Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Kevin Alfred Strom Archive

   

The New Slavery
Part II

Hidden Aspects of
"Equal Employment Opportunity"


by Kevin Alfred Strom
Free Speech,
February 1996
Volume II, Number 2

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!




.




For the latest contact, donation, and other update information regarding Kevin Alfred Strom, please visit his web page at Americafirstbooks.com. Please also visit kevin-strom.com, and revilo-oliver.com. Prices, addresses, and availability information pertaining to materials cited in his works are subject to change.

Please also visit the America First Institute donation page.

 

 

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.