geb@cadre.UUCP (02/17/85)
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. Of course, there is a shortage of experienced nurses, since because of unpleasant duties and low pay, the attrition rate is high. Since nurses are essential to the running of a hospital, if there is laissez-faire free market for nurses, and hospitals were not regulated in what they could pay or charge, the law of supply and demand would certainly dictate nurses wages. There is no super-conspiracy of men that keeps all hospital administrators (some of them are women) in line. Having some governmental agency decide on what is fair pay for every job would be a nightmarish big brother tyranny that would further degrade us. It would essentially require that everyone be paid according to his/her job description without regard to free market forces. It would produce labor shortages in some fields, and mass unemployment in others. It would result in kickbacks and corruption. Even though Reagan is a foreign policy disaster, thank goodness this sort of thing will never come about under his administration.