Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page

Free Speech - January 1996 - Volume II, Number 1

The New Slavery

Hidden Aspects of "Equal Employment Opportunity"

By Kevin Alfred Strom

Part I

The theft of our wealth and our future which goes under the Orwellian names of "Equal Employment Opportunity" and "Affirmative Action" is destroying the economic base upon which our national life depends, and even if you think you agree with me on that, you are going to find out that the situation is far, far worse than you ever imagined.

I will present to you an economic analysis which confirms precisely our thesis that White workers are now in the process of having their wages and living standards "equalized" to the level of the Third World. This is the first in a series of articles on this subject.

This series of articles is based on the writings of Jeremy Miller. Mr. Miller wrote for an audience of conventional-thinking businessmen and academics, and I have in some cases edited his work to be more frank on the subject of race than he was in the original. Mr. Miller must take credit for the analysis and its pithy style, but I take responsibility for the final form in which it is expressed. 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.

Though his credentials are impeccable, he has been utterly unable to find a major publisher for his findings because his conclusions are unacceptable to our self-appointed masters. Mr. Miller writes:

I don't know how old you are, but I can remember the time when Lyndon Johnson signed the first Civil Rights/Equal Opportunity bill into law. Certain individuals were screaming that the law would lower the wage standard. Unfortunately, at that time those individuals backed up their premise with emotion and not an ounce of analysis. Thirty years later, we see empirical evidence that their premise was correct, and I am providing the analysis.

It is a further premise of mine that throughout history all collapsed civilizations have had their collapse due to some effort on the part of their governments to elevate their underclass.

You asked for periodical credits. I have none to provide. No periodical would dare publish a premise which seems to be so Politically Incorrect and so politically explosive.

You asked for any praise which I might have received. Again, there is none to provide. No one praises the bearer of such bad news. You probably know how the bearer of bad news was proverbially treated. My treatise has earned me more hate mail than you would care to hear about. Even my own friends have reviled me and rejected me as if I were the cause of the problem and not merely its analyzer.

However, with the passage of time, most of my friends have come around again, and I have faith that the majority of the people who study my treatise will likewise come around. I repeat: even though I have been severely lambasted for my analysis, not a single person has been able to refute it - not even certain individuals with 160+ I.Q.'s.

Economic ruination is on the horizon, and when it happens, most people will not even have a clue as to why it happened. People should be informed so this error can never, never happen again.

Let us begin our analysis:
Throughout these articles I will be referring to workers with "unpreferred demographics." This is just a fancy way of saying "a worker that employers would rather not hire." As everyone knows but most are afraid to say, some races are preferable to others. But let us begin with an illustration that will make the point without touching on race.

As a fictitious case study in "Equal Employment Opportunity" or EEO for short, let us consider the case of the 900 lb. tattooed lady who was just economically displaced from a bankrupt circus.

This entertainer, because of her conditions, is covered by the disability anti- discrimination laws on the basis of obesity and cosmetic disfigurement. The 900 lb. tattooed lady considers an advertised job opening for the position of corporate receptionist. She is interviewed, and the employer is at a loss to reject her for legally valid reasons. So what happens? The next day a touch- screen computer and video camera appear at the receptionist's desk. A job is eliminated, thereby reducing in a small way the demand for labor.

Having failed there, the 900 lb. tattooed lady applies down the street for a job as a secretary. Pretty much the same thing happens again. The latest in voice recognition/word processing technology and voice mail systems are installed immediately! One more real job eliminated. What is this poor girl to do?

She gets a government grant (depleting available welfare funds) to study computer programming. She goes on her first programming interview and calls the prospective employer to follow-up two days later. What does she hear? "Sorry, we decided to fill the job from the inside." What actually happened is that they called upon one of their current computer programmers to work 80 hours per week instead of 40 at no additional compensation because the programmer is overtime-exempt as a professional, white collar worker. With an employer paying one person one salary for two jobs, we see a decrease in demand for labor (price paid relative to quantity received) and not a single extra cent going to income tax revenues or to the social security fund.

The next thing the big girl does is to apply for a job at a major airline as a flight attendant. As a result, the company establishes a flight attendant base in Frankfurt, Germany, and hires foreign nationals over the objections of its labor unions.

The last thing the poor tattooed lady does is to go on welfare causing other welfare recipients to share the ever dwindling resources of the strained social services system.

In this particular case the job seeker didn't even get a job, but look at what she left in her wake! Whether or not she were offered a position, she would have set a new real wage standard to which other workers' wages would eventually be equalized. And if you're on welfare, watch out! A 900 lb. tattooed lady is coming your way to depress your welfare check!

Note well: all of the outcomes of the above case study are less fictional than the tattooed lady. So if you're still in that segment of the White workforce not yet equalized down to the White trash level, and, while cruising the highway of life in your shiny new car you are passed by a 900 lb. tattooed lady in a rusty hulk, take it as an omen. We must learn this lesson: buyers determine value, and sellers charge what the market will bear!

A person (labor seller) with unpreferred demographics cannot dictate to an employer (labor buyer) that his/her (the seller's) value is equal to the value of a worker with preferred demographics. The law of supply and demand simply does not work this way because only the labor buyer sets his own mental perception of value just as any other buyer does.

At maximum - at maximum - an unpreferred seller can command only what the market will bear, and if he/she forces the issue by getting government rulings for equal pay, the only thing he/she will accomplish will be downward pressure on the wages of everybody else. In other words, over time and in conjunction with inflation and wage concessions, the equalization of wages under equal employment opportunity works only in the downward direction! Any initial upward equalization is brief, temporary and illusory. Females demanding equal pay with men will only succeed in getting their husbands' pay reduced to a female's level!

Try to look at things this way. If the price of apples is 99 cents a pound and if you are free to go to a supermarket's apple bin to make your selections of the reddest, shiniest, largest apples, you will gladly pay the 99 cent-a-pound asking price. But if the apples are pre-packaged with apples of all sizes and qualities mixed together and still priced at 99 cents a pound, you will reject the whole bag until inflation brings the 99 cent-a-pound price into line with your perception of value for the bag. There is, however, another spin on the labor market. Employers will not average the perceived values of the first and last choice job applicants. Paying wages that exceed what the market will bear for certain job candidates will bring more of these job candidates to the employment office of the employer, thus placing even more downward pressure on wages . . . right down to the perceived value of the least preferred job candidate (within the job category).

That is, if the employer pays a wage in excess of what the market will bear for the last choice job applicant, then there is compelling incentive for the last choice job applicant to apply for employment at that employer and sue that employer for equal wages, thereby depressing all other workers' wages to the value of the last choice job applicant.

Because this is such an important concept, this writer feels compelled to present it in yet another way to make sure that all of you understand. A buyer will pay less for an item than that item is worth to him, but he will not pay more for it than it is worth to him. If you go to a store and see a shirt that is worth $50 to you, you will buy the shirt if the price tag says $25, but you will not buy the shirt if the price tag says $75. A labor buyer will pay to his top-choice worker less than his top-choice worker is worth to him, but he will not pay to his last-choice worker more than his last-choice worker is worth to him. If the government is enforcing wage equalization between top-choice workers and last-choice workers, all employers will limit their bid for top-choice workers to the perceived value of the last-choice worker. Any employer who deviates from the unofficial wage cap by paying above-the-norm wages will find himself inundated with job applications and lawsuits that he will not want.

The irony here is that the least preferred job candidate does not even have to be awarded a job to affect the wage structure of the entire United States; all that he has to do is be in the employment market with certain laws attached to his back thereby offering a threat of a claim for equal wages. The further implication (if you can believe it) is that an employer could discriminate and hire only competent White people, and the wage levels at that employer will still reflect the downward equalization pressures of equal employment opportunity. This is because a discriminatory employer holds the lowest concept of value for the least preferred job candidate, and this employer will keep his overall wages low enough to encourage the minorities and their armies of lawyers to shop elsewhere. Some people may say, "But, but, but what about the concept of equal work, equal pay?" The quality and quantity of any worker's output is totally irrelevant to the analysis. The only thing that is relevant is the concept of value that a labor buyer formulates in his mind, and you will have to ask him about the rationale behind his formulation. There are many fine artists who can't command squat for their work, and then someone takes plain white paint to a canvas and gets $1,000,000 for it.

To review: it is a basic principle of economics that markets will not tolerate transactions whose price is greater than the market will bear. If such a transaction takes place, the market will go into self-correction mode to bring the transaction's price into line with its value. If an unpreferred worker is awarded a wage greater than what the market will bear for him, over time his wage will be brought down into line with his value, and because wages must by law be equal, the wages of the preferred workers are likewise brought down! So let's say there are three categories of people in society: A's, B's, and C's, with free- market values of $100,000 per year, $70,000 per year, and $50,000 per year, respectively. A law is passed protecting the B's by giving them equal opportunity and equal pay with the A's. The B's get jobs at salaries of $100,000 per year, but the employer is not a happy camper; his intestines are tied into knots because he is paying more than the market will bear for the B's. So the employer takes a heavy dose of a laxative called "Inflation" with a side of wage concessions until his intestinal distress is eased. This happens when the real wages of the B's and of the A's settle at a real value of $70,000 (but at least the wages are equal!) When the next law is passed protecting the C's, the employer's intestinal distress arises again until everyone finds himself earning $50,000 in real terms. Take my word for it. The value of American labor is steadily being brought to the value of the least preferred job candidate (within job category)! For any remaining doubters: the analysis in ultra-simple terms is this: if too many laws are attached to a commodity, the commodity can easily go worthless, period!

Conclusion: The equal employment opportunity laws are turning the law of supply and demand in the labor market on its head, and the value of the United States labor pool is steadily being brought to the worthless level. (To the reader: this means you no matter what your background is! Current typical wages in China are $2.00 per day.) Be advised that the government is about to drop multitudes from the welfare rolls. What's next: unloading the prisons and public mental institutions? These displaced people will flood the employment market. Reluctance on the part of businesses to absorb these people and fear of equal opportunity lawsuits will motivate employers to post "NO HIRING" signs here, there, and everywhere. With employees everywhere being locked into their positions and having nowhere else to go, employers will seize upon the opportunity by taking their current employees by their throats and shaking 'em down for wage concessions like never before. Then income tax revenues will plummet, and mortgage and loan defaults will skyrocket. What we are talking about is the end of the United States economy as we have known it. Welcome to the Third World! Have a nice day.

Which is better for the people in the long run: Communism or Equal Employment Opportunity?

Communism . . . by far!

Yes, the answer is Communism, even though Communism is an atrocious system which has failed and failed miserably. This is because under Communism workers were not equalized to the value of the last-choice worker. Even in Communist Russia, a physicist would be paid more than a laborer, and this wage differential served as enough motivation for students to study hard to qualify as elite and select physicists, while the last-choice physicist got to be a common laborer. I assure you that high educational standards were maintained in Communist Russia.

On the other hand, Equal Employment Opportunity's equal pay doctrine equalizes all wages to the value of the last possible choice of worker (within job category). That is, over time and in conjunction with inflation and wage concessions, all U.S. wage equalization is strictly in the downward direction, with any initial upward equalization being brief, temporary, and illusory. If you do not agree with this premise, please hire a very expensive economics consultant and have him explain why the lower class in the U.S. is slipping into homelessness, why the middle class is slipping into the lower class, and why real wages have been falling precipitously over recent years.

With all U.S. wages being equalized to the value of the last-choice worker (within job category), many, many people will perceive no financial incentive to elevate themselves to the standards of the upper classes. No, they will simply settle into the standards of the person to whom their wages are being equalized, that is, to the last-choice worker. The lack of this vital incentive which existed in Communist Russia results in U.S. citizens failing to achieve higher educational standards and higher behavioral standards as well (just look at U.S. crime statistics and the behavioral and appearance standards on TV talk shows).

But there is more. Due to overall lower standards everywhere, average ability levels of workers in the U.S. workplace have dropped significantly, so much so that moderately competent workers now look super competent. According to the Peter Principle super competent and super incompetent workers get exfoliated from the business hierarchy because they violate the norms too much. But since worker performance norms have been "dumbed down" so much, a moderately competent worker is now very likely to be fired while a super incompetent worker is very likely to be allowed to remain on the payroll!

A recent TV commentary stated that the real wages of Black males have suffered the most in the last 30 years of equal employment opportunity.

That's because every Black male has been going through the process which equalizes him to the value of the last-choice Black male and lower. (Note that the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against the mentally ill, the morbidly obese, the HIV or TB infected, and on and on). Many Black males have been equalized down so low that their equalized value has fallen below the minimum wage level, thus rendering them unemployable and, in many cases, homeless.

In contrast to the falling real wages of the working and middle classes, wealth is increasingly being concentrated among the very rich in this country. The cost savings from the devalued, equalized wages of labor are going to corporate profits. So instead of being a share-the-wealth mechanism for the lower classes, equal employment opportunity has become a windfall for the super rich. Isn't this a scream?

To all the lovely Black ladies working at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Every effort you make in processing an equal pay claim contributes to the homelessness of the next Black brother. And who knows? The next one to be downwardly equalized may be you!

For the sake of a little pseudo-Communist-style equality, we will see the continued disappearance of the middle class; the collapse of the welfare system; national health care becoming a pipe dream; mobs of people clamoring, fighting, and suing for scarce and dwindling jobs wherever they may exist; more economic alliances with Third World countries instead of with world class powerhouses; political squabbling with those powerhouses; hyperinflation; homelessness; skyrocketing crime; higher suicide rates; worldwide perception of U.S. exports being of Third World origin; international traveler perception of U.S. destinations as dangerous, crazy-house environments; elimination of the minimum wage law because market determined wage levels will go below $4.50/hr.; sweetheart deals/exemptions of the EEO/ labor laws in exchange for foreign investments; possibly smoke-screen wars being declared by Congress; and distant separation of our economic classes with colossal wealth going to the very, very small minority and Third World conditions for the rest of us. As I said before, have a nice day!

A cassette recording of this broadcast is available for $12.95 including postage from:
National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

Free Speech Directory || National Alliance Main Page