>#### So, if you want to fire a few slow and spoiled locals and hire a few
>cheaper but faster and better immigrants, it's a good business practice. I
Randy Smith replied:
Only when the numbers involved are small, and the benefit is great. By great
benefit, I mean *real science*, or some *special* skill. Importing database
coders to enhance stockholder wallets and CEO bonuses does not qualify.
#### Define "real science" and "special" skill. So you say stockholders and
business leaders are not important enough for their political wishes to be
taken into consideration? I remember my political science teachers in Poland
unsuccessfully trying to convince me of the same.
>And I like your metaphor of America as a common business property of
>all its citizens.
Just remember something--"laziness" of a business owner is a meaningless
concept unless you are a *partner* in the business. If you own a welding
shop, and you prefer not to work on weekends, I, as a non-partner, have no
right to throw you out and take because I see you as lazy.
### But if you, the owner, are lazy, your business will go bankrupt trying
to compete with those who want to work on Sundays. This is the invisible
hand crushing the unfit ones. This is the reason why America beat Russia -
you let losers lose instead of coddling them.
>### But now you are saying that the impersonal "corporations" should not be
>allowed to follow your personal lead and hire cheap immigrants, as you
>descibed in the preceding paragraph. Are you saying that the coporations
>and their mainly American owners and employees should be denied the same
>rights of association that you claim for yourself? They also want to "put
>more pieces of green paper in the wallets of the partners", just like you
Yes, but naturally there are conflicting interests involved in such a large
partnership. And when the partnership is so large, and the money involved
is so great, and so much is concentrated in so few hands, I expect to see
massive propaganda campaigns waged, just as in any election, etc.
#### You didn't answer if corporations should be denied the rights I
mentioned. Obviously corporations will try to defend their rights to hire
workers according to merit, for the benefit of all their stockholders.
---- I wrote: >##### I understand your position well, but I wouldn't call it impartial - >you would like to have the benefits (ability to hire a cheaper worker for >your business)
I never said that. You are making up stuff. You are implying that I said that I myself want the choice of hiring cheap immigrant labor, but no one else can. Why stop there? I am sure there are many other things you can make up.
### Let me quote you:
If I, Randy Smith, own a business, and I want to hire, I hire the person who
will benefit me, Randy Smith. And if I am a partner in a business, we, the partners, will dicuss candidates, and hire the ones that benefit us, the partners, the most.
#### Unless you say that hiring expensive and lazy locals is going to benefit your business the most, your above statement is a clear endorsement of the freedom to hire the best and cheapest workers available. In later staments however, you deny this right to larger corporations.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT