jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/06/85)
As an addendum to my (immediately) previous posting: Women are paid less (in part anyway) because it is expected that they will have a man to support them. Men in turn are paid more because they have to support a family. So to those who complain that equal pay for work of equal value will cost too much: if you think that the average standard of living is adequate then EPFWOEV doesn't have to cost anything extra - we just redistribute it. Personally I think that everyone should be paid enough to live a decent life themselves but to set salaries so that one half of the population can "keep" the other half is ridiculous and then to pay minimal (or nothing) to the other half so that they are economically dependent is ridiculous in the extreme. (not to mention insulting, unfair etc etc). John Chapman
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (07/16/85)
In article <2159@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: || || Personally I think that everyone || should be paid enough to live a decent life themselves || but to set salaries so that one half of the population || can "keep" the other half is ridiculous and then to pay || minimal (or nothing) to the other half so that they || are economically dependent is ridiculous in the extreme. || (not to mention insulting, unfair etc etc). I agree that every woman who wants to have a career should be entitled to. But we're never going to see complete statistical equality, for the simple reason that many women do not want to work outside the home. That's nothing to put them down for, of course, and it also doesn't mean they're "economically dependent". The fact that my income is sufficient to support our family hardly means that I am "keeping" my better half. Dave Sherman -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/18/85)
. . . > || but to set salaries so that one half of the population > || can "keep" the other half is ridiculous and then to pay . . . > > I agree that every woman who wants to have a career > should be entitled to. But we're never going to see > complete statistical equality, for the simple reason > that many women do not want to work outside the home. > That's nothing to put them down for, of course, and > it also doesn't mean they're "economically dependent". > The fact that my income is sufficient to support our > family hardly means that I am "keeping" my better half. > > Dave Sherman But if the majority of mens wages are higher than womens based on the premise of men supporting women it is unfair. Better to recognize the value of homemakers economically and base peoples wages on what is necessary to support themselves (pie in the sky I know). John Chapman > { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave