<p>The story of HarVandy, Inc.:
[quote]
The name of the company is HarVandy, Inc. It was created as a stepping stone of sorts, an elite non-profit corporation where for four years its employees, fresh out of high school, hone their skills and experience in preparation for, and anticipation of, very lucrative future careers. While the company's required room and board and other living expenses are very high at approximately $55,000 per year, salaries are structured and intended to cover these costs. </p>
<p>High school seniors apply for employment, after filling their high school years with the hardest courses, achieving the highest grades, and creating resumes of exceptional activities and honors. The best of the best are chosen by HarVandy, as advertised, through a very "holistic" process. </p>
<p>For over half of the recruits ("Group A"), salary offers range up to $55,000, and, as an added benefit, the earnings are tax-free. For the others ("Group B"), no salary whatsoever is offered. Most A's and B's have very similar credentials. So, then, what is the reason for the disparity in salaries? It is, in fact, something the recruits have no control over--their parent's financial situation--their earnings history and amount of savings and assets. Of course, we are talking about 18-22 year olds, adults, really--so what should their parents have to do with this salary structure? HarVandy officials insist that since the Group B parents have greater financial resources than Group A, their children should be paid conversely, if at all. So the B's, if they desire to work for this elite institution, must ask their parents to pay the full price (with their after-tax earnings) to support them for four more years, at $55,000 per year, before they can claim career independence. These employees, although legally adults, are forced to remain attached to their parent's purse strings. Loans for this amount are not feasible. And these B's and their parents are told that they are doing the right and fair thing, in reparation for the disparity among their financial status. They must count themselves lucky for the opportunity to participate in such a noble enterprise. And HarVandy has successfully enticed these parents to, in essence, pay the salaries of its own employees.</p>
<p>There are a very, very few of the Group B's who are offered some meritorious salary--the brightest and best of the incoming group. However, they must maintain a high level of performance at the risk of their salary being taken away. Group A, however, receives their large salaries with no strings attached, either to their parents or the company. There is no evaluation criteria--their salaries are not intended to reward their own performance, rather to make up for the lack of their parent's financial performance, regardless of the reason. </p>
<p>The rest of Group B, receiving no salary at all, after trying diligently not to be jealous of those who do, begin to wonder if the company really values their contributions and presence. They feel that even after all of their hard work, they have somehow let their parents down, and are a burden to them. They worry if their chances at any future career could ever be worth this level of investment. And Money, as always, talks. The murmurings of unrest begin.</p>
<p>Adding to the unrest, an unpaid Caucasian member of Group B learns of HarVandy's marketing campaign which places great emphasis on its "diversity", which apparently means the large percentage of the other races it employs, as it details its achievement of increased percentages of 40 to 45% of other ethnic groups. "Oh," B thinks, "If only I weren't white, then, even though I am paid nothing for the opportunity of working here, I could at least be of some marketing value." But behind these valiant thoughts, uncomfortably, they begin to wonder if HarVandy's salary policies are in some way tied to these marketing campaigns. </p>
<p>And one day, Group B decides they will no longer work for nothing. They don't understand a system where rewards are not based on their own achievements, potential, or work performed. They admire their parents for working hard to achieve and for saving and investing their earnings wisely. They see no fairness in a policy which results in penalty of their parent's achievements and a failure to reward their own. They wonder how the mindset of this majority of A employees, with no financial stake in this stage of their career, will be impacted in their future attitudes toward risk, reward, and entitlement. And they realize that race is not something to be exploited in any way, and that forced diversity does not result in color-blindness.</p>
<p>They leave. Leaving HarVandy, however, unable to function without all of the Group B's, who carried a large share of the work and whose parents covered the expenses. The tremendous academic statistics of the company begin to fall without the contribution of the B's. The glamour begins to fade. HarVandy is forced to scale back and to ask the Government for a bailout. It is, after all, too big to fail. And the government's increasingly progressive tax structure ensures that the underlying philosophy of HarVandy's policies can continue, even though it will probably be unable to maintain its once elite status. As Newsweek recently reported, "We are all Socialists now." HarVandy was merely one of the first to capitalize upon it.
[/quote]
</p>