regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (02/15/85)
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. Projected cause -- in a society that values it's women less than men, it ceases to matter what the actual job function/task performed is (the values society places on any job are arbitrary, anyhow. That we pay business people [regardless of sex] more than teachers _floors_ me.). Part of the purpose of the equal-pay-for-equal-work issue, and the affirmative action program is to force a reevaluation of the roles of certain sectors (women, blacks, etc) of the population so that "market value" will begin to function. Affirmative action practices are, in themselves, discriminatory in a reverse manner to historical discrimination practices. However, the intent (and in some cases, the result) is to open fields/wages etc. up for those whom society has rigorously excluded. Once we reach a baseline of equity, affirmative action and equal-pay-for-equal-work will cease to be issues. (Always presuming that children are raised with similar expectations, which, of course, they aren't. You can't dress your daughter in pink and lace for her whole life, and reward only nurturing behaviour, then expect her to "freely" choose to become a truck driver).