regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (02/20/85)
Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) In article <241@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP writes: > >>While "market value" is generally a good concept for pay scales, it has >>been shown that in the case of women "market value" does _not_ govern the >>wages. In San Jose, although there is a shortage of nurses, the pay scale >>of nurses has not changed significantly in over 10 years. (It has risen, as >>in cost-of-living raises, but not in response to demand). Other studies >>have been done to show that "market value" does not function in this >>context. >I can't accept this without more evidence (references). It seems to >be putting a scholarly gloss on this person's views without proper >citations. Wages of nurses are already heavily bound up with >government regulation. In Pennsylvania, at least, even the charges >a hospital makes to its employees for parking is dictated by outside >authorities. Most cities in California have a surplus of nurses, >although Detroit, Cleveland, etc. still have shortages in the inner cities. I can't accept this without more evidence (references). (-: While it is true that we are comparing opinions, not reporting actual studies (and we all have better things to do than look up the citations for the facts), it is also true that a good argument has support. One man's grist is another man's reference.
timothy@druxt.UUCP (MorrisseyTJ) (03/01/85)
The comment about nurse's salaries not raising except for cost of living, sounds exactly like a claim Gloria Steinem made at a talk in Denver. Does this add to the veracity? I have no idea. Tim Morrissey decvax!ihnp4!druxt!timothy