Subscribe to Desicritics
Reservation: Our Downfall
Somik Raha
Roshan Krishnan, in a post, 'The Big Old Reservation Debate,' makes the following point, in response to government pressure on private companies, "I believe it's time we thought differently regarding this reservation policy of ours. It's time to come up with other methods to help the socially and/or economically backward of our society." I couldn't agree more.
The goal of improving social opportunities for under-served communities is a laudable one, and we must appreciate people in society who think this is a worthy goal. The question is, are laudable goals to be implemented in a coercive manner under the power of the gun, conceding that this is really the only power a government has? We must be very careful when involving the government in solving social problems.
China is a glaring example of what happens when governments get involved in restoring social equity - an era of unprecedented brutality under the euphemism of "cultural revolution", policies that were intended to control the population that have now ended up creating a huge vacuum in the workforce, and land redistribution that was supposed to be equitable that resulted in the deaths of millions of landowners at the hands of their fellow villagers, who died later by the millions due to a nationwide famine that devastated their "commune farms", which were surprisingly owned by the state (see the Economist, May Issue).
China has recognized this, given the smart and talented people that country has, and the government has recanted many of these steps, even going so far as to publicly acknowledge policy errors. At the time, they were making the best decision given the information they had. Does India have such an excuse today, seeing the effects of such government intervention?
Let's examine how India's latest move squares with the following maxim, "Peaceful, Honest People Have the Right to be Left Alone."
We define "peaceful" as people who do not use force or threaten the use of force against others, except in self-defense. We define "honest" as people who have not committed fraud over an implicit or explicit contract. We assume for the rest of this essay that this maxim is the hallmark of a free society until we find a better maxim, else we have more fundamental problems.
Entrepreneurs, who are in the business of making other people happy and getting remunerated in exchange, fit the bill of "peaceful, honest people" insofar as they have not coerced anyone into buying their services or products. Then, they have the right to be left alone and not coerced into hiring people using criteria that they may not share.
If there is social inequity, then it needs to be a problem that is owned by the people. We wouldn't want to be idle critics of the government, so here is a different way of looking at this problem. Most information technology companies in India compete at the global level today. Their biggest problem is finding talent as there is tremendous competition over the best individuals. Companies need to wake up to the fact that their battleground has to shift from capturing the best trained talent to training people to be the best with competitive contracts that secure their services.
While this has happened in the past with companies such as Tata Consultancies requiring new employees to sign bonds, with competition heating up, prospective employees have other options with companies that do not require bonds.
Then, it becomes a question of where the "bond" idea would be seen as a positive opportunity instead of a constraint. And common sense would tell us that it would be in under-served communities, whose existing options are much worse. Once this is recognized, our IT companies would look at under-served communities as a gold mine. Mind you, not all of the raw material in a gold mine yields gold. But the ones that do yield gold make it worth your while to get into the mining business.
Once this thinking sets in, companies will rush in to attract talented minds in under-served communities. Imagine a contract, "We will fund your child's high school and college education if your child agrees to sign a contract to work for a 2-5 year period. Should the contract need to be broken, here is the amount that will have to be refunded."
In the interest of making the most money out of people in the shortest amount of time, companies would have to give the best training possible to such children, so that the work they do is of the highest value possible. Companies can also get creative. Instead of requiring a fixed number of years, they can provide training in a niche area which they alone serve, and ensure that they have a wide talent pool to pick from when the time comes.
One has to only see how corporates woo poor students by looking at them as valuable future options. For example, Microsoft provides its development platform either free or at heavy discounts at various universities so students can become experts by the time they graduate, and form a ripe pool to recruit from, thus lowering recruitment costs.
Many organizations give freebies with an intention to create a future market. For example, this was behind the success of Unix as an operating system with Sun Microsystems making it free for students, who would then want to use it when they started professional work, in addition to creating a pool of people who they could hire.
At Stanford University, every company provides steep discounts on student software in the hope that they are creating future communities for their products. Yahoo and Apple are engaged in a battle over the music download market and students get the best deal in the process, with Yahoo providing a year's worth of free downloads, with the hope of getting loyal future paying customers.
Now, pro-reservation thinkers will argue that people have benefited in the past from reservation. Their arguments are not without merit. Let us examine some of them.
First, people who have benefited under reservation are now doing things that they could not have done earlier due to lack of opportunity.
Second, we cannot have laws that are fair to all, it is the way of the world and if someone loses out, too bad. We can only try to be most fair to the least served communities.
Third, a non-coercive system will only benefit the smart, who can take care of themselves anyway.
Fourth, the fact that many beneficiaries of reservation have improved economically under reservation proves that reservation was a good decision to make and we should continue it.
The first argument is valid. Some beneficiaries of reservation are indeed doing desirable things that they would not have done otherwise. We must note that the idea of reservation is not being objected to. If you believe that reservation is important to restore equity in society, then more power to you! In your organization, you can have reservation based on sex, caste, class, height, weight and whatever other criteria you wish. However, the problem arises only when you impose your criteria on someone else.
For instance, cigarette smoking is bad and you don't like it. So you can abstain, and use your free will to ensure it is not permitted in your house. You will not frequent restaurants that allow smoking. But do you really have the right to decide that this standard must be coercively imposed in every house, however laudable it might be?
People making this argument routinely overlook the fact that reservation is eminently possible in private institutions on a voluntary basis. Most Catholic schools reserve seats for their community and open the rest to others. And that actually works great for everyone. Boys-only schools voluntarily commit sexual discrimination and it works great as do girls-only schools.
The second argument says that the least served people should get the most opportunities. Imagine the principal of a girls-only school deciding that enough was enough. As girls have traditionally been under-served, all schools in India must have 75% reservation for women in order to restore the equity, until the number of educated girls equals the number of educated boys (who knows how you would track that). After all, female education is a laudable goal, right?
If you were to make the second argument, then you really should not have a problem with this situation. You would be within reason to point out that this is an extreme extension. The only way we can test a universal principle is by taking it to the extreme. If you take the maxim to its extreme, all peaceful and honest people will be left alone. No problem.
But if you take social equity to it's extreme, we land into all kinds of difficulties. When people are quick to point out that you can't be fair to all sides in this issue, they are absolutely right. However, the conclusion that we must "live with it" is an excuse for not thinking deeper. If we can't have a "fair" law, then why must we have a law at all? What would a system without such a law look like? Are our conclusions based on scientific experiments or socio-political biases? If we truly care about under-served communities, we cannot afford to be unscientific about this. We must explore with a scientific mind.
The third argument that only smart people will benefit from a non-coercive system appears to be a convincing one. However, it is really a facade for a paternalistic and condescending view of society. It is easy to fall into this trap. The acclaimed philosopher Bertrand Russell once noted that when a piece appeared in the British press that only 10% of the population was intelligent, people agreed as everyone counted themselves in the intelligent 10%. Such self-deception is prevalent in all societies, including India.
It is high time we stopped assuming stupidity of the masses. Let's take a look at our neighboring state, Bangladesh, which almost everyone agrees is worse off than India. Every year, this country either suffers drought or flood or both. Decades of aid has only devastated the country further as the agendas of donor countries trump the real needs of the country, according to Dr. Mohammed Yunus, the man who turned the field of economics on its head with his experiment in this country.
Dr. Yunus believed that "poor" people were extremely creative and could solve their own problems. Their only problem was, no one trusted them. So he decided to trust them and lend them money. The result was the formation of the legendary Grameen Bank, which has by now disbursed over $1 billion of loans, and has a recovery rate of 99.1% (more conservative auditing brings this down to 85% which is still extremely high for its segment), matching some of the most astute banks in the United States.
Even the most basic study of this experiment will reveal that their process involves getting people to solve their own problems. The Grameen experiment is being replicated all over the world, including India, though it was botched up initially when the Government got involved. It is now being tried by private enterprises like Unitus and the reports have been very positive.
The final argument that because some people have benefited, it implies it was a good decision and should be continued is a highly fallacious one. One cannot judge a decision from the outcome but only from the process used to arrive at the decision. If we knew outcomes, we really wouldn't have a decision to make.
Once this logic is understood, we will quickly realize that we cannot condemn the creators of reservation - at the time, they thought this was the best way to introduce equity, hence it was a good decision indeed as they were consistent to their preferences and the best information available. But we know better now, and it is naive for us to ignore the evidence in front of us.
Affirmative action (or reservation) research in the United States has shown that reservation has not had the intended effect on the self-confidence or performance of beneficiaries. The evidence shows that under-served communities have not been able to utilize their opportunity and do poorly, even with the best of resources at hand. If these studies were to be repeated in India, we should not be shocked with similar findings, for these have been empirically reported.
One has to only wonder why it is that in Tamil Nadu, year after year, Brahmin children perform exceedingly well, while being a tiny minority (estimates put them at less than 3% of the population) and having all quotas against them?
Logic would have us institute reservation for Brahmins in Tamil Nadu as they are the minority. Strangely, reality does not concur with logic and the state offers 69% reservation for under-served communities. In spite of a much lower set of opportunities, how do Brahmin children do so well, an observable and acknowledged fact by all, especially the politicians of the state who clamor for more reservation? We need to find answers to these questions so we may replicate them for children of other communities and have them be as self-reliant.
To summarize, there is no objection against reservation of any form undertaken on a voluntary basis. However, coercive reservation is fundamentally flawed, ineffective and creates more problems than it solves. It also diverts our attention from non-coercive, voluntary approaches, that would have been tried a long time back had people not thought that the government was taking care of it.
The decision makers who introduced reservation made a good decision that was consistent with the best information available to them and their preferences. Why can't we follow their footsteps and be consistent with our preferences and the vastly better information available to us today?
Reservation: Our Downfall
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Politics
- » Culture: Society
- » Culture: Social Issues
- » Culture: Philosophy
- » Desicritics.org articles by Somik Raha
- » All Opinion articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
Amrita
URL
March 9, 2007
01:40 AM
Somik - I think I've finally figured out why I disagree so strongly with you even when my views match yours. And its because you seem to see the world as a laboratory in which it is possible to achieve perfect conditions.
So while I agree with you on the reservations policy, I completely disagree with the process by which you arrived at your conclusion and the ideas that underpin it.
Weird.
Somik Raha
URL
March 9, 2007
02:05 AM
Amrita, an opinion is not useful for discussion unless backed by an argument. You wrote, And its because you seem to see the world as a laboratory in which it is possible to achieve perfect conditions. I used real-world examples in combination with logic. Are you suggesting we discard empirical observation and logic? Or do you see any argument of mine that needs countering?
Or are you referring to the ideas suggested? People suggest ideas all the time, and you might have good arguments as to why they won't work. I am eager to hear them.
Chandra
March 9, 2007
02:14 AM
Somik
Another interesting perspective but again driven by what I call "free market fundamentalism". Your expectation for corporates to invest into something 15 years down the line is silly. If TCS does not get people in India, they will go to a place where they get people. Secondly, why should the company commit significant cash flows for something that will not provide guaranteed results.
What happens if the guy after joining TCS would wilfully underperform. They cannot sack him, can they? If they do, he will join another company with higher salary and the whole purpose of the company's investment is defeated.
Sounds like another theoretical experience mate
Personally, I dont care whether Reservations exist in the education sector. They dont make a difference one way or the other. What is important is finding a way to way to improve quality of delivery.
Introducing it in the private sector is foolish, no need to even debate that!!!!
Amrita
March 9, 2007
02:34 AM
somik - here is a short example of the kind of thought process I find incomprehensible on your part:
1. the power of the gun, conceding that this is really the only power a government has - I don't concede anything of the kind.
2. The comparison of Red China and Socialist India - on the surface, it seems a very point-to-point comparison. But there is a world of difference in the quality of say, land reforms carried out by a communist nation and a democratic one, even if it is socialist.
3. Bonds - this is not a new idea. Church groups, for example, regularly exercise this option providing funds to deserving students to study further with the understanding that they will work for a period of time for a related institution owned by the Church, for eg, Doctors and Missionary Hospitals.
4. The "Peaceful, Honest People" - this seems to be the grand idea that underpins most of your theses and I find tremendous fault with it. Even a cursory glance at a newspaper should tell you why.
etc etc... So as I said, I agree with you on the final point but you seem to have arrived at it from an almost incomprehensible tangent.
Somik Raha
URL
March 9, 2007
03:21 AM
Amrita wrote:
2. The comparison of Red China and Socialist India - on the surface, it seems a very point-to-point comparison. But there is a world of difference in the quality of say, land reforms carried out by a communist nation and a democratic one, even if it is socialist.
Yes. My point was that we'd be in deep trouble if we had gone the coercive way like China. It is to India's biggest credit that nothing gets implemented easily. We agree on this one.
3. Bonds - this is not a new idea. Church groups, for example, regularly exercise this option providing funds to deserving students to study further with the understanding that they will work for a period of time for a related institution owned by the Church, for eg, Doctors and Missionary Hospitals.
None of these ideas are new. I didn't claim they were.
1. the power of the gun, conceding that this is really the only power a government has - I don't concede anything of the kind.
Well, what can a government do if you do not obey the law? They can either take away your freedom or your assets, and in some cases, your life. That is what I meant by the power of the gun.
4. The "Peaceful, Honest People" - this seems to be the grand idea that underpins most of your theses and I find tremendous fault with it. Even a cursory glance at a newspaper should tell you why.
You seem to agree with me here too. I never implied that we live in a society where this maxim is obeyed. In fact, it is violated so often that the term freedom is a joke. I do propose to hold a free society to this standard, as I think it's a powerful one to which I haven't yet found an objection. Do you have one?
etc etc... So as I said, I agree with you on the final point but you seem to have arrived at it from an almost incomprehensible tangent.
It seems to be a case of misunderstanding, I guess it's my writing style. My apologies, and I look forward to your further arguments.
BD
URL
March 9, 2007
04:54 AM
Here's an idea for people who support reservations. Dig out money from your dad's pension, mortgage your house and set up a firm. I will then ask you to hire people not according to your wishes but according to a schedule that I will draw up.
I have done so and ended up, at one time, employing hundreds and hundreds of people, and the stomach churning, spinchter clenching feeling that you get when your old parents can be made poor and your family be chucked on the street guarantees that you will do your level best to succeed.
I do NOT want any stupid moron who has no stake in my life to tell me how to earn money. I pay well, I employ well and I reward good performance, as most if not all entrepreneurs do. The day the government comes down and makes it difficult for me to hire the right people, I will start making bad decisions.
And for those who love reservations, check out what thomas sowell has been saying.
Voluntary reservations, bugger that, all I want it the ability and right to use my capital the way I want. I am here to make money, not to do social policy. Social policy is to be made by the government for which I pay taxes.
And remember, people who rob peter to pay paul will always have the support of paul.
Leeches. i tell you.
sandeep
URL
March 9, 2007
06:19 AM
This is what is so hysterical about these people, they will openly make their hypocritical proclamations, without a hint of irony and because the mass media is so tilted in their favour no one else does neither.
My response to people like these is to just laugh at their depravity and willful blindness and their unwillingness to acknowledge it.
the articles is very interesting for self defense and martial arts video to more and more
information for self defense and martial arts video to the articles
click on this link to get more information
Fight
Sujai
URL
March 9, 2007
10:14 AM
Somik:
You are way off when you say:
We must be very careful when involving the government in solving social problems.
I am not sure if there is any nation on this planet which does not involve government in solving their social problems. Most laws are designed to address social problems directly or indirectly. Constitutions are written to address the same.
China is a glaring example of what happens when governments get involved in restoring social equity
You take example of only China- which happens to be an extreme case. Europe is heavily socialistic in all its policies. Just look at the kind of taxes they pay, and look at how much the industry pays in taxes!
Examples galore are found in Europe and North America where laws are made to address inequality in social and economic status. China is not the best example.
You talk of discarding affirmative action by US- your learning is limited. Even now, US 'influences' companies to maintain diversity by ensuring that the companies which do not maintain adequate number of minorities on their roll DO NOT qualify for federal contracts and other federal opportunities. Is this not 'coercion' according to your dictionary?
You talk of companies like TCS investing in something that will bear fruit many years later. You have no sense of business or reality that pervades this country. No software-services company invests in anything that bear fruit after a year. Their goals and policies are completely short-term.
Your case is fictional suitable for worlds like Wonderland of Alice 
Leave the real problems to real people!
Somik Raha
URL
March 9, 2007
11:08 AM
BD, I was with you all the way till the end, until you said, Voluntary reservations, bugger that, all I want it the ability and right to use my capital the way I want. I am here to make money, not to do social policy. Social policy is to be made by the government for which I pay taxes.
This seems to contradict all that you said before - social policy is where the government decides it knows better how to use your money. Or maybe you don't count your taxes as your money.
Somik Raha
URL
March 9, 2007
11:18 AM
I am not sure if there is any nation on this planet which does not involve government in solving their social problems. Most laws are designed to address social problems directly or indirectly. Constitutions are written to address the same.
It wasn't always this way. When the US was formed, it was protest paying tax to Britain. The founding fathers envisioned a tax-free society where people would be free to pursue their endeavors. Worked until World War I. The next big hike was in World War II, and since then, taxes have only gone up. Now, an American will scarcely believe if you mention that, not so long back, taxes were 1% of the income.
Examples galore are found in Europe and North America where laws are made to address inequality in social and economic status. China is not the best example.
China is an example of what not to do - use force to change behavior. Europe is burning with social inequality (remember France last year?) but not so much as North America. Which social policy has actually created equity here - do tell me.
You talk of discarding affirmative action by US- your learning is limited. Even now, US 'influences' companies to maintain diversity by ensuring that the companies which do not maintain adequate number of minorities on their roll DO NOT qualify for federal contracts and other federal opportunities. Is this not 'coercion' according to your dictionary?
Yes it is. I think you are getting my point now. The diversity initiative is a complete joke. Companies are complaining that they have teams with people of different colors but poor performance, that is if they manage to find people of different colors in the first place to fill their positions. In a free society, discrimination is fine. You are free to do what you want as long as you dont physically hurt someone or defraud someone.
You talk of companies like TCS investing in something that will bear fruit many years later. You have no sense of business or reality that pervades this country. No software-services company invests in anything that bear fruit after a year. Their goals and policies are completely short-term.
You are right. But that could change. And it is tarting to. Check the Azim Premji Foundation. I am suggesting the future.
Your case is fictional suitable for worlds like Wonderland of Alice 
Not long back, the people who thought about freedom in India had to hear the same thing, and then 1947 happened.
Hoping to hear more arguments.
Chandra
March 9, 2007
12:54 PM
Sujai
"Even now, US 'influences' companies to maintain diversity by ensuring that the companies which do not maintain adequate number of minorities on their roll DO NOT qualify for federal contracts and other federal opportunities"
Chandra: FALSE!!!!!
here is the actual executive
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS
Each Government contractor with 50 or more employees and $50,000 or more in government contracts is required to develop a written affirmative action program (AAP) for each of its establishments.
A written affirmative action program helps the contractor identify and analyze potential problems in the participation and utilization of women and minorities in the contractor's workforce.
If there are problems, the contractor will specify in its AAP the specific procedures it will follow and the good faith efforts it will make to provide equal employment opportunity.
Expanded efforts in outreach, recruitment, training and other areas are some of the affirmative steps contractors can take to help members of the protected groups compete for jobs on equal footing with other applicants and employees.
Chandra:
a. There are no reservations
b. There are no %s
Roshan
URL
March 9, 2007
01:15 PM
BD,
have to say, I totally agree with you. No govt should tell me how to make money and run my business as long I'm not harming others in conduct of my business. I absolutely hate this attitude of the govt(politicians) where they believe they know what's best for us. Forcing reservations is just an example. Then we have Dasmunsi telling us what to watch! Bloody control freaks!
Somik Raha
URL
March 9, 2007
02:29 PM
Roshan, indeed. Somehow, we've gotten so used to this that if it doesn't change soon, people will not remember what it was like to be free.
Sorav Bansal
March 9, 2007
02:39 PM
Your concerns on reservation and your arguments against it are good. Like you, I totally resist reservation of any kind.
However, the ideas that you propose as possible solutions seem theoretical. Let me discuss the idea of financial education bonds that you suggest.
I do not see, why a financial education bond would benefit under-served communities more than others. Your argument on under-served communities being a gold-mine looks contrived. Let us look at one institution that is already implementing this bond-based approach for over a decade -- Singapore's Nanyang Technological University (NTU).
NTU requires students to sign 3-6 year contracts in return for free high-quality undergraduate education. Does it provide any advantage to under-served community students? I think not.
And I think, thats the way it should be. We should not be overly-concerned about serving under-served communities. The best way to help anybody is to let them help themselves. We should make sure that good primary education is available to all and then let everybody make their own path. Our responsibility as a society ends at ensuring that everybody has a level playing field. If any reservations are needed. they should be provided only at primary education level.
Somik Raha
URL
March 9, 2007
03:07 PM
Sorav Bansal wrote:
NTU requires students to sign 3-6 year contracts in return for free high-quality undergraduate education. Does it provide any advantage to under-served community students? I think not.
You are right. NTU provides a good deal for people who don't have a better one. But I don't see how NTU's decision to not have quotas for underserved communities makes the idea impractical?
I am not suggesting that private organizations offer quotas. I am suggesting that IF people care about reservation, they may offer it on their own money, in their own organizations, as they please.
The point of discussion is not whether merit-based quotas are better. These are value-judgments and each person's opinion is to be respected. It doesn't matter what system you prefer as long as you don't take my money forcibly to implement your ideas.
Somik Raha
URL
March 9, 2007
06:40 PM
Chandra wrote: "Another interesting perspective but again driven by what I call "free market fundamentalism". Your expectation for corporates to invest into something 15 years down the line is silly.
It is very interesting that you would indulge in value-loaded terms like free market fundamentalism when you have pretty good arguments for your point of view. How about "freedom fundamentalism" or "creativity fundamentalism?" :)
Chandra wrote:
"If TCS does not get people in India, they will go to a place where they get people. Secondly, why should the company commit significant cash flows for something that will not provide guaranteed results.
I am beginning to wonder if people have the read the piece fully. I am not dictating TCS corporate strategy. Rather, I think it makes good business sense to replenish supply instead of whining about its decline.
To your second point, companies currently invest in stocks and deals that do not provide guaranteed results. If you think some more, you will find that you yourself invest in such deals in some shape or form. In fact, if you have guaranteed results, its a no brainer - you don't have a decision to make.
The science of making decisions under uncertainty is called decision analysis and people have been using it for decades for making investments.
Chandra wrote: What happens if the guy after joining TCS would wilfully underperform. They cannot sack him, can they? If they do, he will join another company with higher salary and the whole purpose of the company's investment is defeated.
Think of stocks. You can buy stocks and they can either go up or down. Some stocks in your portfolio don't work, but some do. And those that work out can make it worth your while. The devil is in the details and smart, trained people can usually work it out. It might be better to sack some people that indulge in the fallacy of sunk-cost (your past investment, apart from learning value, has no other role to play in your present decision about the future).
Chandra wrote: Personally, I dont care whether Reservations exist in the education sector. They dont make a difference one way or the other. What is important is finding a way to way to improve quality of delivery.
They make a difference to a generation aspiring for scarce resources. When they grow up feeling violated, that feeling always returns to haunt society.
Chandra wrote: Introducing it in the private sector is foolish, no need to even debate that!!!!
I am with you on this, but believe it or not, a lot of people disagree. This piece was an attempt at understanding and addressing their concerns without using reservation. One big reason the anti-reservation camp does not get taken seriously by the pro-reservation folks is the "I don't care what you think" attitude. In a truly free society, this would not be a problem. But in our society, we do need to engage and understand where our pro-reservation friends are coming from, and make an honest effort to address their concerns.
Sujai
URL
March 10, 2007
02:05 AM
Somik:
The diversity initiative is a complete joke. Companies are complaining that they have teams with people of different colors but poor performance...
I am not sure where you get such inputs. Please ask Jack Welch or Bill Gates. Please ask Cisco or Boeing. Who is complaining? And why do you think diversity initiative is a joke? (Well, don't answer that).
There is no record, official or unofficial, which states that diversity has led to poor performance. On the other hand, every study suggests that no compromise is made in performance because of diversity. You need to talk to some of the CEOs of these companies before you make any of your assumptions.
And what exactly do you mean when you say:
In a free society, discrimination is fine. You are free to do what you want as long as you dont physically hurt someone or defraud someone.
???
For some reason, I tend to disbelieve you when you say:
... believes that in a free society, peaceful and honest people should be left alone.
You mean you want the people who discriminate, and those who do not pay taxes to be left alone??
Sujai
URL
March 10, 2007
02:09 AM
Chandra:
??
Why is it FALSE? You have not supported any evidence to suggest what I said was false. You have just cut-paste a regulatory notice of affirmative action. What does it reflect? How does it support your argument that it is FALSE?
Talking about a subject when you have no clue about it reflects poorly on your intellect!
Talk to an executive at Boeing or Motorola and see what he has to say! :) [But I guess you would rather depend on your ignorance)
Somik Raha
URL
March 10, 2007
02:47 AM
Sujai wrote:
There is no record, official or unofficial, which states that diversity has led to poor performance. On the other hand, every study suggests that no compromise is made in performance because of diversity. You need to talk to some of the CEOs of these companies before you make any of your assumptions.
There is one view you get on the outside and there is another on the inside. In a reputed Fortune 500 firm, I am privy to a huge debate around diversity. Managers were being pressured to prefer people of color and when they weren't able to find people, they were being questioned. People called it reverse-discrimination and the HR department was under intense pressure. This is also the case elsewhere. As Sorav mentioned earlier, you cant suddenly get people of color if not that many are getting into the education food chain earlier on.
I also took a graduate level class on diversity and saw some research on this. For instance, African Americans continue to perform poorly even through affirmative action and researchers have been studying this for a while.
Sujai wrote: In a free society, discrimination is fine. You are free to do what you want as long as you dont physically hurt someone or defraud someone.
Much as I hate to crash the party, in the US, India and any country of your choice, you will find you can't do anything about discrimination in people's minds. We can tell ourselves stories that people treat each other equally. Or we can accept that they don't and say - so what? Note, I don't think it is admirable. I just don't think it makes the cut for being illegal. There are very few things that we should make illegal, for the moment we do so, we are imposing an ethical code on others.
Now, if people have nasty opinions of other communities and leave them out, guess what, that's an opportunity for the smart entrepreneur to serve an underserved community. Find me one community that is discriminated against, and I will show you a community that is ready to bring you their business when you start serving them.
Chandra
March 10, 2007
03:22 AM
Sujai
of course it is false....Read my entire post....
where are the %?
where are the quotas?
Read the law, it says u need to have a document and a plan,,,it does not say how much, all our reservations talk about a quota........Read my entire post....
I wonder why I should speak with Boeing and Motorola, are they representative of the entire population? Both of them are manufacturing companies (defence and telecom equipment makers). They contribute to less than 10% of the GDP. Not a representative sample
Who are you fooling? Where is your data to support your claim, ....expand on your claim with solid data and not some random comment.....
cheers
Chandra
March 10, 2007
03:28 AM
Sujai
"There is no record, official or unofficial, which states that diversity has led to poor performance"
Chandra:There is no record because the quality of data collection is poor.
David
April 5, 2007
03:40 AM
Yes you do have the right to dictate smoking rules, for obvious reasons.
1. Social dynamics are such that non-smokers will tolerate secondhand smoke for the sake of being polite to their friends while smokers will rudely stomp out and go somewhere else if they are not allowed to smoke. Hence smoking places do not lose business even though only 25% of people smoke, while nonsmoking places lose business even though 75% do not smoke. Thus 99% of places are smoking and there is no real market choice until the government steps in with an across the board ban.
2. All publicly licensed establishments have to comply with majority views (no spitting, no serving alcohol to minors, no drug consumption, no sex on the premises) even if a minority disagrees. There is no weird libertarian framework here. Smoking should be no different.
Somik Raha
URL
April 5, 2007
04:13 AM
David wrote:
Yes you do have the right to dictate smoking rules, for obvious reasons.
Not so obvious to me. You can only dictate rules for the property you own. Can you dictate rules for property you don't? You can always take your business away from places that trouble you with smoke.
Thus 99% of places are smoking and there is no real market choice until the government steps in with an across the board ban.
That's funny. I wonder where you stay. Where I stay, restaurants have strictly delineated no-smoking sections. In fact many restaurants don't even allow smoking. And they seem to do good business. When you say 75% don't smoke, are these non-smokers idiots to not patronize a non-smoking joint, or could it be that a restaurant with smoke is fulfilling other more important needs? No one's forcing a non-smoker to not open their own joint and many have.
ll publicly licensed establishments have to comply with majority views (no spitting, no serving alcohol to minors, no drug consumption, no sex on the premises) even if a minority disagrees.
What if majority view is that all must wear shorts?
There is no weird libertarian framework here. Smoking should be no different.
You are right that there is no libertarian thinking around here - we have all been slaves for a while and can't think of living without control freaks around us. So much so that liberty sounds weird now. Ha ha. The joke is on us this time, I fear.
Add your comment
(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/4691)