AA/EEO and the real question
Brandy burton
>I've always thought that affirmative action should be based on income,
>not race etc. Just make it a rule to (a) seek out candidates who
>currently have lower income and (b) when other things are equal, give
>preference to the person with the lower current income. Those groups
>that are worse off than average will immediately benefit; those that
>are not, will not; and race/sex etc. would not be a factor at all.
>The trouble is that the above strategy stops helping any minority that
>reaches parity with the majority. No minority likes to be told it no
>longer deserves special treatment. So, it's politically difficult to
>get the support for such a radical change in AA/EEO.
>--
>Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cir...@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com>
>UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
>----------
WHATTTTTT????? I have avoided this thread till now but on this note
I have to respond. Perhaps I just can't believe I'm reading this. You
can't honestly believe that those who might have a higher salary
(perhaps because they EARNED it - novel idea I know) should be
penalized for their success can you?? Your plan would do nothing
but create a society of leaches! Whatever happened to the best
man for the best job (man=human)??
Who is John Galt?????????????????????
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX T. E. Brandy Burton X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX B XXXXXXXXXXXXXX ...!hpubvwa!b-mrda!iftccu!burton X
X Name your limitations, and you get to keep them. X
Dick Dunn
> I've always thought that affirmative action should be based on income,
> not race etc. Just make it a rule to (a) seek out candidates who
> currently have lower income and (b) when other things are equal, give
Good way to set up selection against the people who are ambitious. You'd
also have to figure out how to deal with the person who's been working
massive overtime, or two jobs, trying to get ahead...and is now ready and
able to move into a job being paid at true worth.
--
Dick Dunn r...@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870
...Never offend with style when you can offend with substance.
tim...@public.btr.com
|>/ misty:misc.jobs.misc / dhesi%cir...@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) / 8:59 pm Oct 22, 1990 /
|>I've always thought that affirmative action should be based on income,
|>not race etc. Just make it a rule to (a) seek out candidates who
|>currently have lower income and (b) when other things are equal, give
|>preference to the person with the lower current income. Those groups
|>that are worse off than average will immediately benefit; those that
|>are not, will not; and race/sex etc. would not be a factor at all.
|
| I have to respond. Perhaps I just can't believe I'm reading this. You
| can't honestly believe that those who might have a higher salary
| (perhaps because they EARNED it - novel idea I know) should be
| penalized for their success can you?? Your plan would do nothing
| but create a society of leaches! Whatever happened to the best
| man for the best job (man=human)??
The previous suggestion would make more sense if applied with respect
to PARENTS' income. The idea is that coming from a poor family limits
how far one can use his/her ability, so that schools and such would
want to compensate for this limitation.
From an employer's point of view, if you were faced with 2 applicants
with equal qualifications, and you knew that one came from a poor
and disadvantaged family while the other came from a rich and privileged
family, would you think that the one from the poor family might be a
harder worker or have more "natural ability" to get past his/her initial
disadvantage?
Brandy burton
I would just like to clarify one thing -- I DID NOT make the suggestion
that we consider income. I said (in nicer words) that I thought it was
a crock of s***. The suggestion was Rahuls'.
Brandy Burton
>From an employer's point of view, if you were faced with 2 applicants
>with equal qualifications, and you knew that one came from a poor
>and disadvantaged family while the other came from a rich and privileged
>family, would you think that the one from the poor family might be a
>harder worker or have more "natural ability" to get past his/her initial
>disadvantage?
And in answer to our unknown respondant - No! Children raised in
'poor' 'disadvantaged' families may very well have been in those
families because the parents never stopped whining about thier
'poor, disadvantaged' state for long enough to get off their
butts and do something about it! Your last 20 words or so
frankly amaze me -- you expect the poor to have different
genes because they were poor??? If not what's this 'natural
ability' crap?? - Next you'll be telling me about blacks having
rhythm! (no offense intended to the black readership)
tim...@public.btr.com
|
|>From an employer's point of view, if you were faced with 2 applicants
|>with equal qualifications, and you knew that one came from a poor
|>and disadvantaged family while the other came from a rich and privileged
|>family, would you think that the one from the poor family might be a
|>harder worker or have more "natural ability" to get past his/her initial
|>disadvantage?
|
| And in answer to our unknown respondant - No! Children raised in
| 'poor' 'disadvantaged' families may very well have been in those
| families because the parents never stopped whining about thier
| 'poor, disadvantaged' state for long enough to get off their
| butts and do something about it! Your last 20 words or so
| frankly amaze me -- you expect the poor to have different
| genes because they were poor???
No. Consider a running race. Suppose two people finish as the same time.
But one started behind the other (let's say his parents wouldn't let
him get to the starting line in time). Which one is faster? This doesn't
mean that all people who started behind are fast.
Rahul Dhesi
You can't honestly believe that those who might have a higher
salary (perhaps because they EARNED it - novel idea I know) should
be penalized for their success can you??
No, I can't honestly believe that. Nobody is penalized. You favor
the person with the lower income only if other things are equal.
Here it goes again:
(a) Seek out candidates who currently have lower income and (b)
when other things are equal, give preference to the person with
the lower current income.
Seeking out candidates who currently have lower income means going to
places where you might find such candidates and announcing your
position openings there. This doesn't exclude also posting such
announcements on Usenet, where people with higher incomes (or those in
college) are most easily able to read them. Then, when you have
several potential employees, wherever you need to make a very fine
distinction, you can give preference to the person with the lower
income. Where the difference is already clear, you don't need to
consider income.
Why are you so opposed to this? Is it because you want people with
higher incomes to be given preference, because you think they don't
have the skills to qualify on that basis alone? Maybe you're thinking
of rich peole who have inherited lots of wealth?
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cir...@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com>
UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
A pointer is not an address. It is a way of finding an address. -- me
tim...@public.btr.com
| Joe Blow III and Tiny Tim have jobs as programmers. Joe and Tiny
| are both anglo males, age 30, and attended College Y in which their
| grade point averages were within .02 of each other (I could
| go on but fill in your favorite characteristics here - As long as
| they retain equality). Now Joe makes a salary of 40,000 a year -
| he has in the past performed so well for the company that they
| saw fit to reward him. His jobs are always done in a timely fashion
| and re-work is not a problem. Tiny on the other hand makes only
| 25,000 a year. His job performance has always been shakey, much
| of his work must be re-done due to his lack of proper preparation
| at the outset. Now - you have a new job opening. You know that
| by those "equality factors" of AA these two are very close - both
| anglo, both age 30, etc., etc. etc. BUT poor, misfortunate Tiny
| came from a disadvantaged family. So by your logic you give him
| the job. Never mind the fact that Joe was better value for
| the money, or that the reason he got paid more was because he
| was WORTH IT - his family wasn't poor and disadvantaged enough.
| And you tell me NOBODY IS PENALIZED??? What are you using for
| a brain??
This has nothing to do with affirmative action, but from the employer's
point of view, if the employer were working by self interest:
1. Employer knows that JB is a better worker than TT. Employer also
knows that JB will be more expensive than TT. Then, from the employer's
point of view, s/he will decide between JB and TT on the basis of what
quality of work s/he will get at what price.
2. Employer does not know that JB is a better worker than TT. Therefore,
s/he assumes that JB and TT will work equally well, but JB will be much
more expensive than TT. Therefore s/he will choose TT.
| I make a good salary because *I* am good at what I do. I am wealthy
| because Daddy has a lot of money. I should get the job because
| I HAVE EARNED IT (do you even recognize that concept??). Preference
| should be given to the person BEST CAPABLE to do the job (man, woman,
| black, white, green martian, gay, straight, thin, fat whatever!). And
| I will always be opposed to leaches like you who think they should
| be given what they have not earned!
What about your father's pile of money?
Rahul Dhesi
[Joe's] jobs are always done in a timely fashion and re-work is
not a problem. [Tiny's] job performance has always been shakey,
much of his work must be re-done due to his lack of proper
preparation at the outset....You know that by those "equality
factors" of AA these two are very close - both anglo, both age 30,
etc., etc. etc.
The two aren't close. I'm surprised that you would consider a poor
worker to be the same as a good worker simply because their ages and
races are the same.
Brandy burton
What about your father's pile of money?
----------
What about it? He has his - I have mine - by MY choice. I have paid
for what I wanted in life (including my degrees) since I left home at
17. Many times that has been made harder by those who say 'we won't
help you because your daddy has/makes to much money (loans in college
the first two years as I was 16 & 17 at the time). Why do you assume that
since you wouldn't mind leaching that I wouldn't?? I don't consider it
my parents or anyone elses to pay for what I want in life - never have,
never will. I suppose as I am the only one to get it (his money) - eventually
I will, by then I intend not to need it as I would like my successes
to be a measure of MY worth rather that my fathers money.