Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!ucivax!gateway From: gannon@MDI.COM (Alden Gannon) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: "64 cents!" (Was Re: The problem in academia) Message-ID: <1991May1.165702.21235@MDI.COM> Date: 1 May 91 22:58:03 GMT References: <672079231@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1991Apr25.131335.1@dev8a.mdcbbs.com> <1991Apr27.005737.22242@informix.com> Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA Lines: 59 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu In article <1991Apr27.005737.22242@informix.com> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.UCAR.EDU (robert coleman) writes: > Hillel did not explain his idea as clearly here as he has in >the past. The idea was that when two people are *equally* qualified, >choose the one with the lower salary. The high school dropout >party-animal is unlikely to have the same qualifications as you if >you've been to college and work lots of extra hours. > If woman and blacks have been prejudiced against in the past, >however, even if they have the same qualifications, they would likely >have a lower salary. This system would then have the same general >affect as a race-or-gender-quota-system, except that people of the >"oppressed" classes who haven't been "oppressed" wouldn't benefit, and >people of the "oppressor" class who haven't benefitted from being an >"oppressor" wouldn't be automatically excluded. Wait, that means that >this would be a non-sexist, non-racist system, by any definition! > It also means that it would re-introduce meritocracy back into >the system, where currently race-or-gender-quota-systems are open to >the abuse of accepting the lower qualified person because they have >the right doodads. I have an argument against Hillel's "AA by Income" program. Let me present a hypothetical situation likely to occur under AAI. Let A be a recent college graduate in field X, whose income during college was lower than B's (also graduating in field X). A and B were both successful students, and apply for a relatively high-paying (for an entry level position) job requiring skill level 1. Since they both have skill level 1, A gets the job at salary $30K. The mean skill level 1 starting salary in field X is $25K. A should feel pretty good about himself/herself, right? Wrong. Let's take this further. At some point down the road, A acquires skill level 2 in field X, which commands a mean $30K in the industry (A is already getting $30K), and finds himself/herself looking for a job again (the company had financial troubles, A had to move, A was unsatisfied, etc.). A will quickly find that A's $30K salary is a detriment. A can't get skill level 2 jobs, because applicants with skill level 2 who got $25K jobs right out of college will be favored. Further, A can't get skill level 3 jobs, because A will be screened on qualifications, not salary. Even worse, A can't even step back and take a skill level 1 job, because qualified entry-level candidates surely have had a lower income than $30K. By this system, A couldn't even get a job flipping burgers at Burger King (a skill level 0 job). I call this blatant discrimination against people skilled enough to get a high-paying position in their field. The reason this breaks down is that Hillel suggested varifying income level through the IRS, which only has *last year's* data. A would have to go through an entire year of unemployment before IRS data would make A competitive with skill level 2 applicants. What's worse, in the year spent without work, A's skills have slipped back to skill level 1 (albeit a highly competitive skill level 1). Now simply re-run the scenario ad infinitum. A, the best in his/her field, has to retire in a skill level 1 position, spending half of his/her working life without a job. Pretty bleak, huh? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alden B. Gannon, a.k.a. Zarathustra. INTERNET: gannon%mdi.com@uunet.uu.net "Gotta find a woman be good to me, USENET: ..uunet!mdi.com!gannon Won't hide my liquor, try to serve me tea." --Grateful Dead.