The theft of our wealth and our future which goes under the Orwellian
names of "Equal Employment Opportunity" (EEO) and "Affirmative
Action" is destroying our nation and setting the stage for the most terrible
tyranny in history.
This month we will continue our analysis of EEO adapted from a treatise
by Mr. Jeremy Miller. Jeremy Miller is the nom de guerre of a graduate
student in economics who has worked at a high level in major U.S. corporations,
but who cannot reveal his true identity at this time because of possible
reprisals.
Premise: Equalization of wages under EEO over time and in conjunction
with inflation and wage concessions is strictly in the downward direction
-- right down to the value of the very least preferred job candidate in
the marketplace (for each and every job) -- with any initial upward equalization
being brief, temporary, and illusory.
The above premise renders equal employment opportunity as an unworkable
share-the-wealth system, and yet somehow it seemed to work for a time,
both in the United States and in a few foreign countries.
For one thing, in the early stages of EEO employers indulged in tokenism
whereby they hired the "cream of the crop" from the pool of minority or
unpreferred job candidates. Minor tokenism did not detract much from the
illusory effect of the initial upward equalization. However, in the early
1980's the U.S. economy was demonstrating severe side effects from this
unworkable system.
Prominent economists at that time were predicting the worst U.S. depression
ever! President Ronald Reagan took a very uninspired approach to the problem
by infusing massive amounts of stimulation into the economy by way of huge
deficit spending, thus creating very high artificial demand for labor to
the point where even the normally unemployable job candidate found work.
Years back, one dime store manager in New England was quoted in the news
media as saying that if he did not hire any job applicant who walked in
the door, his store would have to shut down due to lack of staffing!
For a while few noticed that EEO was not what it was supposed to be.
As the years proceeded on to the current time, a larger and larger portion
of Federal spending went to debt service, that is, to interest payments,
with less and less going to artificially stimulate the demand for labor.
This, in combination with the downward equalization of wages under EEO,
is why we are now seeing real wages in the United States dropping precipitously
and a permanent White underclass emerging. Welcome aboard!
Look at things this way. If you have an auto tire with 15 gaping holes
in it, you can keep it inflated and rolling just as long as you rapidly
infuse very highly pressurized air into it. The highly pressurized air
represents the massive deficit spending of the government. The air escaping
rapidly from the 15 holes is the wealth escaping from the United States
via the obscene trade deficit. As soon as the government starts to ease
back on its infusion of deficit spending in the coming months, the tire
-- that is, the U.S. economy -- will go flat . . . fast!
Now, why does equal opportunity seem to work better in certain foreign
countries? Well, back to the premise: Equal opportunity equalizes first-choice
workers down to the perceived value of the last-choice worker. The United
States has greater diversity among its population, and so the differential
between first-choice value and last-choice value is greater. If you were
to compare a graph of the perceived values of individual U.S. workers to
a similar graph of corresponding data for foreign workers from relatively
homogeneous and high-quality populations, like Japan or Germany, you would
find a much narrower range between the best and worst candidates for each
job.
Thus, the high end of the foreign curve is being equalized downward
a much smaller distance than the curve for the United States, with its
highly diverse population. Thence, you will have higher real wages in the
foreign country, notwithstanding its EEO program.
A graph of actual ability would track very closely with the graph of
perceived values. Business owners are not stupid, or they would not survive
in the marketplace. The actual abilities of U.S. workers are therefore
lower than those of many of our global competitors. Therefore, these other
countries will be more competitive than the United States and will beat
down the United States in the world economic arena.
Did it ever occur to you that all the rage in mergers and acquisitions
might be motivated, at least in part, by equal employment considerations?
If a company wants to avoid hanging out the + "help wanted" sign
and dealing with job applicants it does not care to hire, would it not
behoove this company to raid the demographics of a competing company by
acquiring the competing company?
Think about it. As everybody knows, there is strong preference for certain
job applicants, and, of course, a higher assessment of value goes along
with that preference. However, the government ties an employer's hands
behind his back when he tries to express that preference by way of an employment
arrangement. An employer pretty much has to hire at least one less-than-top-choice
candidate along with every top-choice candidate and pay the less-than-top-choice
candidates equally with the top-choice candidate. With overall standards
in the United States dropping, and with a host of other social changes,
the top-choice candidates are dropping into the minority, and the less-than-top-choice
candidates are becoming the majority. What's an employer to do in order
to express his pent-up demand, preference, and higher valuation of top-choice
workers? Answer: In the battle for survival in the marketplace, he will
do everything within his power to "find a way." The path of least
resistance for these employers is mergers and acquisitions: in other words,
the raiding of the demographics of other businesses! Over-valuations of
acquired companies were explained away by the public relations people as
payments for good will, established product lines, and customer bases.
But there is more to it than that. The acquired companies may also have
many competent employees already in place, some of whom were hired before
the EEO madness became so omnipresent, and some of whom were hired with
disregard for EEO laws. All of a sudden the seemingly inflated prices of
mergers and acquisitions now make sense. The demographics of the acquired
company accounts for its sky high value and price! This writer can name
names where such demographic raiding activity is suspected!
But merged companies have redundancies, and these redundancies are handled
with terminations (generally of older workers), thereby reducing the overall
demand for labor and further depressing wages. The bottom line is that
such activities create oligopolies or near-monopolies in the marketplace
(a few labor buyers, each with great bargaining power) or even true monopolies
(one labor buyer with even more power).
As things stand, upon selling out, the business owner of the acquired
company collects all the wealth associated with the perceived value of
the preferred demographics of his workers while those workers get none
of that wealth. All that the workers get are the risk of being let go during
the redundancy-elimination process and the certainty of having their wages
reduced by the oligopoly situation whether or not they are let go! Anyway,
the implication is that any sly and savvy businessman who successfully
circumvents the equal employment opportunity laws can, in effect, sell
out and collect a multi-billion dollar employment agency fee. What a scream!
To the astute reader, this all may seem like modern-day trading in White
slavery in the above-ground, above-board black market known as Corporate
America. Exfoliating of older workers, withholding of intrinsic values,
eroding wages, having to pay off one's own purchase price, onerous work
loads and overtime, and stress-related disorders are all symptoms of mergers
and acquisitions. Sure sounds like White slavery to me! But don't trouble
your pretty little head about this too much. It is all due to come to an
end really soon. When the government eases up on deficit spending, then
the last worker at the end of the day can turn off all the lights.
Can you fathom having sent 50,000 troops to their deaths in Vietnam
to fight an atrocious system known as Communism, when in our own country
we've developed a system that is just as upside-down, inside-out, convoluted,
inverted, and perverted?
Here's one more reason why EEO cannot work: First-rate people hire first-rate
people, second-rate people hire third- rate people . . . and so forth!
Let's face it. If the segments of the population who are currently protected
by law were considered to be first rate job candidates in the marketplace,
they would have gotten ahead and made it on their own merit without the
need for any protections. Now these same segments are being installed (on
a less than voluntary basis) in managerial jobs, and with these jobs comes
the power to choose subordinate staff. You can be assured that in the overwhelming
majority of situations, a less-than-first-rate manager will select subordinates
who are at least one notch lower than himself on the quality scale.
Once the selection of inferior subordinate staff is made, then "thicker-than-thieves"
and unholy alliances will soon follow between the superior and subordinates.
In fact, you will even frequently see whore/master relationships. In fact,
you may be actively recruited as a whore whether you are male or female
or whether your superior is male or female.
Be honest. Can you in any way believe that these goings on can actually
enhance performance standards, productivity, or competitiveness?
This writer can point to a certain white-collar professional environment
where, among many other non-producers there is an employee who cannot utter
a grammatically correct three-word sentence and who demonstrates no evidence
whatsoever of literacy. There is another employee who does not understand
the elementary mathematical concept of counting and who thinks that Monday
and Friday are the same day. There is another employee who demonstrates
severe psychosis and who does not demonstrate any grasp at all of the fundamentals
of his work and yet who has received several promotions! These employees
(along with the many others) have not produced any work whatsoever over
the long haul of more than a dozen years, and yet they have survived several
managerial changes and reorganizations. It just goes to show you how valuable
dumb loyalty is perceived to be under our system. Make special note of
this lesson.
Conclusions: If there were a return to the prior system of employment,
that is, a return to unprotected and at-will employment status, you would
see an immediate return to the performance and competitiveness levels of
the past . . . the very things that had made the United States the number
one country in the world. Sticking to the current system of things for
the sake of politicians' "buying" votes of the downtrodden will stay the
current course -- all the way to Third World squalor and the death of all
that America used to be. Bon voyage!
As much as some may disagree with the following observations of this
writer, he stands firmly by these observations.
Specifically, there seems to be very little tolerance on the part of
female managers and executives for subordinates who are capable and who
possess the preferred demographics of being both White and male. This combination
of capability and preferred demographics is just too much of a threat to
the security of many female superiors. Certainly female managers and executives
do occasionally employ these threatening subordinates, but only while the
threatening subordinates serve an immediate purpose. Before long, a threatening
subordinate is either replaced by a far less talented alternate, or he
is consistently passed over for promotional opportunities. You may see
two, three, or even 100 people doing the work that should be assigned to
one person, in which case the employer will be more than eager to cut wage
levels and/or consolidate.
The scenario outlined above occurs far too frequently, but if it occurs
only 10% (a vastly understated percentage) of the time, then the edge of
American competitiveness will be removed sufficiently so that the United
States cannot compete in the Global Arena. This scenario will never allow
females to be on top as in feminist fantasy -- they'll just have high ranks
in a Third World country! Of course, other executives and managers with
other unpreferred demographics, such as unqualified non-Whites or others
who know better than we do how unqualified they are for their positions,
are doing the same thing.
You may think a female executive or manager will be penalized for allowing
performance standards to slip. However, an all-purpose trump card/excuse
is that standards are going down everywhere. And if her area's performance
is really bad, then her protected status will keep her secure in her job
far longer than anyone will care to imagine, and when she is finally let
go she will receive a hefty severance package. This is how the system is
set up to work.
It has already been mentioned that the supply and demand curves for
top-choice workers are being shifted and truncated such that they will
no longer intersect, but this dangerous situation is being further compounded
by the fact that the top-choice workers are being squeezed out of the work
force. The sociological ramifications of this are unthinkable, and many
business editorial writers have already commented that all the wrong people
are getting ahead in our society while the unattended kiddies at home are
becoming illiterate criminals.
Here is one more thought: The sociological ramifications of a law cannot
be legislated away with the passage of yet another law, and neither can
the law's psychological ramifications. Ever since the sexual anti-discrimination
laws were passed, incidents of sexual hostility, sexual harassment, and
forcible rape against women have significantly increased with no letup
in sight even though the penalties for such crimes were likewise increased.
It is also not surprising in a country where our values have become so
inverted and perverted that insanity has reached record proportions. When
people are forced to go against nature, ugliness, violence, and despair
become the new watchwords. What a price we are paying for so-called "equality."
There are even other wage depressing considerations associated with
the equal opportunity laws. One businessman just shut down his enterprise,
sold off assets, and extinguished a significant number of jobs. Granted
the enterprise was losing money, and that was the reason given. However,
upon closer examination there was evidence that the organization did not
want to deal with the legal ramifications of equal opportunity. Also you
have able-bodied heads of households dropping out of a system in order
to become wilderness people in the state of Idaho, or something like that.
These same able-bodied people are the lost entrepreneurial candidates who
might otherwise be starting businesses, creating jobs, bidding up wages
in the marketplace, and supporting welfare. Similarly there are those who
remain in the system but who fail to perceive any impetus to break away
and start an enterprise because they have been lulled into a false belief
by the anti-age-discrimination laws that they will have a womb-to-tomb
job. Nothing could be further from the truth, as has been demonstrated
by the latest round of corporate consolidations. Older workers were disproportionately
harder hit.
If real wages go down, so will the level of savings. We've already seen
this. How will individuals scrape together any surplus funds to launch
a business?
Certain economists will stress the good points of our country's economy,
and they will say tepidly, "The United States is still competitive
. . . sort of." "Sort of" competitive is not enough, and
the analysis goes back to the law of least resistance. So if the marketplace
has a small perceived preference for one alternative over another, then
the first alternative will get the lion's share of the business. If McDonald's
has a slightly better hamburger than Wendy's, then McDonald's will have
25,000 outlets, and Wendy's will have maybe 1,000 outlets, and Wendy's
may eventually be driven out of business. Many other nations salivate at
the thought of displacing us as a world power and of taking the wealth
that we are letting slip through our fingers. Many of these are nations
with a population of higher racial quality than the United States, nations
with the intelligence not to import wretched refuse to their shores.
Imagine. If the U.S. economy had been as competitive as possible over
the last 30 years instead of tying itself in knots to achieve an impossible
"equality," just think how much greater wealth would have been
produced by us, and how much more of that wealth would have remained with
us within our borders instead of exiting from us via unconscionable and
obscene trade deficits, and how much lower tax rates could have been. It
would be a totally different world, and we would have a much brighter future
for our children.
The United States economy may very well sink into a deep depression
as the direct result of the equal employment opportunity laws being in
place. Jobs and wages at the lowest levels of the economy have been ruined,
and the problem is percolating up through the higher ranks. The ability
of the United States to recover from this depression will be impaired for
as long as these laws remain in place. EEO was a 30-year social experiment
which has more than proven itself to be a dismal failure and absolutely
ruinous!
at
the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781