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!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!qumix!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Comparable Worth Message-ID: <778@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 01:45:09 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.778 Posted: Mon Jul 15 01:45:09 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 16:22:52 EDT References: <751@umcp-cs.UUCP> <320@mit-vax.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 95 In article <320@mit-vax.UUCP> slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Siu-Ling Ku) writes: >>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? Let's not confuse the notion of "comparable worth" with current plans to implement it. It's certainly quite obvious that determining actual worth in any absolute way (even a systematic relative evaluation) is probably impossible. There are too many prejudices involved, so that no system can be trusted. Certainly the marketplace can't; you cannot simply deny the Peter Principle in toto. Evidence indicates that the government won't either; due again to external pressures. Nevertheless, it's quite clear that there is some legitimacy to comparable worth; but I feel it must be treated as a platonic ideal, rather like perfect justice. >> . . . 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? This argument has been erroneously used many times before. Changes in the relative pay for service jobs will certainly cause a change in the social structure, but to say that everyone will automatically lose is to oversimplify. People used to say the same thing about factory wages, too. >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. Well, as I said above, the government is attacking the problem in a wrongheaded way. That doesn't mean that the notion of comparable worth isn't of some theoretical value. >>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). Doesn't have have to be all. One likes to think that people have some interest in reducing the evil in the world. >>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. These things take money and oportunity. Not everyone has both. Cambridge is not the whole world, after all. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe