Desicritics Comments on Reservation: Our Downfall

Comment by Argus

Mon, 4 Feb 2008 04:23:05 EST

Dall http://www.air-ticket.trenibuti.info de http://www.valle.trenibuti.info altre http://www.service-web.trenibuti.info uno.

Comment by Somik Raha

Thu, 5 Apr 2007 03:13:01 EDT

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.

Comment by David

Thu, 5 Apr 2007 02:40:34 EDT

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.

Comment by Chandra

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:28:52 EST

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.

Comment by Chandra

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:22:46 EST

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

Comment by Somik Raha

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:47:28 EST

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.

Comment by Sujai

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:09:21 EST

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)

Comment by Sujai

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:05:00 EST

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??

Comment by Somik Raha

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:40:55 EST

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.

Comment by Somik Raha

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 15:07:28 EST

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.

Comment by Sorav Bansal

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:39:00 EST

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.

Comment by Somik Raha

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:29:18 EST

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.

Comment by Roshan

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:15:46 EST

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!

Comment by Chandra

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:54:01 EST

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

Comment by Somik Raha

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:18:48 EST

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.

Comment by Somik Raha

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:08:48 EST

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.

Comment by Sujai

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:14:26 EST

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!

Comment by sandeep

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 06:19:27 EST

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

Comment by BD

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 04:54:10 EST

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.

Comment by Somik Raha

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 03:21:22 EST

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.

Comment by Amrita

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 02:34:17 EST

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.

Comment by Chandra

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 02:14:54 EST

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!!!!

Comment by Somik Raha

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 02:05:28 EST

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.

Comment by Amrita

Fri, 9 Mar 2007 01:40:45 EST

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.