[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

(COOLLIST) the last two class.war comments

Well, I'm going to run two more comments, each adding a little more
to all of this.  Then, the issue is closed... I really didn't intend
on causing so much consternation... I was just trying to evoke some
compassion and outrage that I had felt when reading that article.

The first note is from train enthusiast and ACTV producer Joe Enochs.
The second is from Origin Software graphic designer Catherine Cantieri.
They each take different positions on this. I think there is plenty of
room to maneuver on the whole issue of fairness in the job world.
I've always tended to be a bit egalitarian, but I also know that there must
be differences in order to have progress.  Perhaps I don't take being
lucky (and smart) so well.  :)

-- Ben

From: Thirdone@aol.com (Joe Enochs)
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 18:49:41 -0400

Well, here goes.....I guess I cant just sit  and watch on this one..
First I must say I tend to agree with Ben on most topics and this one too.

As for Mr. Choates' comments...It sounds like the comments of someone who
happens to be lucky enough to have the benefits of good education, sufficient
financial backing, and proper racial background to be able to advance in "The
System".
I am surprised that someone with that level of education still believes that
this is the land of equal opportunity and that we really control our destiny.
 I do agree that hard work has its' rewards but there are limits, especially
if you dont happen to have the benefit of well educated parents, stable
household, and be the "right" sex and color.
Not all janitorial people are beer guzzeling drunks anymore than all
"techies" are
emotionless, insensitive, geeks. Generalizing usually is the sign of a weak
argument
based on emotion.
     One of the benchmarks of the value of a society is the value it puts on
ALL its people.  Joe

From: "Cantieri, Catherine" <CCANTIERI@origin.ea.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 96 17:34:00 PDT

> The question isn't one of comparison.  It's one of needs satisfaction.  Do
> the lower class of Silicon Valley make enough money to satisfy their basic
> needs and remain happy?  Well, then there's no problem.  If they don't, then
> the corporations should raise the minimum standards to satisfy those needs;
> something they can easily afford.

Okay. I wasn't going to get into this argument, but that last sentence got 
my attention, particularly the "something *they* (emphasis added) can easily 
afford". Who do you think would be paying for this generous increase? Is a 
major corporation supposed to voluntarily cut their profits so their 
*janitors* can live comfortably in Silicon Valley? Or would the company just 
raise their prices to compensate for the increase in expenditures? Which 
sounds more likely?

Not to be pedantic, but it's a fact that there are millions of people in this 
country who make considerably less than a smart, lucky geek. There always 
have been, and there always will be. And if some of those people are smart 
and lucky, they'll find a way to change their situations.

End of 
rant.





####
To unsubscribe from (COOLLIST), reply to this and tell me to delete you.
To see the (COOLLIST) archives, go to http://www.yak.net/coollist/.