riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (06/18/85)
>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. They include some of the worst examples of latter-day sweatshop labor -- everything from garment assembly to data entry. They also include plenty of jobs ("teacher, nurse, secretary, social worker") which ideally should be rewarding, cooperative jobs as you say but which in fact are often high-stress, highly competitive, terribly underrated and unrewarding burn-out jobs. (Talk to a few teachers and nurses about their job frustrations some time. While you're at it, ask the female ones about the treatment they receive from the male administrators and doctors they work under.) 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. --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") --- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle --- riddle@ut-sally.UUCP, riddle@ut-sally.ARPA, riddle%zotz@ut-sally
slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Ling Ku) (06/20/85)
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
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/22/85)
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. Actually, the fallacy of comparable worth is that it ignores -- I hate to say it -- supply and demand. Supply: especially, the regrettable facts that women choose "women's work" jobs because 1) it is considered "women's work", and thus social pressure moves women to take those jobs; 2) the jobs may be considered "better" because it is assumed, rightly or wrongly, that (e.g.) nursing serves humanity better than (e.g.) garbage collecting, and women may (probably due to our culture) value compassion more than men; 3) girls are discouraged from certain subjects (math) and encouraged to do well in others; etc., etc., etc. Discrimination probably does cause part of the wage gap, but -- there must be a better way. --Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief
susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) (06/24/85)
> Actually, the fallacy of comparable worth is that it ignores -- I hate to > say it -- supply and demand. Supply: especially, the regrettable facts > that women choose "women's work" jobs because 1) it is considered "women's > work", and thus social pressure moves women to take those jobs; 2) the > jobs may be considered "better" because it is assumed, rightly or wrongly, > that (e.g.) nursing serves humanity better than (e.g.) garbage collecting, > and women may (probably due to our culture) value compassion more than men; > 3) girls are discouraged from certain subjects (math) and encouraged to > do well in others; etc., etc., etc. > > Discrimination probably does cause part of the wage gap, but -- there must > be a better way. > --Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief There seems to be an adequate supply of auto workers, who are paid very well. There always seem to be construction workers laid off, yet, they also are paid well. There is a growing shortage of grammar and high school teachers. Supply and demand is as simplistic as the rest of the arguments about men's & women's work. Susan Finkelman
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/29/85)
>/* susan@vaxwaller.UUCP (Susan Finkelman) / 11:34 am Jun 24, 1985 */ >There seems to be an adequate supply of auto workers, who are paid very >well. There always seem to be construction workers laid off, yet, they >also are paid well. There is a growing shortage of grammar and high >school teachers. > >Supply and demand is as simplistic as the rest of the arguments >about men's & women's work. Your argument is at best unclear. Make sure you understand the notions of "supply and demand" and economic calculation in the market before you criticize their applicability to this problem. >Susan Finkelman Mike Sykora
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (06/30/85)
Susan Finkelman writes: >There seems to be an adequate supply of auto workers, who are paid very >well. There always seem to be construction workers laid off, yet, they >also are paid well. There is a growing shortage of grammar and high >school teachers. Auto workers have strong unions; construction workers seem to be much in demand in my area (lots of employment ads); the shortage of public school teachers may A) be due to govt.'s reluctance to respond to supply and demand; B) be corrected with a relatively small pay increase. If you want to show that supply and demand don't explain much of the wage gap, you have to show that the salaries of (e.g.) teachers WOULD BE HIGHER than those of (e.g.) carpenters AT "MARKET-CLEARING" WAGES. (See your econ text for def of "market-clearing".)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/15/85)
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