Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!slk From: slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Ling Ku) Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics Subject: Re: Comparable worth Message-ID: <244@mit-vax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 17:56:10 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-vax.244 Posted: Wed Jun 19 17:56:10 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Jul-85 06:16:43 EDT References: <482@ttidcc.UUCP> <8203@ucbvax.ARPA><457@unc.UUCP> <2126@ut-sally.UUCP> Reply-To: slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Siu-Ling Ku) Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 47 Xref: watmath net.women:6195 net.politics:9687 Summary: In article <2126@ut-sally.UUCP> riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) writes: >>The fallacy of the equal-pay-for-equal-work idea is that it compares >>only the paychecks and level of skill and training required. If we do not >>also factor in the safety, pleasantness, and emotional effects of the job, >>then this plan is likely to create more unfairness than it rectifies. > >Sorry, but I don't buy it. Many of the jobs which are de facto "women's >work" are not only low-paying, but they are high-stress, low-satisfaction >shit work as well.... > >I'm afraid that the line about how "women are underpaid because they choose >less ambitious lines of work" sounds to me awfully reminiscent of older >myths about how sharecroppers were poor because they were too "lazy" to do >anything else. > I agree it is unfair that teachers and nurses make less money than plumbers and truck drivers, but I don't agree that the problem is inherently sexist in nature. It is simply a matter of demand and supply. If we should really implement a "comparable worth" payscale based on level of skill and training required, than all Bachelors, and all Masters and PhDs who could find a job in his/her field should earn the same amount of money. That implys that chemist and biologist in their respective research labs should get a pay raise, or computer scientist and electrical engineers take a pay cut (no way! :-)) Furthermore, by artificially maintaining a fixed pay scale that doesn't reflect supply and demand (assuming there is a fair way of doing so), the victims (women or people who choose to major in low paying fields) will see no need to get (previously) higher paying jobs. The result would be more job segregation and more pressure on the woman NOT to enter traditionally male job, which, aside from higher pay, usually has more power. If the environment is free of artificial barriers (like discrimination, peer pressure, or social attitude), then people should gravitate toward the best paying, most interesting/rewarding/powerful job he/she is qualified for. Today's wage descrepency on male/female is not that the JOBs are not fairly paid, but that some groups are pushed into the job that is not the highest paying, most intersting ... for that person's worth. To remedy that problem by inflating the job's worth and not the person's self-worth/qualification is not a good solution. (I am not saying that teachers and nurses has lower self worth or qualification than truck driver, but if the teacher and nurse want to be PAID as much as the truck driver, than BE one! Hence, the remedy we should work on is to strike down those BARRIERS that prevent the potential teacher and nurse to make the choice to be a higher paying truck driver.) Siu-Ling Ku slk%vax@mit-mc