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!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!greipa!decwrl!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!slk
From: slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Ling Ku)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Discrimination against women and statistics
Message-ID: <320@mit-vax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 6-Jul-85 18:50:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-vax.320
Posted: Sat Jul  6 18:50:14 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 04:53:34 EDT
References: <8204@ucbvax.ARPA> <1340254@acf4.UUCP> <751@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Siu-Ling Ku)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 83
Summary: 

In article <751@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
>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?
>
> . . .
>The fact that we have labor unions is sufficient demonstration that
>employers are quite willing to set unreasonable wages.
>

Fine, so let the secretary and waitress form unions and bargain for a 
reasonable wage.  But why should the government get into the act (ie., by
enforcing the same wage for "comparably worth" jobs)?  Would you like the 
government to say how much YOU and I are supposed to make in the future? 

> . . .
> . . . 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.  							  ^^^^^^^
 ^^^^
Everybody is controlled, in a sense, by one's boss and to a lesser degree,
by society (i.e. everybody else).  In our society, those who have money
have a greater control over their lives and everybody else (in some other
society, one's political viewpoint, born status/race/sex, etc has more power).
Anyway, SOME class of people would have more say in any given society (we may
be created equal, but we may not have the same goal/achievement.)  What you
are proposing is to either give more power to the "service class" (I read 
"oppressed class") so that they have the same influence or even control the 
"patrician class" (the "oppressor").  Presumably, you would achieve this by 
paying the service class more (given that money is our measurement of power 
for this discussion).  But there is a catch, by raising some class of people's
wages, you automatically lower the wage for everybody else (in a sense).  Now
that we have to pay $10/hr for a waiter, an average dinner out would cost
everybody $40.  All supermarket goods would get more expansive because the
secretary upstairs, the cashier and the bagger all wants "comparable worth"
(after all, a baggar requires no less skill than a ditch digger).  Do you
think the "oppressor class" people would just sit tight and suffer, NO, they
would demand higher wages and so does EVERYBODY ELSE.  So, who is the loser?

Really, comparable worth is such a quick and dirty fix that I am sure our
infinitely wise government (i.e., ourselves) would rush to embrace it (:-)
Witness comparable scheme such as farm and diary subsidy, city-transit subsidy,
and even minimum wage.  Minimum wage is justifiable (to me) because I accept 
the notion that we are entitled to some dignity if we work 8 hrs a day, 5 days
a week.  But just throwing money at something (be it our tax dollars or our 
monthly grocery bill) don't always solves the problem.

>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
^^^^^^^^
Come on, not ALL employers are THAT evil (greedy may be, but so are most of
the human race).

>moving away.  Moving costs money, after all, and for the poor is an act of
>the greatest desperation.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How about doing something else, such as changing jobs, go to night school to
learn a more marketable skill, save up pennys over years and open your own 
store.

					Siu-Ling  Ku
					slk%mit-vax@mit-mc