experience representing insurance companies and Government contractors,
    and he has spent much of his life fighting for the rights of people
    properly dissatisfied with their lives or with our system of justice,
    the best known being the case of Karen Silkwood against Kerr-McGee,
    the plutonium manufacturer."
                                            
    Mary

Note 577.42          
WAHOO::LEVESQUE 

    
>     I don't think that there has to be an abandonment of capitalism.  What
>    is really needed is some smart thinking. I guess we have to examine the
>    question of why are the poor poor? 

I don't think that there has to be an abandonment of capitalism, just an
adjustment of sorts.  The question to me isn't "why are the poor poor"
but rather "why isn't our system benefiting all of us or at least most
of us".   If the benefit balance gets too top heavy, the system will
collapse (I fear).

I'm not really interested in analyzing "why the poor are poor".  I think
as you do that there will always be some degree of poverty.  Its the
recent and rapidly growing inbalance that frightens me.  

A society like ours, indeed a government such as we have cannot remain 
inbalanced for very long.  Americans are a violent and independent people.  
Every inch of this country was fought over.  We are decended from the winners.  

When the inbalance grows too great.  When the poor have so little to lose 
that there is no reason not to fight.  Then the anarchy will rise like
a great wave to engulf us all.  And for what?  The great consuming greed
of the few... what a waste, what a pity.

Mary

Note 577.45          
DLOACT::RESENDEP 



>    I'm not so sure about that.  And even if it *is* indeed impossible to
>    "spend" 551 million dollars a year, I am confident I could personally
>    manage to "spend" $1,000,001 a year.  That's more than your proposed
>    law would allow me to spend. 

Then we'll change the proposed law to allow you to spend a billion a year.
Hows that?

>    That's purely a matter of opinion.  I for one believe it would be far
>    worse, not an improvement, for it would take away one of the basic
>    freedoms our country was founded on.  And I believe your opinion on
>    this subject appears to be a minority one. 

We live on a small planet really.  We have limited resources.  We cannot
decide among ourselves whether or not we should limit our own populations.
Some of us, indeed many of us are starving to death.  Whole countries
of us lack a decent standard of living, housing and education.

Our country was founded on many basic freedoms, but I don't recall 'greed'
being one of them.  What it comes down to is that there is only so much
to go around and there are so many humans living on the planet.  We cannot
continue to be so selfish and self-serving that we indulge our desires 
while others fight to survive.  Sooner or later, the results of our own
actions will come back to haunt us.  Sooner or later.

    
>    I still contend that a BOD isn't going to vote a $2M/year salary
>    for a corporation president if it's illegal for him to keep more
>    than half of it.  Why on earth would they want to do that?
>    But even assuming they did, suppose I'm the $2M/year president. Half my
>    annual salary goes into a fund and produces income for the things
>    you've listed above.  That means I don't give anything to the arts.  It
>    means I don't have the option of directing my charitible contributions,
>    for example, to cancer or AIDS research.  It means someone else gets to
>    make those decisions for me.  With *my* money. 

Then we'll make it ten million.  Would that satisfy?  How about 20 million?
    
>    While feeding the poor, subsidizing a minimum wage, reducing the
>    national debt, etc. are all admirable goals, there are plenty of other
>    worthy places to put our money. Those who earn it should most certainly
>    retain their freedom to decide where it goes...
    
Pat, do you really believe that the whims of the rich are more important
than the survival of the poor?  If that value reflects what our country has 
become, then perhaps we do not deserve to be a superpower after all.  

Perhaps the planet and the people of Earth would all be better off if we fail 
as a financial leader.  At least then, the rest of the world's people will have
a chance.  Thank you for showing me that the current trends need not disturb
me.

Mary
    

    re .49 (Ducktah)
    
    Just kidding doc.
    
>   I don't think I am ducking the issues at all.
    
    I guess not. Really what you were doing is prejudicing the issue.
    Inflaming it.
    
>   You, by your socialistic
>   agenda, espouse a revolution to radically change America.
    
    But, I am not forcing this on anyone.
    
>   Of course, by the time you're done, it won't be America anymore.
    
    I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that all that
    is good about the [United States of] America will not be around
    anymore? Do you get this impression from anything about me?
    
>   You disagree very strongly with our entire system.
    
    Do you mean the capitalist system? I do think that it had its
    progressive day, but has reached an end to that.
    
>   You speak longingly and lovingly of Cuba's system.
    
    Actually, I do not. Cuba is doing a very good job considering the
    position it is in. I can get just as good medicine in the U.S.A.
    as I could in Cuba. Many can not say the same. What I like about
    Cuba is the road they are taking and trying to encourage others
    to take. It is tough for a poor besieged country to take this lead,
    I admire them for this.
    
>   I don't understand why it is necessary to make the entire world
>   socialistic. You claim that socialism must be the world
>   government to be effective. Why?
    
    Because capitalism is not planned but competes with planned economies.
    This not only effects the socialist countries but hurts many in
    this country as well. Workers in auto plants and steel mills are
    being told that they have to make the same as those in Korea if
    U.S. jobs are to survive. They try to avoid mentioning that our
    tax dollars are helping keep the Koreans wages low.
    
    Also a tool of capitalism is to flood a market with loss-leaders
    to kill a weaker competitor. Then they raise the price when they
    have the market cornered. On an international scale, the capitalists
    use military to enforce their market conditions. This has to be
    ended.
    
>   Why can't you just go to where things are so much better.
    
    Where I happen to go is not going to solve problems for the majority
    of people under capitalism. Also, if *I* am making it under capitalism
    does not do a whole lot for the more and more people that are not.
    
>   Obviously, the majority of Americans don't want a socialistic
>   government.
    
    Maybe, but they do not seem to want what *is* offered either. People
    in this country are not very enthused by who is minding the store.
    
>   Your agenda far exceeds your ability to look objectively at the
>   problem IMO. You seem to be saying that the solution to all our
>   problems is to vaporize our current form of government, and replace it
>   with socialism. Unfortunately, the constitution is rendered null and
>   void in the process. 
    My agenda is not what matters. Agenda do not cause revolutions.
    It is objective conditions that cause people to take such drastic steps
    as revolutions. Constitutions are forged out of revolutions. Where
    do you think we got the present one?
                        
>   I am not willing to go along with this,
    
    I can only persuade.
    
>   and I'm willing to bet that the majority of Americans won't either.
    
    Well, I am sure that the majority are not willing *now*. Will they
    ever? Things are changing. Engineers and programmers will not likely
    be the first ones to join the struggle en mass.
                         
>   I think our country needs some changes, but not
>   the earth shattering socio-economic revolution that you would just LOVE
>   to see.
    
    What would I just LOVE to see? What if these needed changes are
    resisted? What if things continue to worsen? What if you or someone
    a little too close to you gets shut out of our capitalist boom?

>   When I say "Got to Cuba," .... It is because I feel that you would be
>   happier there. They have exactly the kind of government you claim to
>   want. I think that before you try to dismember our entire government,
    
    Take it easy, I am not trying to dismember anything.
    
>   you should try living there for a few years and really experience the
>   life. I think you might just get a different sense of perspective than
>   you get from your little pamphlets that tell how great everything is.
    
    Please, I do not get information from my "little pamphlets." And
    I do know that there are lots of problems. You should try to read
    the Che Guevara note in SOAPBOX. That is just the *preface* to a book.
    I also know *very* well some people that have gone there. I also
    look at how Cuba effects other countries. One would have to get
    a little curious with all the ranting the U.S. does about Cuba,
    while living with the apartheid of S. Africa and much else in the
    world.
    
>   From your description, it sounds like Cuba is the ultimate paradise.
    
    I would like to know what you consider paradise. What have I written
    to make you think that I think it is a paradise? If Cuba is paradise,
    God help us all.
    
>   This is irreconcilable with the information I have regarding Cuba.
    
    What have you heard and from what sources?
    
>   Perhaps you should take a short (2-3 year) vacation to our sunny
>   little neighbor. then you can report to us what you've seen.
    
    I could take a *much* shorter vacation. I could spend a month if
    the government would let me. But you see, "our" government would
    rather we not go there. I could go as some sort of scholar or a
    newspaper reporter. But I might get in trouble if someone testified
    that I was not a scholar or even a reporter. I might still find
    a way to go.
    
>   And don't take any money- you shouldn't need it there
>   (according to your notes, you'll get everything you need for nothing).
>   What a country!
    
    Come now, vacations are not for free. Cuba gets needed foreign exchange
    from tourists on vacation. Should I work there? I do not speak Spanish
    and they probably do not need my revolutionary ideas enough to put
    me up for a month. I would be more than willing to pay for a months
    vacation in Cuba. I am sure many other U.S. citizens would also.
    
    Les

< Note 577.52 by 24733::STANLEY "What a long, strange trip its been" >
   -< When life seems like easy street, there is danger at the door >-

        
 >> I still contend that a BOD isn't going to vote a $2M/year salary for a
 >> corporation president if it's illegal for him to keep more than half of
 >> it.  Why on earth would they want to do that? But even assuming they
 >> did, suppose I'm the $2M/year president. Half my annual salary goes
 >> into a fund and produces income for the things you've listed above.
 >> That means I don't give anything to the arts.  It means I don't have
 >> the option of directing my charitible contributions, for example, to
 >> cancer or AIDS research.  It means someone else gets to make those
 >> decisions for me.  With *my* money. 

  > Then we'll make it ten million.  Would that satisfy?  How about 20
  > million?
    
    It doesn't matter how much.  If the limit is $1M, then that's what the
    salary would be.  If the limit is $10M then that's what the salary
    would be.  If the limit is $20M then that's what the salary would be.
    Why pay the guy money he can't have?  That's *voluntarily* giving it to
    the government, and I don't think most of our large corporations would
    go for it. 
    
  > Pat, do you really believe that the whims of the rich are more
  > important than the survival of the poor? 
    
    I believe a basic freedom in the U.S.A. is to be able to make as
    much money as your skills/luck/inheritance/whatever gives you the
    ability to make.  And that money is yours to do with as you please.
    Yes, there is a moral obligation for jillionnaires to spend some
    of it for the betterment of society, but *how* that money gets spent
    is their decision.  It's *their* money.
    
    							Pat
    
    

    
    I reallly don't see how allowing Big Bro to allocate wealth
    could be defended in light of the Bill of Rights.
    
    I hope that all those who love freedom are listening to
    this debate, for this is how our freedoms are going to
    slip away, one by one. 
    
    There's always a group somewhere who knows better than you
    do how to spend your money/dispose ofd your property.
    
    Don't let the socialists get away with it. If they feel 
    so much for the poor and downtrodden, let them donate *their*
    paychecks. Don't allow them to take your property for such silly
    reasons as "But it's more fair". This is fuzzy headedness at its
    insidious worst.
    

    All this talk of 'socialism' has made me remember days long ago
    when I attended SWP (socialist workers party) meetings with friends
    of my to hopefully try to understand what they wanted---mind you
    not to agree with them...just to understand.  Well, after a bombing,
    and a teargassing, and various other problems I did understand several
    things...first--most folks in this country while espousing 'freedom
    of speech/press/this/that/and the other' did NOT want these few
    swp folks talking, meeting, marching, or anything else---good for
    the goose isn't good for the gander.  But, thats another topic....
    I did however come to realize that socialism would never work in
    America...or for that matter probably anywhere else... because,
    in MY OPINION, it goes against the very nature of people.  you see,
    I think people are basically greedy (not success-hungry...really
    greedy) and they are egotistical, selfish, and as someone else
    mentioned violent.  by nature...inherently... Now, call me a cynic,
    but that's what i think.  So, socialism won't succeed, human nature
    won't let it.  Yes, we all try to control these traits to some extent,
    but they can't be totally overcome.  
    So, capitalism feeds those traits, allowing a positive outlet...the
    aforementioned success vs. greed issue.  But capitalism can go awry,
    and I think it has here.  Not that it needs to be done away with,
    just that more folks need to be able to successfully participate.
    I think the 'doctah' hit it right---there will be poor with us always
    (even Christ said that) but understanding why they are poor, how
    they can be helped, then HELPING them out of that situation seems
    to be a responsibility we as a country have forgotten in our 'greed'.
    As Mary has said, its the growing inequity which is alarming--and
    the appearance that nothing is being done to alleviate it.  
    And, 'doctah' I agree with your categories...some folks are not
    going to change, but some do need to be helped/educated/assisted
    to better themselves, and in that way, i think, better society as
    a whole. 
    
    gotta run
    
    deb
    

    re .55 (Bob)
    
>   I hope that all those who love freedom are listening to
>   this debate, for this is how our freedoms are going to
>   slip away, one by one.
    
    It is clear that only a small number of people are listening to
    *this* debate. Everyone on this net has medical benefits. All have
    fairly decent jobs, some very good jobs. I would expect that we
    all have some sort of an address that we can come home to after
    work. I would expect that all of us do somehow afford decent nutrition
    for our children.
    
    I also expect that none of us is making a million bucks and very
    few, if any will ever be making the equivalent of a million bucks
    in 1989 dollars (assuming of course we do not have ridiculous inflation
    in the second half).
    
    Even if some of us do make it and make a million dollars a year,
    it would not mean that all were making it at all. The situation
    of the poor is getting worse. It promises to get much worse.
    
>   Don't let the socialists get away with it.
    
    I guess that since I am an open socialist, then I must be the one
    that we must not let get away with something. I still have not heard
    a clear accusation on what the socialists are trying to get away
    with. The tax structure that we have in this country is a capitalist
    one.
    
>   If they feel  so much for the poor and downtrodden,
>   let them donate *their* paychecks.
    
    This is Reagan's and Bush's solution to social problems. Not
    necessarily addressed to socialists, but those that are making quite
    a lot. It has not worked and will not work. It is not designed to
    work. It is designed to turn a large social responsibility from
    society to the individual.
    
    Also, socialists in this country do not have any serious wealth.
    This proposal has no merit.
    
>   Don't allow them to take your property for such silly
>   reasons as "But it's more fair". This is fuzzy headedness at its
>   insidious worst.
    
    This stands the entire problem on its head. The average worker
    produces *more* than they get compensated for in their paychecks.
    Part of the value of their labor goes to the government but another
    part is withheld by the capitalist and is kept as a profit.
    
    I do not mind in the least that any surplus that I may produce be
    used for social purposes but I strongly object to this be used to
    make some capitalist rich. I even more object to it being used to
    keep down other workers inside or out if the United States.
    
    Les
     
    

    Les-
    
     I'm taking our socialist rathole to mail.
    
    See ya
    
    Doc

    
    Well, the way the world's economy is tied together today, if conditions
    grow too unbalanced they will correct themselves.  It will be
    uncontrolled and we won't know what the outcome will be when the
    smoke finally clears away, but there will be a "natural correction"
    (as the stock brokers like to say).  At this point, there probably
    isn't much that can be done about it anyway.
    
    Hang onto your property folks (be sure to read the fine print on
    those Home Equity loans... especially where it says 'payable on
    demand').
    
    Mary
    
    

    re .59 (Mary)
    
>   Well, the way the world's economy is tied together today, if conditions
>   grow too unbalanced they will correct themselves.
    
    I believe you are right. People getting stepped on at some point
    loose their patience with the explanations why *they* are the ones
    paying for a crisis that is not their making.
    
>   It will be uncontrolled and we won't know what the outcome will be
>   when the smoke finally clears away,
    
    This is why I am a revolutionary. I believe people can influence
    the outcome of even the most sweeping upsets.
    
>   but there will be a "natural correction"
    
    Maybe people will not be willing to allow such runaway imbalances
    in the wealth of peoples.
    
>   Hang onto your property folks (be sure to read the fine print on
>   those Home Equity loans... especially where it says 'payable on
>   demand').
 
    Not everybody has a home, never mind equity to get a lone on. But
    you are right. The actual equity can reduce to zero, or even negative
    with a downward movement of real-estate prices. The banks will have
    their skin as their first priority.
    
    Les   

    Gee, no wonder my "unseen count" was so high when I hadn't had time to
    visit this file in a couple of days!  I really think we ought to take
    this discussion (of socialism, I mean - though even the topic note
    hadn't much to do with women's issues) offline, or elsewhere.
    
    Anyhow, this discussion is really depressing!  Most of the socialist
    arguments seem mostly jealousy to me.  My labors aren't worth $1M a
    year to Digital (or probably to any other employer I might ever work
    for).  Does that mean I should set the social agenda for the few people
    whose special talents (or special luck of birth, in a few cases) are
    worth that much?  Most really wealthy people got there by their own
    efforts, and most of them choose to spend their wealth in ways that I
    consider socially acceptable: found hospitals, make large contributions
    to environmental groups, fund halfway houses and homes for pregnant
    teenagers, sponsor scientific research, etc.  Sure, there are plenty of
    exceptions, probably the same people who would be wasting their money
    if they had a good deal less of it.  So it goes!  It shouldn't be MY
    business, or the government's business (likely to do even worse at it
    than I would, by all evidence) to spend wealthy people's money for
    them!
    
    /Charlotte

    re .61 (Charlotte)
    
>   I really think we ought to take this discussion (of socialism,
>   I mean - though even the topic note hadn't much to do with women's
>   issues) offline, or elsewhere.
    
    "though even the topic note hadn't much to do with women's issues."
    
    Are these men's issues? Are they human issues? Can we separate any
    social issue from the concerns of women? Should we? Are women not
    even more affected by poverty and the lack of social programs than
    men? Does this have anything to do with minimum wage? Might it have
    *anything* to do with the disparity of wealth that we find in this
    country and elsewhere in this world?
    
    Les
                                          

    As several people have mentioned recently that discussion of socialism
    should be taken off-line, or that the topic is unrelated to Womannotes,
    let me state that:
    
    1) The subject of this note is not socialism, but it's perfectly
       natural that when discussing the repartition of wealth in a capi-
       talistic society (the USA) some mention of socialism should
       be made.                      
    
    2) The idea that this topic is "unrelated" to WN has me very, very
       astonished. Are women not interested in wealth or lack of it,
       in socialism and capitalism, is the next step to say that maybe
       politics shouldn't be discussed in here because (unwarranted
       assumption) there are few women interested in politics? 
                   
    One woman's opinion: this discussion interests me more than, for
    example, the Gun Control discussion, though that has also given
    me food for thought.
    
    Joana

    All my life I've been told that these issues are "men's issues"
    and not to concern myself with them.  I can't believe that someone
    actually said that here.  
    
    This is my planet, my world, my reality as well as anyone else's.
    I am a woman, therefore these concerns are a woman's concerns.
    
    In the past month, I've seen the following articles in the paper.
    
    * A woman was arrested because her 17 year old son was in a gang.
    
    * A woman is being prosecuted in Illinois for "delivering drugs to
    a minor" and "manslaughter" because she was an addict, couldn't
    afford an abortion, and had a baby who died two days later from
    the cocaine addition.  The prosecuter said that the public will
    no longer tolerate "babies at risk".  What of the 50 year old
    who gets pregnant and has a baby at risk?
      
    * A man was given probation after killing his wife by smashing her
    head with a hammer because it was an understandable act in his 
    culture.
            
    * A woman was told by a judge that she could not live with a man
    as a result of a suit brought by her ex-husband.
    
    I am really sick of the way women are treated today.  
    Don't ever tell me what issues I (as a woman) am to be concerned
    with.  I have as much concern about the world and society as any man.
    And I never did learn my 'proper place'.
    
    Mary                      
    

>    Most really wealthy people got there by their own
>    efforts, and most of them choose to spend their wealth in ways that I
>    consider socially acceptable: found hospitals, make large contributions
>    to environmental groups, fund halfway houses and homes for pregnant
>    teenagers, sponsor scientific research, etc.

Charlotte, you don't *understand*.  These folks want the wealth to be spent 
only on THEIR cause, which is subsidizing the poor.  Hospitals, the 
environment, scientific research, etc. are of no consequence because they 
aren't at the top of the agendas written by the people advocating socialism 
in this string.  How could you possibly think that *your* or *my* opinion 
of what constitutes a worthy cause could matter a whit???

Harrrrrumph.

							Pat

    re .65 (Pat)
    
>   These folks want the wealth to be spent only on THEIR cause, which
>   is subsidizing the poor. Hospitals, the environment, scientific
>   research, etc. are of no consequence because they aren't at the top
>   of the agendas written by the people advocating socialism in this
>   string.
    
    Who else is advocating socialism in this string? Well, I do! Where
    do you get off saying that my "agenda" is subsidizing the poor?
    I have brought up Cuba in this "string" and Cuba's priorities are
    precisely in the areas of "Hospitals, the environment, scientific
    research, etc." The health care system of Cuba is one of its main
    prides, and that is including modern hospitals. Cuba is one of the
    most conscious countries in the world as far as environment is
    concerned.
    
    And I guess most people in employee interest files do not know my
    technical and scientific concerns. I just do not think that all
    the research that is going on in this country and elsewhere is intended
    to be used beyond the narrow concerns of those that are already
    wealthy to make more wealth.
    
    I believe that scientific research is being hampered by the narrow
    corporate and nationalistic straitjackets that some would wish
    them to stay in. There is a growing body of scientists that are
    beginning to see this.
    
    Les
    
      How could you possibly think that *your* or *my* opinion 
of what constitutes a worthy cause could matter a whit???

    Les, since this isn't Soapbox (and we've exchanged some jabs there),
    I won't get into a debate about the merrits of Communism vs Capitalism,
    but holding Cuba up as a shining example of the direction this country
    should take is almost laughable. If their socialism works so well, why
    does their economy have to propped up by the USSR to keep it afloat?
    To some of us, freedom of such things as expression are more important
    than your so-called equal society.
    
    Eric

    re .67 (Eric)
    
>   but holding Cuba up as a shining example of the direction this country
>   should take is almost laughable.
    
    Cuba is a poor Third World country. I am not holding it up as a
    shining example of what could be done in a world where profits were
    not *the* primary motivating force. For this we will have to wait for
    the future. It will not be an island of 10 million people.
    
    What I am pointing to is what they have accomplished with their
    very small resources. Why can't the U.S. at least match it? Why
    is the U.S. getting *FURTHER* from equality of its own citizens?
    
>   If their socialism works so well, why does their economy have to
>   propped up by the USSR to keep it afloat?
    
    I do not think it has to. The Cuban economy is pretty healthy, it
    is growing. Capitalist find that they must get more out of a country
    than they put in. I think it is a better thing for a wealthier country
    to be giving aid to smaller and developing countries than to suck
    the life out of the poor countries to keep afloat. What the world
    capitalists banks are doing to the Third World is a crime. They
    are ripping off much more than they ever gave out. Ah, but that
    is their right under the profit system.
    
    Think about it? Which do you support? I say the hell with the banks
    and their capitalist owners.
    
    Les
  

    
    Then you are also saying to hell with the stockholders of 
    those banks, most of whom are either workers or their 
    pension funds. 
    
    You are also saying to hell with people who want capital
    to start buisnesses (create jobs), meet payrolls, expand,
    and to those looking to buy houses...

    re .69 (Bob)
    
>   Then you are also saying to hell with the stockholders of 
>   those banks, most of whom are either workers or their 
>   pension funds.
    
    First, I did say to hell with the capitalists. There may be *many*
    workers that have stock but this is a *small* fraction of the ownership
    of these banks. Some pension funds administered for workers may
    have significant holdings but these are not decisive in the grand
    scheme of capitalism.
    
    During the stock crash of October 87, lots of people were hurt
    including pensioners and other people that had some money in stocks,
    bonds or other similar instruments. How should we address this?
    
    Should we insist that these banks tighten the screws a little more
    on their debtors? Should we cheer when the protests against IMF
    are brutally put down so that the banks can get their due? Should
    we cheer when a bank that we "own" part of repossesses one of our
    neighbor's farm or home?
    
    How about when the government tells us it can not afford a child
    care center or an educational program and tell us it is due to budget
    cuts, they say that they are servicing a substantial debt? Should
    we say, oh that's ok because my pension plan is making out like a bandit
    because of that debt load and its servicing?
    
    Some are getting rich and some are getting screwed. The dividends
    for the average worker do not come near the costs that are incurred. 
    
>   You are also saying to hell with people who want capital
>   to start buisnesses (create jobs), meet payrolls, expand,
>   and to those looking to buy houses...
    
    But this is not really working anyway. It has nothing to do with
    my attitude. We are in what is described as a "boom" economy. This
    note here in this file is not being discussed at a time we are in
    a recession or depression. We are seeing economic disparity and
    its attendant social problems in times the capitalists are *bragging*
    about.
    
    I do not believe that supporting the capitalists and their system
    gives us any relief. They are in a serious crisis and they are out
    to bleed us to save their skins.
    
    Les

	One thing that most of us can do is to purchase from
	smaller businesses rather than huge conglomerates. No,
	we probably can't do that all the time, but in a lot of
	cases, there is a small, locally owned and operated
	supplier of many of the things we routinely purchase.
	This keeps more of your money in the local economy.
	It will help keep these suppliers around longer, hence
	providing more compitition for the large companies, which,
	in turn will keep them more competitive. Since these companies
	typically have a small to non-existant management structure,
	more of the money spent goes to the workers, and less to 
	the Capitalist, except (as is often the case with small companies)
	the worker and the Capitalist are the same person.


							Tom_K

Note 577.65
DLOACT::RESENDEP 
    
>Charlotte, you don't *understand*.  These folks want the wealth to be spent 
>only on THEIR cause, which is subsidizing the poor.  Hospitals, the 
>environment, scientific research, etc. are of no consequence because they 
>aren't at the top of the agendas written by the people advocating socialism 
>in this string.  How could you possibly think that *your* or *my* opinion 
>of what constitutes a worthy cause could matter a whit???
>
>Harrrrrumph.

    No need to harrrrrump Pat.  I'm not a socialist, .... I'm an
    anarchist._:-)   I am concerned about the poor but my concerns are
    not restricted to America's poor.  I'd like to see all of the planet's
    poor taken care of.  
    
    The environment and scientific research are
    also on the top of my list of priorities.  Our country is a great
    enemy to the planet and 90% of our scientific research is funded
    by the Department of Defense so it gets classified and probably
    wouldn't be useful for other than military applications anyway.
    
    How does capitalism benefit the environment and scientific 
    research?
    
    Mary

>I'd like to see all of the planet's
>    poor taken care of.                
    
    Who's supposed to pay for "taking care of" the planet's poor? Does this
    mean you favor a worldwide welfare system?
    
>    90% of our scientific research is funded
>    by the Department of Defense so it gets classified and probably
>    wouldn't be useful for other than military applications anyway.
    
    That number is false, arbitrary, and misleading. The assertion that DoD
    funded research does not find its way into the private sector is
    likewise incorrect. Many medical breakthroughs, especially those
    related to medical equipment, were acheived as a direct result of DoD
    sponsored research. Imaging techniques etc refined for defense purposes 
    have found their way into the medical field in the form of MRI and CAT
    scan technology. Many assembly methods and materials have been
    developed using DoD money which find their way into pacemakers, hearing
    aids and other useful items. No, Mary, your number is out of whack, and
    your supposition is false. 
       
>    How does capitalism benefit the environment and scientific 
>    research?               
    
    In several ways. Large, environmentally conscious companies contribute
    raw materials and ca$hola for the purpose of improving our environment.
    Many companies buy tracts of land valuable for wildlife and either hold
    onto it (thus preventing development) or give it to conservancy
    associations.
    
    Another way that capitalism contributes to the environment is by making
    it profitable for companies to figure out how to clean up the
    environment. Companies that work at cleaning up toxic waste etc improve
    the environment.
    
    I think that capitalism's contributions to scientific research are
    self-evident.
    
    Now for the down side. :-( Capitalism often creates situations where
    greed or laziness negatively impact the environment. Companies that
    seek to save money sometimes do not follow established procedures for
    the disposal of hazardous waste, thus contaminating our environment.
    This is a very serious problem that cannot be ignored. It is worsening
    by the day. Double :-(
    
    The Doctah

Note 577.73          
WAHOO::LEVESQUE 

    
>    Who's supposed to pay for "taking care of" the planet's poor? Does this
>    mean you favor a worldwide welfare system?

Mark, the planet (if properly respected) has enough resources to provide
a rich life for all of humanity.  It isn't necessary for so much of
the world's wealth to be hoarded by so few of the world's people...
to the detriment of so many.  It doesn't make sense.    

The IMF has caused great environmental damage by pushing third world countries
to use their natural resources to try to raise money to repay their third
world debt... that is how much of the rainforests (the planet's lungs) is
being distroyed.  Are the world's banks more important than the planet's
environment?   Are they more important than the survival of humanity?

The IMF and World Banks have caused great hardship in many third world 
countries, the heavy burden of old, unwise debts are creating havoc.

In short, I don't know how it should be done...  but I know that something
should be done, and soon.

    
>    That number is false, arbitrary, and misleading. The assertion that DoD
>    funded research does not find its way into the private sector is
>    likewise incorrect. Many medical breakthroughs, especially those
>    related to medical equipment, were acheived as a direct result of DoD
>    sponsored research. Imaging techniques etc refined for defense purposes 
>    have found their way into the medical field in the form of MRI and CAT
>    scan technology. Many assembly methods and materials have been
>    developed using DoD money which find their way into pacemakers, hearing
>    aids and other useful items. No, Mary, your number is out of whack, and
>    your supposition is false. 
>       

Mark my dear friend, ... provide some figures of your own and reference them.
One of the chief differences between Japan and the U.S. is the amount of
R&D work that is done, the amount that is spent on R&D, and the amount
of R&D done in and for the private sector.  

Its true that sometimes the private sector will accidently benefit from 
some sideline of DoD research, but that is not the purpose of the research
and that is not where the funding is aimed nor where the priorities
are set.   

>    In several ways. Large, environmentally conscious companies contribute
>    raw materials and ca$hola for the purpose of improving our environment.
>    Many companies buy tracts of land valuable for wildlife and either hold
>    onto it (thus preventing development) or give it to conservancy
>    associations.

Oh now Mark.... The companies that do this are few and far between compared to 
the companies that distroy the environment to make a quick buck.  

>    Another way that capitalism contributes to the environment is by making
>    it profitable for companies to figure out how to clean up the
>    environment. Companies that work at cleaning up toxic waste etc improve
>    the environment.

Is this a joke_:-)  Capitalism contributes to the environment by
making it profitable for companies to figure out how to clean up the
environment they have distroyed?  Thats the kind of logic the Bush
administration used about Alaska.  They said that the cleanup efforts put
more money into the local economy than the fishing industry.  
Of course the cleanup crew will go away but the fish may never return.

Does that justify distroying the environment?
Money isn't worth the well being of the planet Mark.  We need the planet
to survive and once the environment has been distroyed by the greedy, all
of the money in the world will not buy it back.

>    I think that capitalism's contributions to scientific research are
>    self-evident.

I think a lot less is "self-evident" today than ever before.
    
I don't single out capitalism in this.  Every government is guilty of 
being short-sighted, selfish and self-serving.  They distroy our Earth for
their own short term gain and gratification.  They have no respect for the
planet.  They are endangering us at an alarming rate, by the Greenhouse
Effect and also by their nuclear policies (among others).

As David Nyham of the Globe said in "Nuclear litter: The Amount And The Lies 
Are Growing":

"The records of the world's governments, when it comes to fessing up about 
nuclear screw-ups, are awful.  Ask Greenpeace.  The French government's
intelligence service blew up the Rainbow Warrior, killing a Greenpeace 
photographer, all to keep a boatload of protesters out of France's 
South Pacific testing range.

As we now know from the deceitful history of governments when it comes to
radiation-producing devices, officials lie.  American, Russian, whatever,
governments lie about what they do to cover up misconduct, incompetence or
worse in handling nuclear devices.

The plant where Karen Silkwood worked misplaced 40 pounds of plutoniun that was
never recovered.  That's only enough for 10 bombs...

Radioactivity, which kills living things for thousands of years, is permanent
litter, fatal litter, ineradicable litter.  Fouling our nest with radioactivity
means suicide for the human race."

Don't start telling me what a friend to the environment the capitalist is Mark.
Not without references or proof that outweighs what I read in the papers every
day.  

I'm afraid that if the capitalist continues unchecked to distroy the
environment for a quick profit, he will kill us all.    

Mary

    Mary,
    
    Ten to fifteen years ago I was essentially saying the same kinds
    of things to my students in my Man and the Environment course.
    Thanks for reminding me of what I have fallen away from. Most of
    my books are now over ten years old. Can you suggest any more curent
    publications? I have a lot of the older texts, like, Limits to
    Growth and the Erlicher (sp?) books.
    
    Thanks for what you have entered in this file.
    
    Bonnie

	RE: DoD money. A pity none of that DoD money spend getting
	computers produced ever resulted in computers that had none
	military use. :-)

			Alfred

>	RE: DoD money. A pity none of that DoD money spend getting
>	computers produced ever resulted in computers that had none
>	military use. :-)
    
    The benefit to industry of DoD research money isn't always in products.
    Actually, quite the opposite. It's the technologies developed,
    materials discovered, and processes developed that are of chief benefit 
    to the private sector.
    
    Re: Mary
    
     I'll try to answer your note later.
    
    The Doctah

From the Globe:

"... According to a recent congressional report, families whose income ranked in
the bottom fifth had 11 percent less income in 1987 than comparable families
had in 1973.  Those in the top fifth gained 24 percent, the biggest increase. 
Some economists say the distribution now is more unequal than at any time since
World War II.

"We have an open and democratic system which operates well when there's steady
income growth, said economist Robert Reischauer, director of the Congressional
Budget Office.

"You don't view the system as fair if those who have the most money, the most
wealth, the most access to power are improving their lot at a healthy pace,
while those with the least resources are suffering absolute declines."

...The analysis shows that families with children were hardest hit.  Average
family income in the bottom fifth declined by 22 percent between 1973 and 1987, 
while the average family with children in the top fifth gained by 25 percent.

"The 1987 data just becoming available is allowing us to reject the view that
it's just a recession." said economist Sheldon Danziger of the University of
Michigan.  ...We have the budget office doing more careful statistical work
than any individual analyst has done.  They've now conclusively shown something
different is going on in the 1980s."

In the quarter-century following Word War II, incomes grew rapidly and the
distribution became somewhat more equal.  Now, not only is inequality growing,
but the growth of incomes has also slowed substantially.

If incomes had kept growing, you could have had the inequality we just had,"
said economist Frank Levy of the University of Maryland. "But if you talk about
a stagnant average, when you lose relative to other groups, you lose absolutely
because the pie isn't getting any bigger.

"Its not like you're getting better off and Donald Trump is getting a lot
better off," he added.  "Its that you're getting worse off and Donald Trump is
getting a lot better off".

"The American dream is that if you work hard, you can get ahead," Danziger
said. "The current situation is one which is making people question that."


We had better wake up my friends, before we have a revolution of our own on our
hands that all of the Republican's new jails and laws will not prevent.


Note 577.76          
CVG::THOMPSON 

>	RE: DoD money. A pity none of that DoD money spend getting
>	computers produced ever resulted in computers that had none
>	military use. :-)

I guess accidents do happen from time to time Alfred_:-)  I'm sure they will
be more careful in the future._;-)

    re 577.77
    
    >The benefit to industry of DoD research money ...
    
    All of those things are kept classified Mark, usually until they
    are obsolete.
 
       Mary

    re .78 (Mary)
    
>   We had better wake up my friends, before we have a revolution of our
>   own on our hands that all of the Republican's new jails and laws will
>   not prevent.
    
    Why not welcome the revolution? If we go into this with open eyes
    it can be our revolution. The situation that is described in the
    Globe article is because the post war economic boom fueled by the
    massive destruction of WW-II followed by exporting capital has run
    its course and is at an *END*. There is nothing that the capitalists
    can do to reverse this situation without an attack on our hides
    to extract more profits. They will not succeed. Why should we try
    to help them?
    
    Les

    
    Les, I think even the NRA-ers would have to agree you are an excellent
    argument in favor of gun control.
    
    Roberta

    I would stop it if I could Les.  Our generation has had more than
    its share of horror in Vietnam.  
    
    I think that the NRA-ers might feel that his is an excellent argument
    against gun control Roberta.  
    
    If we end up in a situation where it comes down to "every woman/
    man for her/himself", most of us would rather be the guy with the gun
    who didn't have to use it, than the guy without the gun who really
    needed it.
                              
    Mary

    My recent silence does not indicate either assent or disinterest,
    but absence.
    
    Re: .38 
    
    >I don't think the issue of how much an individual can spend has
    >come up.  Probably because it might be impossible to "spend" 551
    >million dollars a year.
    
    I thought the number was $1 million; are we changing the boundaries?
    The issue has come up, it just hasn't been stated in those explicit
    terms.  If I make $2 million but only have access to $1 million,
    that determines how much of *my* money I'm allowed to spend.
    
    >>Why should I grant anyone else full power over my possessions?  
    >
    >I don't believe this issue has come up either.
    
    Sure it has.  If you can prohibit my use of what is mine, you have
    full control over it.
    
    >The numbers we are talking about are so huge in scope that they
    >far exceed the private life of an individual, these kinds of excesses
    >can encompass the survival of millions.
    
    First of all, the numbers are by no means guaranteed to be stable.
    Hey, if taking away all but $1 million of my money has benefits,
    taking away all but $.75 million ought to provide even greater
    benefits, right?  Well, what about $.5 million?  Once you start
    setting limits, almost any limit can be justified.
    
    Also, your tendency toward oversimplification (otherwise known as
    stereotyping or even -- dare we say it -- prejudice) is showing.
    As far as I can tell, you've equated access to wealth with "excesses."
    In other words, rich people are selfish and self-centered and squander
    money only on themselves.  Given the rise of the "middle-class
    millionaire," I suggest you re-evaluate your attitude toward the
    "filthy rich."
    
    >Is your (or any one individual's) private life worth more than the
    >survival of so many?
    
    Is my freedom of choice worth so little?  Assisting those less
    fortunate is, of course, something people ought to do.  However,
    is it justifiable to *force* anyone to do so?  I might agree to
    the premise with certain qualifying conditions (community service
    for convicted criminals comes to mind), but not in general.
    
    >Are income taxes artificial and intrusive?  Can you please point
    >out the real problem for us and propose a solution?
    
    This works nicely as a dodge, but not as a way of evaluating the
    worth of a position.  Why?
    
    1)  If income taxes are a "good" solution -- they address the
    underlying problem in an effective manner -- then we still have
    to examine whether a maximum income is a "good" solution.  The
    discussion about income taxes, therefore, would have no bearing
    on the topic at hand.
    
    2)  If income taxes are a "bad" solution -- they fail to address
    the underlying problem or do so in an ineffective manner -- then
    what does this show?  Does this prove that a maximum income is a
    "good" solution?  Of course not, because it has revealed nothing
    about the value of a maximum income.  In this case, the only way
    I could see the income tax example being used is to argue that since
    we have already implemented one "bad" solution, there is nothing
    wrong with implementing another "bad" solution.  I would not want
    to find myself in the position of arguing that premise.
    
    So, unless you can demonstrate that I'm wrong and that the case
    of income tax *will* add support to the argument for a maximum income,
    I'd like to redirect your attention to my assertions that a maximum
    income is ineffective and artificial.  Can you refute them?

    re .81 (Mary)
    
>   I would stop it if I could Les.  Our generation has had more than
>   its share of horror in Vietnam.
    
    I totally sympathize with your feelings here but as this and similar
    notes in this conference attest, many in our generation are going through
    a horror right here. It *is* getting and will get much worse.  
    
>   I think that the NRA-ers might feel that his is an excellent argument
>   against gun control Roberta.
    
    I do support the right to bear arms and some NRA-ers agree with
    many of my arguments.  
    
>   If we end up in a situation where it comes down to "every woman/
>   man for her/himself", most of us would rather be the guy with the gun
>   who didn't have to use it, than the guy without the gun who really
>   needed it.
    
    Agree. I was in the Nicaraguan war zone (north of Jinotega) and
    was cut off by a firefight between the government and the contra.
    The government soldiers involved in the fight with the contra did
    not know that I and several other N. Americans were in the area.
    I wished that the Nicaraguan people that I was with would supply
    me with a spare AK-47. I have had military training. They said that
    it would be better that they took care of the situation. I felt
    good to see the local militia mobilize and all of the sudden all
    the Nicaraguans were carrying guns while escorting us out of the
    area.
    
    re .80 (Roberta)
    
>   Les, I think even the NRA-ers would have to agree you are an excellent
>   argument in favor of gun control.
    
    I will have to agree here also. Much of the NRA officialdom has
    connections and/or sympathies with the police and the government.
    I think some of the "democratic right to bear arms" would disappear
    at the first sign of people successfully defending themselves against
    illegal and/or unconstitutional attacks on our rights.
    
    A police state and democratic rights do *NOT* mix.
    
    Les
    

    WAIT a minute.  This topic is getting its wires crossed with another
    topic.  This topic is for discussions on wealth and money and so
    forth, and several replies contain things that seem to belon gin
    the GUN CONTROL topic.  
    
    Could the people wrote the last 5 replies please check their replies,
    and if they notice they need moving either move them to the intended
    topic, or send me e-mail telling me where they belong and I'll move
    them?  
    
    to move them simply READ the note, type "SAVE note.txt", go READ
    the note you want them to actually reply to, and type "REPLY note.txt".
    
    thankqueue
    
    -Jody
    

    Jody is correct on the methodolgy for moving notes, but there's
    also another way, typically shorter:
    
    	EXTR/BUF NOTES$EDIT    ! this is the buffer used by the editor
    now go to where it belongs and type...
    	ANS/LAST/NOED          ! and it will put it in for you
    
    						=maggie
    
    (and Jody can delete mine along with hers when the move is done)

    
    I didn't mean to start a rat hole on gun control. I was merely
    trying to imply in a facetious sort of way that I don't favor the
    violent overthrow of one government and hence the forced imposition
    of another one.                                
    
    Roberta

Note 577.82          
ACESMK::CHELSEA 

>   My recent silence does not indicate either assent or disinterest,
>    but absence.
    
Welcome back_:-)

>    I thought the number was $1 million; are we changing the boundaries?
>    The issue has come up, it just hasn't been stated in those explicit
>    terms.  If I make $2 million but only have access to $1 million,
>    that determines how much of *my* money I'm allowed to spend.

One million was the example used in the article, but it doesn't have to be
one million, it could be ten million or a hundred million.  Since Michael
Milken make the Guiness Book of Records by earning 551 million in a single
year, almost any limit under that would be acceptable.

    
>    Sure it has.  If you can prohibit my use of what is mine, you have
>    full control over it.

No it hasn't.  The article doesn't want to limit existing salary and certainly
doesn't want to touch anyone's "possessions".  It merely wants to limit
the amount of the country's resources that can be accumulated by a single
person.  We are limited in the use of almost all of our possessions today
(for example, you can't drive your car if you have been drinking, you can't
sell drugs out of your house, you can't use your gun to kill your neighbor)
and that doesn't mean that the government has full control over them.
    
>    >The numbers we are talking about are so huge in scope that they
>    >far exceed the private life of an individual, these kinds of excesses
>    >can encompass the survival of millions.
>    
>    First of all, the numbers are by no means guaranteed to be stable.
>    Hey, if taking away all but $1 million of my money has benefits,
>    taking away all but $.75 million ought to provide even greater
>    benefits, right?  Well, what about $.5 million?  Once you start
>    setting limits, almost any limit can be justified.

Nothing is guaranteed in this world.  Limits are already set on minimum
wage, why is that less abhorrent to you?  Why should the rich be the only
humans without limitations?

>    Also, your tendency toward oversimplification (otherwise known as
>    stereotyping or even -- dare we say it -- prejudice) is showing.
>    As far as I can tell, you've equated access to wealth with "excesses."
>    In other words, rich people are selfish and self-centered and squander
>    money only on themselves.  Given the rise of the "middle-class
>    millionaire," I suggest you re-evaluate your attitude toward the
>    "filthy rich."

Personal attacks don't validate your argument.  The "middle-class
millionaire" is a Republican wet dream.  I suggest you re-evaluate your own 
attitude pal.  The rich won't be there by your side protecting you and yours
when the proverbial excrement hits the fan.

>    >Is your (or any one individual's) private life worth more than the
>    >survival of so many?
>    
>    Is my freedom of choice worth so little?  Assisting those less
>    fortunate is, of course, something people ought to do.  However,
>    is it justifiable to *force* anyone to do so?  I might agree to
>    the premise with certain qualifying conditions (community service
>    for convicted criminals comes to mind), but not in general.
    
What then is the purpose of society, of government?   Why should the
'average American' work and study and protect a way of life that exists
only to benefit a small group of elitists?  When does the well-being
of the whole supersede the whims of the wealthy?

I assume that you understand that we are not discussing "you" personally
("Is my freedom of choice worth so little?").  No offense intended, but
I doubt you will ever experience the kind of wealth we are discussing.


>    >Are income taxes artificial and intrusive?  Can you please point
>    >out the real problem for us and propose a solution?
>    
>    This works nicely as a dodge, but not as a way of evaluating the
>    worth of a position.  Why?
>    
>    1)  If income taxes are a "good" solution -- they address the
>    underlying problem in an effective manner -- then we still have
>    to examine whether a maximum income is a "good" solution.  The
>    discussion about income taxes, therefore, would have no bearing
>    on the topic at hand.
>    
>    2)  If income taxes are a "bad" solution -- they fail to address
>    the underlying problem or do so in an ineffective manner -- then
>    what does this show?  Does this prove that a maximum income is a
>    "good" solution?  Of course not, because it has revealed nothing
>    about the value of a maximum income.  

I don't understand what you're talking about.  

>    In this case, the only way
>    I could see the income tax example being used is to argue that since
>    we have already implemented one "bad" solution, there is nothing
>    wrong with implementing another "bad" solution.  I would not want
>    to find myself in the position of arguing that premise.
    
If income taxes are "artificial and intrusive" also, then a precedent
has already been set for implementation of artificial and intrusive
measures for the public good.  A maximum income would be no more artificial
or intrusive than the income tax.

>    So, unless you can demonstrate that I'm wrong and that the case
>    of income tax *will* add support to the argument for a maximum income,
>    I'd like to redirect your attention to my assertions that a maximum
>    income is ineffective and artificial.  Can you refute them?

I'm not discussing this to engage in a ego contest to prove one of us
right or wrong.  But rather to raise an awareness of an increasingly
disturbing trend growing in our society.  A trend that (I believe) threatens 
our democratic way of life.  A trend that is being ignored and encouraged by
our current and past administrations.

From the Globe:
"The facts are clear that a profound trend has developed in American
Society.  Not only are the rich getting richer, but the poor - in terms
of dollars adjusted for inflation - are getting poorer.

According to a recent congressional report, families whose income ranked 
in the bottom fifth has 11 percent less income in 1987 than comparable
families had in 1973.  Those in the top fifth gained 24 percent, the
biggest increase.  Some economists say the distribution now is more
unequal than at any time since World War II."

"You don't view the system as fair if those who have the most money,
the most wealth, the most access to power are improving their lot at
a healthy pace, while those with the least resources are suffering
absolute declines said Robert Reischauer, director of the Congressional 
Budget Office"

The 1987 data just becoming available is allowing us to reject the view that
it's just the recession," said economist Sheldon Danziger of the University of
Michigan.  "Two or three years ago, a skeptic could say just wait.  Obviously,
we've waited long enough.  We have the budget office doing more careful
statistical work than any individual analyst has done.  They've now
conclusively shown that something different is going on in the 1980s."


We can't afford to ignore this growing and dangerous trend.  We must find
a solution to this problem while we still can.

Mary

>Mark, the planet (if properly respected) has enough resources to provide
>a rich life for all of humanity.  It isn't necessary for so much of
>the world's wealth to be hoarded by so few of the world's people...
>to the detriment of so many.  It doesn't make sense.    
 
 I tend to agree with you. The question is how to reapportion the distribution
of wealth in such a manner that is fair and equitable for both rich and
poor alike. I am worried about a precedent that would take money from those
considered to be wealthy and give it to those considered to be poor. It
sets a dangerous precedent that someone is better qualified to decide where
my money goes than I am.

>The IMF has caused great environmental damage by pushing third world countries
>to use their natural resources to try to raise money to repay their third
>world debt... that is how much of the rainforests (the planet's lungs) is
>being distroyed.  Are the world's banks more important than the planet's
>environment?   Are they more important than the survival of humanity?

 No, the world's banks aren't more important than the survival of humanity.
I think the destruction of the rainforests is an outrageous act of stupidity
and shortsightedness, however, I am not sure what the US can do about it.
Additionally, the third world countries are not forced to cut down their
rainforests. They have already defaulted on so many immense loans, what's
to stop them from defaulting on a few more? And where has all that money
gone, anyway?
    
>One of the chief differences between Japan and the U.S. is the amount of
>R&D work that is done, the amount that is spent on R&D, and the amount
>of R&D done in and for the private sector.  
 
 True. Management has lost sight of the benefits of R&D. I have always been
fascinated with R&D, which is why I have found a position here. It bothers
me to see some of the stupid decisions made regarding R&D. R&D is one of
the most important parts to any company's long term health, and is doubly
so in the case of countries.

>Its true that sometimes the private sector will accidently benefit from 
>some sideline of DoD research, but that is not the purpose of the research
>and that is not where the funding is aimed nor where the priorities
>are set.   
 
 I think there's a good bit more benefit than you believe. I'll try to find
some figures and examples to back me up. In the mean time, I still disagree
with your numbers... Where'dya get them, BTW?

>Oh now Mark.... The companies that do this are few and far between compared to 
>the companies that distroy[sic] the environment to make a quick buck.  
 
 Agreed.                        

>>    Another way that capitalism contributes to the environment is by making
>>    it profitable for companies to figure out how to clean up the
>>    environment. Companies that work at cleaning up toxic waste etc improve
>>    the environment.

>Is this a joke_:-)  Capitalism contributes to the environment by
>making it profitable for companies to figure out how to clean up the
>environment they have distroyed?  Thats the kind of logic the Bush
>administration used about Alaska.  They said that the cleanup efforts put
>more money into the local economy than the fishing industry.  
>Of course the cleanup crew will go away but the fish may never return.
 
 No, it's no joke. I think we have a failure to communicate here. I'll attempt
to retransmit. :-) Given the state of the environment (already contaminated
to some degree), it is a benefit to clean up the mess, to redress the problem.
That we created the problem in the first place does not go unnoticed. Clearly
it is a reparative action. But at least the problem isn't entirely ignored.

>>    I think that capitalism's contributions to scientific research are
>>    self-evident.

>I think a lot less is "self-evident" today than ever before.
 
 Perhaps, but I tend to think the opposite.
   
>I don't single out capitalism in this.  Every government is guilty of 
>being short-sighted, selfish and self-serving.  They distroy[sic] our Earth for
>their own short term gain and gratification.  They have no respect for the
>planet.  They are endangering us at an alarming rate, by the Greenhouse
>Effect and also by their nuclear policies (among others).

 Sure. Then why beat up on capitalism?

 re: nuclear policies and the greenhouse effect

  It is not easy to reconcile the position of being anti-nuclear power and
anti-greenhouse effect without being looked at with at least some disdain.
Using nuclear power is one of the best ways to AVOID the greenhouse effect.
Most anti-nuke people are pro-fossil fuel (which leads toi an increase in
the greenhouse effect). The simple fact is that hydro-electric power and
solar power cannot fill the void left by the reductions in fossil fuel burning
plants that are necessary to reduce the greenhouse effect. Nuclear power
is necessary. But, like so many things that people do not understand, it
has been shrouded in mystery and magic, and been manipulated by radicals,
thus many intelligent people harbor a number of misconceptions about nuclear
power. This coupled with the blundering tactics of the Nuke industry, leads
to a no win situation. 

>Radioactivity, which kills living things for thousands of years, is permanent
>litter, fatal litter, ineradicable litter.  Fouling our nest with radioactivity
>means suicide for the human race."
 
 The methods used to store nuclear waste are actually pretty good. Each
container is tested by being dropped from 2000 feet onto a hard surface,
by being driven into a cement wall at 80 mph, and by being immersed in jet
fuel and ignited. To date not a single incident has occurred with spent
fuel. I agree that there is a problem with storing the waste. On the other
hand, I think that problem can be addressed "on the fly," while our
observations regarding the greenhouse effect and dependence of our economy
on foreign sources of fossil fuels are of more immediate concern.

>Don't start telling me what a friend to the environment the capitalist is Mark.

 I don't believe that the capitalists is typically the environment's best
friend, if that's what you mean. I am not blind to the greed and corruption
that contaminates our country directly and indirectly. I am aware that some
of the problem is due to wanting to achieve a better "bottom line." But
I feel that attributing character flaws to our economic system goes against
my beliefs in personal responsibility. Besides, the gist of my reply was
to simply give the other side of the coin. I don't contend that the capitalist
is the best thing that ever happened to the environment. I think capitalism
has good points and bad points wrt the environment. I don't think that is
has been seen anywhere that any other workable system has been any better
to the environment; that's all.

>I'm afraid that if the capitalist continues unchecked to distroy the
>environment for a quick profit, he will kill us all.    
                                 ^^
 Hmmmm. Doesn't that belong in the "Sexism is Alive and Well" topic? :-)

 The Doctah

    Re: .87
    
    >Since Michael Milken make the Guiness Book of Records by earning
    >551 million in a single year, almost any limit under that would
    >be acceptable.
    
    As I understood it, the cap on disposable income was to be set so
    that the money over that maximum level could be used (in some as
    yet clearly specified way) to offset costs of social programs. 
    If the cap is set at $551 million and no one *makes* over that amount,
    what's the point of setting the maximum?  Why do something if it
    has no effect?
    
    >The article doesn't want to limit existing salary and certainly
    >doesn't want to touch anyone's "possessions".
    
    I own my money; it is certainly one of my possessions.
    
    >that doesn't mean that the government has full control over them.
    
    But saying, "You have no access to your own money over x amount" is
    full control over my money.  Even that money I can still make use
    of is subject to control, since I could be deprived of the use of
    it at some later point.
    
    >Limits are already set on minimum wage, why is that less abhorrent
    >to you?
    
    Minimum wage is a way of trying to ensure that working is an
    financially viable alternative -- that people can make a living
    by working.
    
    >Why should the rich be the only humans without limitations?
    
    The rich do have limitations; they are hardly omnipotent.  The minimum
    wage serves as a lower bound on their income, just as it serves
    as the lower bound of any worker's income.  Nor are the rich the
    only ones who have no upper bound on their income.  NO ONE has an
    upper bound on their income.  So much for rhetoric.
    
    >The "middle-class millionaire" is a Republican wet dream.
    
    Not according to what I've read.  After all, a million bucks isn't
    what it used to be.  And not all millionaires live lives of conspicuous
    consumption, as you imply.
    
    >The rich won't be there by your side protecting you and yours when
    >the proverbial excrement hits the fan.
    
    I never asked them to.  I expect people to look after their own
    interests first, survival being a strong element of human nature.
    This does not mean that I expect them to ignore everything but those
    things that directly touch their lives.  Perhaps the problem is
    that you're equating corporations with rich people.  Many millionaires
    (these "middle-class millionaires") make their money with small
    businesses, often in the service industry.
    
    >What then is the purpose of society, of government?
    
    They balance individual needs against general needs.  I think you're
    tipping the balance too far in one direction, particularly since
    you've yet to sufficiently justify the benefits of your policy.
    
    >Why should the 'average American' work and study and protect a way
    >of life that exists only to benefit a small group of elitists?
    
    They shouldn't.  Fortunately, they don't.  Nor will they.
    
    >When does the well-being of the whole supersede the whims of the
    >wealthy?
    
    When you allow the government to dictate how income can be spent,
    you set a precedent that can be invoked against *all* members of
    society.  In this case, you're saying that I should not be allowed
    to purchase a yacht and a New York penthouse and a country estate
    with my annual income.  Yet isn't it an equally valid argument that
    the poor should not spend their money on non-essentials unless they've
    secured the essentials?  So you should prohibit people with an income
    of less than $N from buying Cheetos, TV sets, jewelry and designer
    jeans.  After all, that would benefit society, n'est-ce pas?  These
    people would leave healthier lives if they didn't waste their money
    on non-essentials.
    
    By implementing your policy, you are saying that the right to control
    your own income is subordinate to the needs of society.  That argument
    supports spending controls for anyone, regardless of what they make,
    so long as it benefits society.  That argument supports a requirement
    that everyone buy American-made cars, since it's in the interests
    of society to keep employment levels in the auto industry up.  Maybe
    you won't like that, but it's consistent with the premise you're
    using.  Consider *all* the implications of the policy, not just
    the ones you're interested in.  Sometimes the big picture doesn't
    look quite so rosy.
    
    >I assume that you understand that we are not discussing "you"
    >personally
    
    Of course.  That still leaves my question unanswered, however. 
    What is freedom of choice worth?
    
    >I don't understand what you're talking about.  
    
    The point being debated is whether a maximum income level is beneficial
    and desirable.  My point is that a discussion of income taxes has
    no relevance on the benefits or desirability of a maximum income
    level.
    
    >If income taxes are "artificial and intrusive" also, then a precedent
    >has already been set for implementation of artificial and intrusive
    >measures for the public good.  A maximum income would be no more
    >artificial or intrusive than the income tax.
    
    Yes, but that doesn't address the question of whether a maximum
    income is a good idea.  Just because you CAN do something doesn't
    mean you OUGHT to do something.
    
    >We can't afford to ignore this growing and dangerous trend.  We
    >must find a solution to this problem while we still can.
    
    I haven't disputed that.  My argument is that the solution you raise
    is not only ineffective but dangerous.

    It took me awhile, but with the aid of a trusted friend, I have
    procured some statistics that should convince you, Mary, that your
    assertion that 90% of R&D money is spent by the DoD on defense related
    issues.
    
    And away we go...
    
	   The following information was extracted from "The 
	Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1988 (108th
	edition).  It is a reprint of chart 512, "Federal Research
	and Development Funding for National Defense, 1980 to 1987".
	Incidentally, this chart shows where the misconception has
	arisen that the DoD spends 90% of the research and development
	money.  Indeed, they do spend 90% of the DEFENSE-RELATED 
	Research and Development money... but not 90% of ALL R&D
	monies spent in the U.S.  Not even close!


			  	+----------- Dollars (Billions) ---------------+
Defense Programs		 1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987
-----------------------------	 ----  ----  ----  ----  ----  ----  ----  ----
TOTAL				 14.9  18.4  22.1  24.9  29.3  33.7  35.9  40.3

Department of Defense (Military) 13.8  17.1  20.5  23.3  27.3  31.4  34.7  37.9
   R&D, test, evaluation	 13.3  16.5  19.9  22.6  26.6  30.9  33.7  36.9
      Tactical programs		  5.2   6.1   6.9   7.3   7.9   9.1  10.3  11.0
      Strategic programs	  2.2   3.4   4.6   5.8   7.9   8.2   7.5   8.1
      Intelligence/communication  1.2   1.6   2.2   2.7   3.4   4.0   4.5   4.9
      Adv. technical development  0.6   0.6   0.8   0.8   1.4   2.8   4.1   5.4
      Defensewide mission support 1.9   2.1   2.5   2.8   3.0   3.8   4.1   4.2
      Technology base   	  2.3   2.6   2.9   3.2   3.1   3.1   3.2   3.2
   Other DoD Military		  0.5   0.6   0.6   0.7   0.7   0.6   1.0   0.9

Atomic Energy defense activities  1.1   1.3   1.5   1.6   1.9   2.3   2.3   2.4
  Weapons R&D and testing	  0.6   0.8   0.9   0.9   1.3   1.5   1.5   1.5
  Naval reactors development	  0.2   0.3   0.3   0.3   0.4   0.4   0.5   0.5


	   Now, to firmly lay the question to rest, I present (from the
	same source) chart number 948, "Research and Development Outlays:
	1980 to 1987", which clearly shows that the actual "defense" 
	percentage of the R&D funds is only about **** 30%. ****

	+---Current Dollars---+ +-----Percent of Total R&D Outlays------+
	|     (Billions)      | +-Federally Funded--+ +--Other Outlays--+
	|                     | | (Defense & Space) | |                 |
Year	 Total  Defense  Other	 Total Defense Space   Total NonFed  Fed
----     -----  -------  -----   ----- ------- -----   ----- ------  ---
1980     62.6    18.2    44.5     29     22      7      71     53    18
1981     71.8    21.6    50.3     30     23      7      70     54    16
1982     79.3    25.4    53.9     32     25      7      68     54    14
1983     87.2    29.6    57.6     34     27      7      66     53    13
1984     97.6    33.2    64.4     34     28      6      66     54    12
1985    107.5    39.8    67.7     37     31      6      63     52    11
1986    116.8    45.5    71.3     39     32      7      61     51    10
1987    124.2    48.5    75.7     39     32      7      61     51    10

	   The following text was extracted from the book "Extraordinary
	Origins Of Everyday Things" by Charles Panati.  It points out a
	few specific examples of where Defense research projects led to
	the development of consumer goods.  Enjoy.

		   "In the early 1940s, the U.S. War Production Board
		sought a substitute for synthetic rubber.  It would be
		used in the mass production of jeep and airplane tires,
		gas masks, and a wide variety of military gear.  The 
		Board approached General Electric [don't ask me why...
		I just reprint this stuff], and a company engineer, 
		James Wright, was assigned to investigate the possibility
		of chemically synthesizing a cheaper, all-purpose rubber.
		   Working with boric acid and silicone oil, Wright
		succeeded in creating a rubber-like compound with highly
		unusual properties.  The pliant goo stretched farther 
		than rubber, rebounded 25 percent more than the best 
		rubber ball, and was impervious to molds and decay, and
		withstood a wide range of temperatures without decomposing.
		And it possessed the novel property, when flattened 
		across newspaper print or a comic book image, of lifting
		the ink onto itself."

	   It was, of course, what would later be known as Silly Putty.
        I admit, silly putty is far from the greatest invention known to
        man, nonetheless, it refutes the notion that DoD money has no
        benefit to society outside defense. Perhaps a more 'practical' 
        example follows.

		   "Microwave cooking can accurately be described as the
		first absolutely new method of preparing food since Homo
		erectus's discovery of fire a million and a half years 
		ago.  The claim is justified by the fact that in microwave
		cooking there is no application of fire, or of a fiery 
		element, direct or indirect, to the food.  Pure electro-
		magnetic energy agitates the water molecules in food,
		producing sufficient heat for cooking.
	   	   The electron tube that produces microwave energy --
		a magnetron -- was in use a decade before the birth of
		the microwave oven.  It was the ingenious 1940 invention 
		of Sir John Randall and Dr. H.A. Boot, perfected at 
		Ebgland's Birmingham University.  The thoughts of the 
		two scientists were focused not on how to roast a turkey,
		but on how to cook the Nazi's goose.  For the magentron
		was essential to Britain's radar defenses during World
		War II.
	  	   Thoughts of cooking with the internal heat of microwaves
		did not occur until after the war years -- and then
		entirely as a result of an accident.
		   One day in 1946, Dr. Percy Spencer, an engineer with 
		Raytheon Company, was testing a magnetron tube when he
		reached into his pocket for a candy bar.  He discovered
		thatthe chocolate had melted into a soft, gooey mess.
		Well aware that microwaves generated heat, he wondered 
		if the candy had been critically close to radiation 
		leaking from the tube.  He'd sensed no heat.  Too
		intrigued to be irritat`ed over a pair of soiled trousers,
		he sent out for a bag of popcorn kernels, placed them
		near the tube, and within minutes, kernels were popping
		over the laboratory floor."

	   So, as we can see, money spent on military research DOES 
	often end up providing products to the private sector... and
	products which can revolutionize the way we cook, play, and
	live.

        The Doctah

    Doy!
    
    The first paragraph of .90 should end with the two words "is false."
    
    Doc

Note 577.90          
WAHOO::LEVESQUE 


>
>	Incidentally, this chart shows where the misconception has
>	arisen that the DoD spends 90% of the research and development
>	money.  Indeed, they do spend 90% of the DEFENSE-RELATED 
>	Research and Development money... but not 90% of ALL R&D
>	monies spent in the U.S.  Not even close!

Just a couple of points Mark.  The first chart is dollar amounts not
percentages.  It seems to me that the question is how much of the total 
R&D money spent in the US is DEFENSE-RELATED and thereby "classified". 

Also, to separate Space R&D from Defense R&D seems like an exercise in
creative bookkeeping since the entire StarWars project could be classified
under Space Research.

Silly Putty is fun and the microwave sure comes in handy but these things
were the result of research done in the forties (according to your statistics).
Do they really justify the billions of dollars we spend on DoD now,
the billions we have spent within the last few years?  Has the quality
of life improved?  Has our nations health and well-being improved? 
Have we contributed to the eco-system?  In short, are we any better
off now than we were in the 1040s with the exception of Silly Putty
and Microwave Ovens?                

Mary
                    

    I submit that the author of the article in .0 was using hyperbole
    to wake readers up to the fact that something is outrageously wrong in 
    America when people with jobs can't afford homes, when one in five (!) 
    children lives in poverty, when the very wealthy are getting wealthier 
    and wealthier while the very poor are getting poorer and poorer.
                                               
    I submit that we have all missed the point.
                        

    Thank you (sigh).  It appears to be a difficult point to grasp.
    
    Mary

Note 577.89          
ACESMK::CHELSEA 


>    As I understood it, the cap on disposable income was to be set so
>    that the money over that maximum level could be used (in some as
>    yet clearly specified way) to offset costs of social programs. 
>    If the cap is set at $551 million and no one *makes* over that amount,
>    what's the point of setting the maximum?  Why do something if it
>    has no effect?

It assumes that the 1987 top salary will become common in coming years.

>    >The article doesn't want to limit existing salary and certainly
>    >doesn't want to touch anyone's "possessions".
>
>    I own my money; it is certainly one of my possessions.

The distinction is between 'existing' salary and 'potential' salary.
Your possessions are quite safe.
    
>    But saying, "You have no access to your own money over x amount" is
>    full control over my money.  Even that money I can still make use
>    of is subject to control, since I could be deprived of the use of
>    it at some later point.

No one said that so its not an issue.
    
>    Minimum wage is a way of trying to ensure that working is an
>    financially viable alternative -- that people can make a living
>    by working.

People cannot 'make a living' that keeps them beyond the poverty level
now with minimum wage.  Minimum wage now serves to keep wages artificially
low.  The minimum is the base on which all wages are judged... 
the very high salary's (such as Michael Milkens) are not included
in the averages.
    
>    The rich do have limitations; they are hardly omnipotent.  The minimum
>    wage serves as a lower bound on their income, just as it serves
>    as the lower bound of any worker's income.  Nor are the rich the
>    only ones who have no upper bound on their income.  NO ONE has an
>    upper bound on their income.  So much for rhetoric.

I never thought they were omnipotent.  Nor do I believe that the minimum
wage serves as a lower bound on the income of people who earn $551
million dollars a year.  Lets be real here.
    
>    Not according to what I've read.  After all, a million bucks isn't
>    what it used to be.  And not all millionaires live lives of conspicuous
>    consumption, as you imply.
    
Where did you read that?  And where did I imply that?


>    I never asked them to.  I expect people to look after their own
>    interests first, survival being a strong element of human nature.
>    This does not mean that I expect them to ignore everything but those
>    things that directly touch their lives.  Perhaps the problem is
>    that you're equating corporations with rich people.  Many millionaires
>    (these "middle-class millionaires") make their money with small
>    businesses, often in the service industry.

One million dollars is small potatoes compared to the kind of money we are
discussing.  The "millionaires" are not even a part of the issue.  Its
the billionaires and beyond that we are talking about.

>    They balance individual needs against general needs.  I think you're
>    tipping the balance too far in one direction, particularly since
>    you've yet to sufficiently justify the benefits of your policy.

The balance has been tipped in the other direction for too long and it will
continue to tip until it is too late unless something is done about  it.

>    In this case, you're saying that I should not be allowed to purchase 
>    a yacht and a New York penthouse and a country estate with my annual 
>    income.  

No I'm not.  I'm talking about setting maximum income levels not specifying
the purchase of specific commodities. 

>    By implementing your policy, you are saying that the right to control
>    your own income is subordinate to the needs of society.  That argument
>    supports spending controls for anyone, regardless of what they make,
>    so long as it benefits society.  That argument supports a requirement
>    that everyone buy American-made cars, since it's in the interests
>    of society to keep employment levels in the auto industry up.  Maybe
>    you won't like that, but it's consistent with the premise you're
>    using.  Consider *all* the implications of the policy, not just
>    the ones you're interested in.  Sometimes the big picture doesn't
>    look quite so rosy.
    
We are not talking about controlling one's own income.  We are not talking
about controlling an individual's spending or restricting that spending
to specific commodity.  To look at the big picture, one must first 
understand what they are looking at.

>    Of course.  That still leaves my question unanswered, however. 
>    What is freedom of choice worth?

About $3.35 an hour right now.
    
>    The point being debated is whether a maximum income level is beneficial
>    and desirable.  My point is that a discussion of income taxes has
>    no relevance on the benefits or desirability of a maximum income
>    level.
 
You said in a previous note that it would be "artificial and intrusive",
I was merely pointing out that there are already existing policies that
are also artificial and intrusive and that set a legal precedent. 
   
>    Yes, but that doesn't address the question of whether a maximum
>    income is a good idea.  Just because you CAN do something doesn't
>    mean you OUGHT to do something.

Weigh the pros and cons.  Determine the greatest good.  I am saying
that we OUGHT to do something.    
    
>    I haven't disputed that.  My argument is that the solution you raise
>    is not only ineffective but dangerous.

Do you have a proposal for an effective and safe solution?  I'd really
like to hear it.

Mary

>Just a couple of points Mark.  The first chart is dollar amounts not
>percentages.  It seems to me that the question is how much of the total 
>R&D money spent in the US is DEFENSE-RELATED and thereby "classified". 
 
 True. However, looking at the second chart we see exactly who spends the
money on what.

>Also, to separate Space R&D from Defense R&D seems like an exercise in
>creative bookkeeping since the entire StarWars project could be classified
>under Space Research.
 
 But that's not what is on chart 2. The topic is federally funded defense
AND space, all lumped together. The chart shows quite clearly that the
DEFENSE related federal funds (including space) comprised just 40% of the
total outlays. In fact, all federal outlays for R&D were less than 50% (49)
of the total expenditures on R&D. FWIW- Star Wars is not paid for out of
the space money. It is mostly paid for with Air Force money.

The Doctah                    
    

    Re: .95
    
    >It assumes that the 1987 top salary will become common in coming
    >years.
    
    "Common"?  How common is common?  I wouldn't assume that at all.
    
    >>>The article doesn't want to limit existing salary and certainly
    >>>doesn't want to touch anyone's "possessions".
    >>
    >>I own my money; it is certainly one of my possessions.
    > 
    >The distinction is between 'existing' salary and 'potential' salary.
                                                                      
    Which distinction where?  And what exactly is this distinction?
    According to the proposal in .0 (remember .0?), if I make more than
    $1 million dollars, the excess gets put away.  The interest on my
    money -- which is one of my possessions -- is taken away from me
    entirely.  If I never make less that $1 million, the excess over
    the years is also completely taken away from me, since I am not
    allowed access to it.
    
    >No one said that so its not an issue.
    
    I've said it; it's an issue.
    
    >People cannot 'make a living' that keeps them beyond the poverty
    >level now with minimum wage.
    
    So raise the minimum wage.
    
    >I never thought they were omnipotent.
    
    If they are without limitations, they are omnipotent.
    
    >Nor do I believe that the minimum wage serves as a lower bound
    >on the income of people who earn $551 million dollars a year. 
    >Lets be real here.
    
    Welcome to reality.  The minimum wage serves as a lower bound for
    on wages -- whether or not anyone approaches those boundaries. 
    That's the definition of a minimum wage.
    
    >Where did you read that?
    
    One source that comes to mind is an article in _Working Woman_,
    I believe.  I read it on a plane, so I wasn't paying a whole lot
    of attention to the title.  Then, of course, there's Mr. Walton,
    founder of Wal-Mart, disputedly the richest man in the US, who runs
    around in jeans and a battered pickup truck.
    
    >And where did I imply that?
    
    Your use of the word "excesses" comes to mind.
    
    >One million dollars is small potatoes compared to the kind of money
    >we are discussing.  The "millionaires" are not even a part of the
    >issue.  Its the billionaires and beyond that we are talking about.
    
    Ah.  It's so hard to keep track of the limit; moving targets are
    such a pain.
    
    If, as you state elsewhere, the article was indulging in hyperbole
    to highlight a problem, why are we even discussing it at all?
    
    >The balance has been tipped in the other direction for too long
    
    I disagree that the individual needs have been emphasized for too
    long.  Given the sodomy case in Georgia, civil rights and abortion,
    just to name a few issues, I think individual needs should be
    emphasized even more.
    
    >We are not talking about controlling one's own income.
    
    Oh, yes we are.  If I am denied access to money I have earned, I
    do not have control over my own income.
    
    >We are not talking about controlling an individual's spending or
    >restricting that spending to specific commodity.
    
    You aren't.  I am.  The argument is:  If someone makes more that
    $n a year, the excess should be placed in a trust fund and the interest
    used to offset certain societal expenses.  This should be done for
    the greater good.
    
    What you're proposing is very specific.  What you're using as a
    justification for this move is very general.  If your general argument
    can be used to justify this specific move, it can be used to justify
    any number of things -- some of which you probably won't find as
    agreeable.
    
    >I was merely pointing out that there are already existing policies
    >that are also artificial and intrusive and that set a legal precedent.
    
    And I merely pointed out the irrelevance of that point.
    
    >Determine the greatest good.
    
    I consider that a very sloppy measurement for evaluating policy,
    since people have different definitions of what is good.
    
    >I am saying that we OUGHT to do something.
    
    You are saying more than "We OUGHT to do something to address this
    situation."  You are saying "We OUGHT to implement this specific
    plan."  My point is that just because we CAN implement a specific
    plan, that doesn't mean we OUGHT to implement that specific plan.
    
    >Do you have a proposal for an effective and safe solution?  I'd
    >really like to hear it.
    
    No.  If I had the answers, I'd go into politics and try to get them
    implemented.  As it stands, I have only general ideas of the kind
    of direction I think should be followed.  Your proposal is simple
    enough to be easily analyzed; discovering the flaws does not take
    much work.  The situation to be addressed is very broad and complex;
    it cannot be easily analyzed by someone who makes her living doing
    something else entirely.

Note 577.98     
ACESMK::CHELSEA 


>    As it stands, I have only general ideas of the kind
>    of direction I think should be followed.  

I am extremely interested in hearing your general ideas of the kind of 
direction that you think should be followed.  Since you obviously believe
that I am on the wrong track in attempting to find a solution to this problem, 
perhaps you can provide some direction to this complex and disturbing
trend that is growing within our society.

What are your ideas on the direction that should be followed?

Mary          

    As I said before, rather than holding down the upper levels, I think
    we should work on pushing up the lower levels.  Certainly the minimum
    wage should be raised; it might be a good idea to tie it to inflation.
    Not a terrible hardship these days with the shrinking labor pool.
    On the other hand, there are arguments against automatic wage
    increases.  After all, Digital doesn't have them.
    
    I look toward education as a way of addressing a number of economic
    and societal problems.  Improve the basic skills of all people,
    which improves their ability to learn.  Improve their sets of
    marketable skills, so they can get better jobs.  The problem, of
    course, is how to improve education and job opportunities.  I've
    addressed some of this issues elsewhere.  (I believe there's a note
    on education around here somewhere.)

    <--(.100)
    
�     I look toward education as a way of addressing a number of economic
�     and societal problems.  Improve the basic skills of all people,
�     which improves their ability to learn.  Improve their sets of
�     marketable skills, so they can get better jobs.

    Chelsea, I think you may be ignoring the problem of "qualifications
    inflation".  For example, it wasn't so long ago that a high school
    education qualified a person for nearly any job, and a person with an
    MA was considered well-prepared to teach at any college or university.
    Not so today, as we all know.  Now one nearly has to have a high school
    education to work at Burger King, and an MA is typically insufficient
    for even an Assistant Professor rank at most four-year schools.
    
    Quite a few third-world countries in particular have learned about this
    problem the hard way:  they send their smart kids off to Oxford or Yale
    or wherever...and then have no suitable jobs for them afterward!  It's
    thought to be a significant factor in political instability in those
    places.
    
    						=maggie

That's interesting Maggie; I was looking at it the other way around. If
everyone improves their skills so they can get better jobs, who'll do the worse
ones?

	Mez

    With the computerized terminals and state-of-the-art machinery
    in the average Burger King, you really *do* need a high-school
    diploma. 

    re .103
    
>   With the computerized terminals and state-of-the-art machinery
>   in the average Burger King, you really *do* need a high-school
>   diploma.
    
    As the chief engineer for 10 years in a company that designed,
    manufactured, sold, serviced, and trained in the cash register
    and related equipment for the fast food industry, I would say
    that if a high school diploma were indeed needed to operate this
    equipment, then this is an indictment of our high schools.
    
    Les
    

    
    Note 577.100         
ACESMK::CHELSEA 


>    As I said before, rather than holding down the upper levels, I think
>    we should work on pushing up the lower levels.  Certainly the minimum
>    wage should be raised; it might be a good idea to tie it to inflation.

I agree with you on this, however the Bush administration (I believe this is
a Republican philosophy) says that raising the minimum wage *causes* inflation.
That is why he has vowed to veto the bill Congress is sending him to raise 
the minimum.  I doubt he would tie automatic increases to the inflation
rate.    

>    Not a terrible hardship these days with the shrinking labor pool.
>    On the other hand, there are arguments against automatic wage
>    increases.  After all, Digital doesn't have them.

I get reviewed on a regular basis here at DEC.  I thought everyone did.

>    I look toward education as a way of addressing a number of economic
>    and societal problems.  Improve the basic skills of all people,
>    which improves their ability to learn.  

This would be great but there is less money for schools and teachers today
unfortunately, ... not more.  America has a fairly high drop out rate too 
(although it varies from state to state).  The cost of a college education
is high today, even in state schools, the costs are going up and there is 
less money for grants and loans for students.  

The other problem here is that poverty has often already done its work
before kids ever hit school.  Poor nutrition, poor pre-natal care and        
lack of infant health care can stunt intelligence before a child has    
a chance to learn.  I've read that high SAT scores are more a measure
of afluence than anything else.  It seems as if the education system is
counting on us to bail it out.  I don't think it can bail us out.

>    Improve their sets of
>    marketable skills, so they can get better jobs.  The problem, of
>    course, is how to improve education and job opportunities.  I've
>    addressed some of this issues elsewhere.  (I believe there's a note
>    on education around here somewhere.)

We appear to be headed into an economic downturn.  In this particular state
(Mass) the biggest employer (DEC) has a hiring (and a wage) freeze.  
The new jobs created during the Reagan administrations are for the most part 
minimum wage (with a six month training wage) 'service-sector' (McDonalds) 
jobs.  Certainly most service sector jobs neither warrant nor need a college 
degree, but then most service sector jobs won't support a family nor pay
a mortgage.

Although all of your suggestions are good, they all involve areas of our
society that have already been identified as trouble spots themselves.
They themselves are problems that must be addressed, they won't bail us
out.  

And as the recession takes hold (the Consumer Price Index - the most
common measure of inflation - rose beyond expectations so the FED might
have to raise interest rates again to contain it... a dangerous move
in light of the fact that the economy is already slowing down), and 
as the middle class sinks into deeper financial difficulty, the chances 
of a "prosperous" middle class acting as an economic buffer,
able to bail out the education and political systems, drops
proportionally.  The DOW hit a new post-crash high yesterday, and
it took four rounds of dollar sales and the combined efforts of a dozen
central banks in a barrage of intervention to beat the dollar lower
yesterday.  We may not have a lot of time to work these things out.          
                                                     
    Mary

>I agree with you on this, however the Bush administration (I believe this is
>a Republican philosophy) says that raising the minimum wage *causes* inflation.
    
    No. The belief is that since the cost of labor would go up, and the
    ability to pay for the labor would stay the same, the total number of
    workers would decrease- increasing unemployment. That is why the
    president is against raising the mw above $4.25/hr.
    
>I get reviewed on a regular basis here at DEC.  I thought everyone did.
    
    Yes, but that has nothing to do with the amount of your raise. If the
    company is sucking wind and you are doing a fantastic job, you still
    won't get a good raise. You may not even get one at all (salary
    freeze). Tying raises to inflation means automatic increases,
    regardless of ability to pay- implication is of much higher
    unemployment.
    
>I've read that high SAT scores are more a measure
>of afluence than anything else. 
    
    Written, undoubtedly by one with poor SAT scores. :-)
    
    The Doctah

Note 577.107        
WAHOO::LEVESQUE 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    No. The belief is that since the cost of labor would go up, and the
>    ability to pay for the labor would stay the same, the total number of
>    workers would decrease- increasing unemployment. That is why the
>    president is against raising the mw above $4.25/hr.
 
    But Mark, if the ability to pay for the labor stays the same then
    where does the 'profit margin' and these enormous salaries (such
    as Michael Milkens $551 million that we have been discussing)
    come from?  
    Well, regardless... this doesn't appear to be an acceptable option
    to the current administration.
       
    
>    Yes, but that has nothing to do with the amount of your raise. If the
>    company is sucking wind and you are doing a fantastic job, you still
>    won't get a good raise. You may not even get one at all (salary
>    freeze). Tying raises to inflation means automatic increases,
>    regardless of ability to pay- implication is of much higher
>    unemployment.
 
    I have read (today's Globe) that 'real earnings have fallen 0.9
    percent just over the last year.  Guess this won't help us either
    Chelsea (sigh).   

>    Written, undoubtedly by one with poor SAT scores. :-)
 
    :-) :-)  
           
    Mary

    Mary-
    
     Michael Milken's company (Drexel?) has very few if any minimum wage
    jobs, thus it is not helpful to dredge that up in the context of
    businesses that do. You have a hair across your fanny about his
    earnings last year. Fine. I'm jealous too. But let's examine the issue,
    shall we?
    
     There are many workers currently employed by businesses that are small
    to medium in size. These companies are far more vulnerable to changes
    in costs than a large company. Many of these businesses are on the fine
    line between profitability and insolvency. Some will undoubtedly go
    belly up due to an increase in the minimum wage, others will go belly
    up for other reasons, others will absorb the increased costs in stride.
    
     Whenever something thinks about business, they think about Wall
    Street, skyscrapers and such. They rarely think of Ralph's Tire co,
    etc. It is important to remember that a large segment of the workforce
    is employe by small to medium sized businesses. To do anything that
    makes these businesses more likely to fail is dangerous.
    
     When a company is unable to make a profit and they throw it in, people
    become unemployed. Real people. People making $5/hr and $25/hr. People
    making $3.35 an hour. They now make $0/hr.
    
     Our country affords great opportunity to those willing to rise to the
    challenge. Small companies can become big companies. If you make it
    difficult for small companies to become bigger, you make that company's
    ability to draw in workers smaller. This makes unemployment a problem.
    Of course, having a huge workforce making $3.35/hr isn't that much help
    either, but that rarely happens. It's the law of supply and demand in
    action.
    
     I predict that here in the northeast, you will see fewer
    advertisements for $5.25/hr to start at McDonalds, etc. The supply of
    jobs is becoming less than the demand (for the first timew in a few
    years). The wages offered will correspondingly drop.
    
    The Doctah

	I dont agree that raising the min wage will be inflationary
	and will drive out all small businesses. Consider that ALL
	small businesses will be in the same situation.

		The thing I hear a great deal about is that paying
	teachers more is not an issue but if we don't pay the
	congressfolks alot more we wont get good people. The obvious
	dichottomy (sp) is very disturbing. We need to pay teachers,
	especially good ones, more. Congress should get a 1% reduction
	in pay for every 10 billion in deficits they create. A
	simular reduction for especially the clowns at Beacon Hill.
	How come more than 85% come back for the next term?

    
>     Michael Milken's company (Drexel?) has very few if any minimum wage
>    jobs, thus it is not helpful to dredge that up in the context of
>    businesses that do. You have a hair across your fanny about his
>    earnings last year. Fine. I'm jealous too. But let's examine the issue,
>    shall we?
 
    Mark, men who know me well enough to refer to my fanny in a public
    notesfile may call me Darling.    As facinating as my fanny is...
    I am afraid you will have to leave it behind...  and discuss the subject
    at hand.
                                                                       
    We cannot properly evaluate the state of America's economy by breaking
    it down into individual companies.  It is all tied together.
    The money that is paid to those earners of minimum wage (and I'll bet 
    Drexel has a few in their mailroom) is certainly tied to the money
    that Drexel paid Milken.  The $551 million did not appear out of a
    dream.  Where did it come from?  
    
    Well one of the places it came from is those companies who do pay
    minimum wages to their own employees.
       
  >  There are many workers currently employed by businesses that are small
  >  to medium in size. These companies are far more vulnerable to changes
  >  in costs than a large company. Many of these businesses are on the fine
  >  line between profitability and insolvency. Some will undoubtedly go
  >  belly up due to an increase in the minimum wage, others will go belly
  >  up for other reasons, others will absorb the increased costs in stride.
    
    In today's world of leveraged buyouts and huge conglomerates the
    small companies are frequently exempted from laws and rules that
    govern the larger companies.   Just as libraries are exempt from paying
    minimum wages today.
    
 >     Whenever something thinks about business, they think about Wall
 >   Street, skyscrapers and such. They rarely think of Ralph's Tire co,
 >   etc. It is important to remember that a large segment of the workforce
 >   is employe by small to medium sized businesses. To do anything that
 >   makes these businesses more likely to fail is dangerous.
    
    How large a segment Mark?  Do those business pay the same interest
    rates as the large ones?  Do they have access to the same R&D funds?
    Are they subject to hostile takeover?   I don't believe you can
    separate small business into a vacuum, they are only a part of the
    big picture.
    
 >      When a company is unable to make a profit and they throw it in, people
 >   become unemployed. Real people. People making $5/hr and $25/hr. People
 >   making $3.35 an hour. They now make $0/hr.
    
    I believe there will be a lot of that in the future I'm sorry to
    say.  But I don't really believe that minimum wage jobs are that
    difficult to find or worth that much to the economy or to society.
    After all, one cannot support a family on it.
    
 >      Our country affords great opportunity to those willing to rise to the
 >   challenge. Small companies can become big companies. If you make it
 >   difficult for small companies to become bigger, you make that company's
 >   ability to draw in workers smaller. This makes unemployment a problem.
 >   Of course, having a huge workforce making $3.35/hr isn't that much help
 >   either, but that rarely happens. It's the law of supply and demand in
 >   action.
    
    If we judge from the MIT report that is the predominant trend.  $3.35
    an hour isn't enough money to raise and educate a child that will contribute
    much to the future work force.  If you aim to maintain a lower class
    of subsistance laborers it would work,... except that conditions
    could develop (like birth control and abortion being unavailable
    to the poor) that increases the size of the subsistance laborers
    until they far outnumber the others....  then what?
    
    
 >      I predict that here in the northeast, you will see fewer
 >   advertisements for $5.25/hr to start at McDonalds, etc. The supply of
 >   jobs is becoming less than the demand (for the first timew in a few
 >   years). The wages offered will correspondingly drop.
    
    I predict that you will see computer programmers from Wang and other
    high tech companies looking for work anywhere they can get it, 
    losing their homes in forclosures due to high interest rates, they
    will have already lost their health benefits which in the US are
    supplied by employers.  They will not be able to support their 
    families on minimum wage or educate their children beyond high school.
    At this rate they will have no recourse except to 
    polish up the old assault rifle and dream about the 'good old days'.
                                                  
    Mary

    
    re .111
    
    If I may add just a few more points about our minimum wage.
                                                  
    	* the minimum wage has been at its current level for 8 years
    	  during which the cost of living went up 36%
    
    	* The Spear Foundation, a small underfunded Washington think
          tank, has studied the economic arguments against a minimum
          wage increase and has concluded that they are poppycock.
          Less than 4 million people worked at minimum wage last year
          and a recent University of Michigan study said that no more
          than 70,000 jobs might be lost.
    
        * In a recent survey of 708 of the country's top corporate executives,
          Business Week found they take home an average of $1 million
          a year in salaries and bonuses - an average of $2 million a year
          if you count stock options and other compensation.
                      
          So its not that the money isn't there, its a question of who
          is getting it, whether the trend continues, and what kind
          of society that trend will eventually create.
          

    Re:  .101
    
    I did think about the problem of pushing up from the bottom but
    not getting any improvement relevant to rising costs, etc.  The
    trick is to improve on a relative scale, not an absolute.  But I
    was going to be late to my bridge game, so I left.
    
    Re:  .108
    
    A nit, perhaps, but I think it's significant:  To my knowledge,
    Michael Milken did not draw $551 million in salary.  He earned $551
    million in salary, commissions and other earnings, which is something
    different altogether.  His income is more closely tied to performance
    than most people's.
    
    >I doubt he would tie automatic increases to the inflation rate.
    
    It's possible to get him to change his mind.
    
    >This would be great but there is less money for schools and teachers
    >today unfortunately, ... not more.
    
    Yes, which makes coming up with solutions even harder.  As even
    Digital is recognizing, there are ways to approach problems without
    throwing money at them -- streamlining production and reducing
    overhead.  Also, there are other resources besides money which can
    be mobilized.
    
    >The other problem here is that poverty has often already done its
    >work before kids ever hit school.
    
    True.  (Did I mention that the situation was complex? ...)  This
    is something that ought to improve as the economic situation of
    poor people improves.  I suspect that, given the changes in family
    structure, we might need some kind of policy (on state or federal
    level) for child care.
    
    >We appear to be headed into an economic downturn.
    
    Innovation is one way out of stagnation.  New industries will develop
    over time.  People who are better able to learn new skills will
    be better able to fill the needs of the changing marketplace.  Also,
    with the labor pool shrinking, employers will need to make their
    employees more efficient.  This requires good education and
    flexibility.
    
    >They themselves are problems that must be addressed, they won't
    >bail us out.
    
    But won't addressing those problems go a good ways toward bailing
    us out?  I'm inclined to think so.  (It's the "root causes" idea
    rearing its head again.)

    
    all of these musings on economics have been quite interesting, but
    somehow it seems to me to be off the point.
    
    if someone works at $4/hr for 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, they will
    make $8320 in a year. it is intuitively obvious that that is not enough
    money to own a home or support a family. i believe that any person who
    puts in a 40 hour week year round and does the job should be able to
    afford a home or support a family.
    
    if one person makes $8000/yr and another person makes $1000000/yr, we
    are in effect saying that the second person's work is worth 125 times
    more than the first person's work. i reject the notion that any
    person's work could possibly be that much more valuable than another's.
    
    someone mentioned a company where noone made more than 5 times more
    than anyone else, top to bottom. this is the kind of thinking we need.
    as i said at the beginning, ther has been some great discussion of
    economics. but what is economics but the study of value? but value is
    not a constant, given thing. value is only what we say it is. we need
    to value people, *all* people more (and *some* people less).
    

    
    
    RE: .106
    
    >The new jobs created during the Reagan administration are for the
     most part minimum wage (with a six month training wage) 'service
    sector' (McDonalds) jobs.
    
    
      This statement is completely and utterly false. Most of the new
    jobs are middle class level. As Mike likes to say: "good jobs at
    good wages".
      
      A few weeks ago USA Today had an article concerning the minimum
    wage. The article pointed out that the number of people working
    at the minimum wage now, as compared to the beginning of the
    Reagan years, is eight times LESS. This completely debunks the
    myth that most new jobs created were minimum wage.
    

    
    re:.116
    i recall quite clearly a statistic that over 50% of the jobs created
    during the Reagan years were 'service' jobs and that most of those were
    minimum wage jobs. 
    

    <--(.114)
    
    "a relative scale"?  I don't follow.  Are you talking about trying
    to level the disparities in education, make sure everyone who wants
    (and will work for) one gets a BA for example?
    
    					    =maggie

    >               -< the secretaries work harder than i do >-
    
     Then donate some of your salary to them.
    
>    i believe that any person who
>    puts in a 40 hour week year round and does the job should be able to
>    afford a home or support a family.       
    
    That is an entirely philosophic argument. It does not take into account
    worth at all. It also doesn't make sense.
    
>    i reject the notion that any
>    person's work could possibly be that much more valuable than another's.
 
    You reject what you cannot fathom. Pitiful. Value, in this context,
    refers to the laws of supply and demand. The supply of certain workers
    far exceeds the demand, hence they are paid less. The key difference
    between workers in this country is education. Those that eschew
    education doom themselves to inferior employment.
    
>    value is only what we say it is.     
    
     And we are saying it is ability to perform arbitrarily complex tasks
    in a timely and efficient manner. Those that cannot, have-not.
    
    The Doctah

When I first read this topic, I could see that arguments along the lines of
"This is not the American way!" would follow. I can empathize with the gut
reaction of "don't change something I like". I can empathize with the gut
reaction "smarmy over-paid money brokers make too much". I had nothing
intelligent to contribut, until this morning:

I saw a news clip on how much senators are paid for speaking. It seems there is
indeed a cap on how much they can make per year for speaking. And it seems that
the rest must (or is by convention) be given to charity.

Hey, we've got a rule like this [.0] already! I was sure surprised. Some of the
questions that jumped to my mind were: are senators different from
billionaires, or different from regular folks? is there something special about
speaking?
	Mez

Note 577.114         
ACESMK::CHELSEA 


>    The trick is to improve on a relative scale, not an absolute.  But I

What do you mean Chelsea?  Could you explain this please?  I don't understand
what you mean by 'improve on a relative scale, not an absolute'.
    

>    A nit, perhaps, but I think it's significant:  To my knowledge,
>    Michael Milken did not draw $551 million in salary.  He earned $551
>    million in salary, commissions and other earnings, which is something
>    different altogether.  His income is more closely tied to performance
>    than most people's.

Gee, he must have gotten a "one" that year_:-)   

>    It's possible to get him to change his mind.

It would be great to be able to do that... but how?  How does one reach
a president when all of our politicians are so wealthy and remote that
they haven't a clue as to the problems faced by the average person.

>    Yes, which makes coming up with solutions even harder.  As even
>    Digital is recognizing, there are ways to approach problems without
>    throwing money at them -- streamlining production and reducing
>    overhead.  Also, there are other resources besides money which can
>    be mobilized.

They are reducing overhead by laying off teachers, not buying materials
and new books... I don't see how that will improve the educational
system though, that merely improves the bottom line.  The business of
education is not to save money, it is to save minds.
What other resources are you referring to?


>    This
>    is something that ought to improve as the economic situation of
>    poor people improves.  

Well Chelsea, how *will* the economic situation of poor people improve?
That is really what we are discussing and there appears no imminent
solution even under discussion by the Bush administration.  The economic
situation of both poor people and the middle class is getting worse very
quickly.

>    Innovation is one way out of stagnation.  New industries will develop
>    over time.  People who are better able to learn new skills will
>    be better able to fill the needs of the changing marketplace.  Also,
>    with the labor pool shrinking, employers will need to make their
>    employees more efficient.  This requires good education and
>    flexibility.

It will be so hard for new industries to start up during a time of high
inflation and high interest rates.  And employers can always
solve their labor pool problems by moving their business overseas where
labor is cheaper and more abundant.  The Japanese are being given government
contracts to build some of our military planes now. 

And with education slipping so in this country people will not be qualified
to better learn new skills and fill the needs of the changing marketplace.
The labor pool won't shrink if big business moves overseas for its primary
focus.  

>    But won't addressing those problems go a good ways toward bailing
>    us out?  I'm inclined to think so.  (It's the "root causes" idea
>    rearing its head again.)

Oh definitely!  Its just that there is an infinite loop here.  The 
poverty leads to a lack of proper education and health while poor health
and a poor education perpetuates the poverty.  Where to break the cycle?
And how?  Especially when the current administration sets priorities elsewhere.

The U.S. is the only one of the big industrial countries (to my knowledge)
that leans on the private sector to provide health care for it's people.
No job = no insurance.  Schools are supported by property taxes so poor
neighborhoods have less to spend on teachers and education.  
Poor education = no job.  Its like an infinite loop.  

Opportunities seem to be getting fewer and farther between.  The house
I bought 11 years ago, I could not afford now.   I don't see how my
sons will ever be able to own their own homes even with an education.

Addressing the root problems means focusing our resources and priorities
on domestic concerns instead of on defense spending.  
Will we do it?  I sure hope so... but I don't see that as a priority for
the current administration or for their supporters until things are so
very bad that they must be addressed.  It may be out of control by then.

Mary

Note 577.88          
WAHOO::LEVESQUE 


> I tend to agree with you. The question is how to reapportion the distribution
> of wealth in such a manner that is fair and equitable for both rich and
> poor alike. I am worried about a precedent that would take money from those
> considered to be wealthy and give it to those considered to be poor. It
> sets a dangerous precedent that someone is better qualified to decide where
> my money goes than I am.

You do have a point there Mark... but what *are* we to do about this?
Something has to be done.

> No, the world's banks aren't more important than the survival of humanity.
>I think the destruction of the rainforests is an outrageous act of stupidity
>and shortsightedness, however, I am not sure what the US can do about it.

You're right.  We should govern ourselves on a global basis today.  The
world is too small and all of the major issues are global issues.

But remember that the rainforests are the lungs of the world.  If they
go, we all die... and thats it!  No amount of money or power or anything
else will change that.  We cannot just let it happen.  The U.S. cannot
just shrug it off, we have to breath too.

>Additionally, the third world countries are not forced to cut down their
>rainforests. They have already defaulted on so many immense loans, what's
>to stop them from defaulting on a few more? And where has all that money
>gone, anyway?

Same place as it goes here no doubt.  Former politicians, government 
administrators, and their friends have probably gathered it into private 
Swiss bank accounts.  Sort of like Marcos is said to have done in his country.

Why do they keep lending them money since they have defaulted on so many
past loans?  That doesn't happen here.... unless of course you have a 
friend who ran a Savings and Loan._:-)

> True. Management has lost sight of the benefits of R&D. I have always been
>fascinated with R&D, which is why I have found a position here. It bothers
>me to see some of the stupid decisions made regarding R&D. R&D is one of
>the most important parts to any company's long term health, and is doubly
>so in the case of countries.

True,... it is investing in the future.

> No, it's no joke. I think we have a failure to communicate here. I'll attempt
>to retransmit. :-) Given the state of the environment (already contaminated
>to some degree), it is a benefit to clean up the mess, to redress the problem.
>That we created the problem in the first place does not go unnoticed. Clearly
>it is a reparative action. But at least the problem isn't entirely ignored.

Lets not make it too profitable.  We don't want the environment being 
contaminated on purpose to create more business and increase the profit
margin.  

> Sure. Then why beat up on capitalism?

Because I'm an American of course_:-).  We start cleaning our own house first
before we complain to our neighbor about the state of his property.

Besides, the Soviet Union and China appear to be moving in the right 
direction these days.  There are no clear signals about where we are going
though.  I often wish that we had a Gorbachev to lead us.  

> re: nuclear policies and the greenhouse effect
>
>  It is not easy to reconcile the position of being anti-nuclear power and
>anti-greenhouse effect without being looked at with at least some disdain.
>Using nuclear power is one of the best ways to AVOID the greenhouse effect.

The problem (as I see it) is that nuclear power really *isn't* safe.  The 
NRC consistently appears more concerned with getting nuclear plants 
running than it is with seeing to it that they are safe.  

I don't trust the nuclear industry, so many things have happened. 
Three mile Island and Chernobly taught us to be wary while the NRC
now says evacuation plans are unnecessary.  And what do we do with the
stuff?  It lasts for, what? ... half a million years?  
Its not safe and we can't trust the nuclear industry or the government to 
adequately protect us.

I am not in favor of fossil fuel either though.  I think we should research
more solar (and perhaps cold fusion if it proves to be legitimate).

>Most anti-nuke people are pro-fossil fuel (which leads to an increase in
>the greenhouse effect). The simple fact is that hydro-electric power and
>solar power cannot fill the void left by the reductions in fossil fuel burning
>plants that are necessary to reduce the greenhouse effect. Nuclear power
>is necessary. But, like so many things that people do not understand, it
>has been shrouded in mystery and magic, and been manipulated by radicals,
>thus many intelligent people harbor a number of misconceptions about nuclear
>power. This coupled with the blundering tactics of the Nuke industry, leads
>to a no win situation. 

Then we have to change our twentieth century life style.  Solar would work
but it cannot be doled out and paid for a little at a time.  Once it is
in place and initial startup costs are paid, it is virtually free.  I think
this is why it is said to be unsatisfactory, because it cannot be 'owned'
by big business.

> The methods used to store nuclear waste are actually pretty good. Each
>container is tested by being dropped from 2000 feet onto a hard surface,
>by being driven into a cement wall at 80 mph, and by being immersed in jet
>fuel and ignited. To date not a single incident has occurred with spent
>fuel. I agree that there is a problem with storing the waste. On the other
>hand, I think that problem can be addressed "on the fly," while our
>observations regarding the greenhouse effect and dependence of our economy
>on foreign sources of fossil fuels are of more immediate concern.

I disagree that the problem can be addressed on the fly.  We don't know
what to do with it now Mark.  Ask the Japanese if they are worried about
the bomb 80 miles off of their coast leaking.  We can't wait until it is
too late to address an issue this important.  If we don't know what to do
about it once it is made, then we shouldn't make it.  

> I don't believe that the capitalists is typically the environment's best
>friend, if that's what you mean. I am not blind to the greed and corruption
>that contaminates our country directly and indirectly. I am aware that some
>of the problem is due to wanting to achieve a better "bottom line." But
>I feel that attributing character flaws to our economic system goes against
>my beliefs in personal responsibility. Besides, the gist of my reply was
>to simply give the other side of the coin. I don't contend that the capitalist
>is the best thing that ever happened to the environment. I think capitalism
>has good points and bad points wrt the environment. I don't think that is
>has been seen anywhere that any other workable system has been any better
>to the environment; that's all.

Not good enough.  We are living in a time where critical decisions must be
made about our way of life and our environment.  We may not be able to do
much about other countries but we must do something about our own
environmental habits.  Personal responsibility is something that I also
strongly believe in, but personal responsibility must apply to government
as well.  Our politicians must be held accountable for what they do like
everyone else and not be let off the hook by 'presidential pardons' and
the like.  

The more power one has, the more responsibility they have and the more
they must be held accountable for their decisions.

> Hmmmm. Doesn't that belong in the "Sexism is Alive and Well" topic? :-)

Good point_:-).

Mary

	There are limits on Senators and perhaps other public officials
	because people believe that they are influenced by the organizations
	that make the payments. The theory is that putting limits of outside
	income keeps these elected officials working for the public rather
	than special interest groups.

	I don't think it's fair. If you think someone can be bought you
	should find someone else to vote for.

			Alfred

>It would be great to be able to do that... but how?  How does one reach
>a president when all of our politicians are so wealthy and remote that
>they haven't a clue as to the problems faced by the average person.

	What a surprise! I'm so happy that I'll be able to tell my wife
	that I am so wealthy and remote that I haven't a clue as to the
	problems faced by the average person. No only that but so are all
	the other ~50 people we know in elected office. This is really
	good news. I'll especially have to pass this news on to the single
	parent (female) families who, up until now, thought that they were
	struggling by to make ends meet while holding down a full time job,
	raise a family and hold public office. I guess it must be the
	$1400 a year one of them is making from her two elected positions
	that make her so wealthy.

			Alfred

	"There are lies, damn lies, and MSN."

>Something has to be done.
    
    As soon as someone comes up with a workable plan that is consistent
    with our constitution and is fair and equitable I will support it.
    Until then, I will struggle within the system.
    
>Why do they keep lending them money since they have defaulted on so many
>past loans? 
    
    Well, one reason is that for years, the US govenment guaranteed the
    loans made to 3rd world countries. I am not sure that this is still the
    case. In effect, what was happening was that banks were making totally
    risky loans, but the risk was borne entirely by taxpayers instead of
    the banks themselves. I'll try to find some documentation on this- I do
    remember being outraged when I first heard of this (1985).
    
>Lets not make it too profitable.  We don't want the environment being 
>contaminated on purpose to create more business and increase the profit
>margin.  
    
    I hope I live to see the day where our environment is too clean to
    support clean-up companies. Not very likely.
    
>Besides, the Soviet Union and China appear to be moving in the right 
>direction these days.  There are no clear signals about where we are going
>though.  I often wish that we had a Gorbachev to lead us.  
    
    Confusion. Both countries are moving to be more like us. If they are
    moving in the right direction, how can we be so "wrong" in your eyes?
    
    The Doctah

    >               -< the secretaries work harder than i do >-
    
	>>     Then donate some of your salary to them.
    
		if i could afford it, i would. in those rare cases
		when i have been responsible for setting wages, i
		have, in fact, implemented a differential of less
		than 3:1.

>    i believe that any person who
>    puts in a 40 hour week year round and does the job should be able to
>    afford a home or support a family.       
    
	>>    That is an entirely philosophic argument. It does not take 
	>>    into account worth at all. It also doesn't make sense.

		of course it's a philosophic argument. what other sort
		of argument should it be? certainly it takes worth into
		account. every worker in our society is worth a home.
		in what way does this not make sense?
    
>    i reject the notion that any
>    person's work could possibly be that much more valuable than another's.
 
	>>    You reject what you cannot fathom. Pitiful. Value, in this context,
    	>>refers to the laws of supply and demand. The supply of certain workers
    	>>far exceeds the demand, hence they are paid less. The key difference
    	>>between workers in this country is education. Those that eschew
    	>>education doom themselves to inferior employment.
    
		what exactly is it that you suppose i cannot fathom? and 
		what is it exactly that is pitiful? of course this refers
		to the laws of supply and demand. our society treats human
		beings as commodities. you seem to accept this; i think it's
		reprehensible. be that as it may, it's important to keep in
		mind that demand is this not this mysterious immutable
		thing beyond our changing. as i said before:

>    value is only what we say it is.     
    
    	>> And we are saying it is ability to perform arbitrarily complex tasks
    	>>in a timely and efficient manner. Those that cannot, have-not.
    
		and i am saying that that is an extremely limited view of
		human capability and endeavor. you should broaden your
		view so that you realise that those that you would blithely
		condemn to 'have-not', actually 'can'.

	>>    The Doctah

        >>               -< in a typical Monday am mood. >-

		this is no excuse for your obnoxious and insulting tone

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    A bit less vituperation, folks?  Thanks.
    
    						=maggie

> every worker in our society is worth a home.
  
    True. But not every worker is worth a house. And how big shall we say
    that the stereotypical burger flipper's home should be? One room?
    Twenty rooms w/ 4 car garage, swimming pool and tennis court?
    
    When owning a house meant staking a claim and building it yourself,
    just about everyone could have their own house. It's not quite that
    easy anymore.
    
    >		what exactly is it that you suppose i cannot fathom? and 
    
     You said that you rejected the notion that any person's work could be
    worth 125 times as much as anothers. You can't understand how this is
    possible. It is. Consider this- we have a large river to cross, and no
    bridge. We have essentially an unbounded workforce to build the bridge,
    and all the materials necessary. Alas, we only have one person who can
    design a bridge. This person, in terms of getting the bridge built, is
    more valuable than anyone else. Without her, the bridge could not be
    built. 
    
>you seem to accept this; i think it's reprehensible.
    
    I do accept this. It is the way things are.
    
>		and i am saying that that is an extremely limited view of
>		human capability and endeavor. you should broaden your
>		view so that you realise that those that you would blithely
>		condemn to 'have-not', actually 'can'.
    
    Of course. But we are talking about behavior in a limited scope. We are
    talking about the things that one may do to earn money. 
    
    I condemn no one to "have-not." Those that can, should. Then they will
    no longer be have-nots. Right? Yes- I realize it's not quite that easy.
    But earning a living occurs within a fairly narrow scope of human
    endeavor. Those that have the money, control what we can do to earn it.
    For some, those that control the money are individuals or small groups
    of individuals (like corporations). In order for us to get money, we
    must do what THEY want us to do. We must "play the game." It is not
    always easy, but if you play by the rules and play intelligently, you
    can usually win. For others, the people with the money are the masses.
    Most of these people are gifted in a way that a large number of people
    can understand and appreciate. They do not write assembly code, they
    write lyrics or novels. They make their own rules, and have the luck
    and talent to make a living off the people. Relatively few of us fit in
    this category. For us (and I'm one of them) the road to success lies in
    following someone else's rules (for awhile, at least).
    
>		this is no excuse for your obnoxious and insulting tone
    
    That's true. I should have toned it down a bit. Sorry for my attitude.
    Really.
    
    The Doctah

> every worker in our society is worth a home.
  
	>>True. But not every worker is worth a house. And how big shall we say
    	>>that the stereotypical burger flipper's home should be? 

		i'd be happy with any minimum standard that would include
		living room, kitchen, bedroom, indoor plumbing, heat and
		utilities. owning even this is beyond many working people.
    
      
	>>You said that you rejected the notion that any person's work could be
  	>>worth 125 times as much as anothers. You can't understand how this is
    	>>possible. It is. Consider this- we have a large river to cross, and no
    	>>bridge. We have essentially an unbounded workforce to build the bridge,
    	>>and all the materials necessary. Alas, we only have one person who can
    	>>design a bridge. This person, in terms of getting the bridge built, is
    	>>more valuable than anyone else. Without her, the bridge could not be
    	>>built. 

  		leaving aside the question of, 
		'what sort of scoundrel withholds their services to 
		important social projects simply for personal gain?'   
		you have given a fine explanation of how one person in a 
		social system that has decided bridge building is of great 
		importance might be more valuable than another person. you 
		have not explained how a person in our pluralistic society
		could be worth *125 times* more than another person. even the 
		doctor who cures cancer: their work is not worth 125 times
		another person.
    
 as for the rest:

	simply saying, 'that's the way things are', seems not particularly
	useful to me. i (and i think many others) believe that our basic
	valuation of human beings, as demonstrated by our economic system,
	one component of which is the minimum wage, is skewed. as it happens
	i also believe in 'markets' and am cautious as to the improvements 
	that can be made by simply tinkering with the current system. if we 
    	raise the minimum wage, without raising our concept of the value of 
    	people, *all* people, not merely the ones that have narrowly and
    	arbitrarily defined 'marketable skills', we may get a good stopgap, 
    	but we have not solved the problem.    
    

re .102

	What is wrong with an educated workforce doing unskilled work?
	I would think that the more education a person has, the better
	society is for it, regardless of that persons job.

re other stuff...

	Point one, remember that the purpose of a business is not
	to provide employment for anyone. The purpose of a business
	is to make money for the stockholders. Otherwise, why should
	an investor plunk down their hard earned cash when they could
	be using it to buy an unlimited supply of root beer popsicles?

	Second, lets grant for a moment that a maximum yearly wage 
	has been set. Now, assume you are the Chairman of the Board
	of the Very Large Corporation of America. It's been a lousy
	year. Current management is terrible, and the company is
	losing money hand over fist. This morning, the Board has
	decided to fire the President, and most of the rest of upper
	management. Your task is to find replacements. After a careful
	search, you have found exactly 10 persons in the country with the
	proven managerial skills to turn the company around and get it
	making money again. Problem is, all of them are already
	making the maximum wage from the company that currently employs
	them. How can you hope to induce the person you need to leave
	their current employer, and come to work for your company, and 
	return it to profitability?

	Third, freedom includes the freedom to be stupid. If Mr Millikan
	can convince someone to pay him $551 million/year and he is
	not defrauding them, who are you or I to tell them they can't?
	If you don't want to pay someone $551/year, you are free to not
	do it. But preventing two consenting parties from carrying out
	a mutually satisfactory business transaction is no one's business
	other than the parties involved.

						Tom_K

RE. Note 577.129         
DECWET::JWHITE "God>Love>Blind>Ray Charles>God"      


> i'd be happy with any minimum standard that would include
> living room, kitchen, bedroom, indoor plumbing, heat and
> utilities. owning even this is beyond many working people.


You call that a minimum standard ? In much of the world it would be
luxury beyond dreams. 

    re .131
    
>>  i'd be happy with any minimum standard that would include
>>  living room, kitchen, bedroom, indoor plumbing, heat and
>>  utilities. owning even this is beyond many working people.


>   You call that a minimum standard ? In much of the world it would be
>   luxury beyond dreams.
    
    I said fairly early in this string that we can not solve this in
    the context of the borders of the U.S. alone. We must oppose all
    measures that any government, especially the one in the U.S. to
    prevent any peoples from exercising their rights to organize in
    unions or otherwise get a decent living wage from their labors.
    This starts with opposing apartheid, supporting the workers in S.
    Korea and the like.
    
    We must also shorten the workweek. It is absolutely ridiculous to
    have to be working harder and having a lower standard of living
    while technology and productivity flourish.
    
    Les

    re: <<< Note 577.130 by EVER11::KRUPINSKI "Blackflies don't just bite, they suck!" >>>

�	Point one, remember that the purpose of a business is not
�	to provide employment for anyone. The purpose of a business
�	is to make money for the stockholders. 
    

    I recall other reasons being put forth to justify the bailouts
    of Chrysler, Lockheed, et. al., not the least of which was
    the impact that business failure has upon unemployment.
    
    /bruce
    

    
    re:.131
    this *is* america isn't it?
    

    Re: .121
    
    >what you mean by 'improve on a relative scale, not an absolute'.
    
    Basically, you don't want inflation.  If people at the bottom end
    of the scale earn more, you want them to be able to buy more.  If
    they can't buy more, they're no better off in relation to the rest
    of the workforce, even though their salary is bigger.  The principle
    applies to other aspects, like job requirements.  If you push the
    bottom up, but the bottom is just as far from the top as it used
    to be, you haven't necessarily improved anything.
    
    >How does one reach a president when all of our politicians are
    >so wealthy and remote that they haven't a clue as to the problems
    >faced by the average person.
    
    I think you have a larger-than-life picture of the average politician.
    I also think you underestimate the powers of both intelligence and
    empathy.  I suspect that a fair number of politicians actually talk
    to their constituents occasionally -- even the politicians on the
    national level.
    
    >They are reducing overhead by laying off teachers, not buying
    >materials and new books... I don't see how that will improve the
    >educational system though,
    
    It doesn't.  Obviously, they haven't found a good solution yet.
    
    >Well Chelsea, how *will* the economic situation of poor people
    >improve?
    
    Actually, I think the shrinking labor pool is going to help.  Unless
    they can reduce their manpower requirements considerably, employers
    aren't going to be in a position to pick and choose among candidates.
    They'll have to take what they can get to get the job done.  It's
    to their benefit to have trained or trainable employees.  And trainable
    employees will be able to get jobs faster and advance more rapidly.
    
    Did I mention this would take time?  Undoing a centuries-old problem
    usually does.  However, stopping the downward trend is a step in
    the right direction.
    
    >It will be so hard for new industries to start up during a time
    >of high inflation and high interest rates.
    
    If there's a market, they'll be able to do it.  Those who succeed
    will help to stimulate the economy and bring it back in line.  We've
    survived one period of high inflation and interest rates in the
    not-so-distant past.  I doubt the situation will be terminal.
    
    >And with education slipping so in this country people will not be
    >qualified to better learn new skills and fill the needs of the
    >changing marketplace.
    
    Which is why we start fixing education.
    
    >The labor pool won't shrink if big business moves overseas for its
    >primary focus.
    
    I doubt the primary focus will move overseas.  Other costs will
    offset cheaper prices for labor.  Countries might wish to protect
    their own industries rather than become subsidiaries of the US.
    It's not a cheap and easy solution to a domestic problem.
    
    >The poverty leads to a lack of proper education and health while
    >poor health and a poor education perpetuates the poverty.  Where
    >to break the cycle?
    
    Why not make small inroads on education and health, building up
    to increasingly larger inroads as improvements start producing some
    effect?
    
    >Schools are supported by property taxes so poor neighborhoods have
    >less to spend on teachers and education.
    
    I've pondered this.  Good neighborhoods should be able to have schools
    that are much better than average if they're willing to pay for
    them.  By buying a more expensive house, they buy better education
    and I think that's fair.  The problem is improving the quality of
    worse-than-average schools.  I'd like to see a higher minimum standard
    for education.  I don't know exactly how to go about it, but that's
    the goal.
    
    >Addressing the root problems means focusing our resources and 
    >priorities on domestic concerns instead of on defense spending.
    
    Defense spending -- now I'm sure there's some overhead to be trimmed
    there.  I think it would be very interesting to put the military
    on a tight budget.  If they didn't *have* all that money to throw
    around, maybe they'd be better consumers.  Now, if we can just get
    the pesky liberal media to leak more stories about $400 hammers.
    Fiscal responsibility is an important issue to Americans today.
    Politicians might be paying lip service to it now, but they're going
    to have to do some real work on it someday.