Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646 From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Labor Market (re: Discrimination) Message-ID: <1340284@acf4.UUCP> Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 20:46:00 EDT Article-I.D.: acf4.1340284 Posted: Wed Jul 10 20:46:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 06:59:05 EDT References: <777@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: New York University Lines: 49 >/* mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) / 11:23 pm Jul 8, 1985 */ >Theoretical reasoning can wait; supply and demand (in the Smithian fashion) >can only be assumed to work in a system of near perfect competition. Supply and demand determine price to the degree that an economy is free. Thus, they may have a substantial effect even in a system that does not have near perfect competition. >>False analogy!!!! The correct analogy would be to say that the existence of >>the NAACP and the SCLC is sufficient demonstration of racial bigotry. Your analogy addresses a different point than mine. >(I >had really hoped that you had learned something about argument after all >this.) Would you like me to apologize? :-) >>They do not have the money to resist the illegal >>actions of their employers, nor do they have the choice of picking up and >>moving away. >Mike, I want to know what KIND of laws you are going to enact to >fix this problem, and how they are going to be enforced. Laws against the initiation of force or fraud. In this case, enforcement might go something like this: If a worker thinks that his/her employer has violated his/her contract of employment, he/she can go to the government and complain. After an investigation (and perhaps courtroom procedures, etc.), the loser must pay the cost of the investigation, etc. >If you are going >to have any sort of nebulous law, than I think it's readily demonstratable >that the current system is superior; it';s flexible, and your's isn't. How would you go about demonstrating this? What do you mean by "flexible?" Do you mean it is vulnerable to political tampering? >Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Mike Sykora P.S. -- My account is being terminated, so I won't be arguing anymore. Goodbye, I've enjoyed arguing with you all.