Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Discrimination against women and statistics
Message-ID: <751@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 19:31:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.751
Posted: Fri Jul  5 19:31:10 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 05:37:46 EDT
References: <8204@ucbvax.ARPA> <1340254@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 46

In article <1340254@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:

>>Why?  Has it not occurred to anyone on here that some people might actually
>>take jobs because that is the kind off job they want?  And given that they 
>>enjoy the job, they *still* might wish to be well or appropriately paid?

>That is precisely the point I wished to draw out.  That many people are
>using this "comparative worth" nonsense to justify having their cake
>and eating it to.

>What in the world constitutes appropriate pay?  If you and I disagree
>over what constitutes appropriate pay, how can this impasse be resolved?
>To say that pay should be based on the amount of work someone does
>is of no use if work cannot be measured.  Moreover, why should the
>amount of work someone (i.e., how many hours, how hard, . . .) be
>the factor deciding pay?  Why should it not be how valuable the work
>is to other people?

Well, by Mike's own admission he does not want it done on that basis,
because he wants to see the wage determined by labor market forces.  He is
unwilling to recognize what US law has for close to a century: that the
labor market is controlled by the employers, who are capable (and willing)
to set the wages at whatever level they want, for whatever reason they want.
The fact that we have labor unions is sufficient demonstration that
employers are quite willing to set unreasonable wages.

Of course it is difficult to determine "comparable worth".  My feeling about
the opposition to it is this: comparable worth represents a tremendous
threat to the economic structure of the US, because it would increase the
economic power of service jobs to the point where the patrician class
(mainly businessmen, bankers and lawyers) would begin to fail to control
them.  If these people became wealthy enough to move about the country at
will, shop where they could actually influence the market, and quit their
jobs if they were mistreated, then a lot of American business practice would
have to change.  Currently, these people often can just barely claw their
way out of poverty.  They do not have the money to resist the illegal
actions of their employers, nor do they have the choice of picking up and
moving away.  Moving costs money, after all, and for the poor is an act of
the greatest desperation.

Besides, if the secretary secretly runs the whole thing, why isn't she paid
commensurately?

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe

Ubi caritas et amor, deus ibi est.