Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!ora!daemon
From: willis@photon.tamu.edu (Willis Marti)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: equal pay interesting statistic
Message-ID: <10841@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 2 Jan 91 02:31:09 GMT
References: <93640@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <1990Dec8.214629.14521@cbnewsk.att.com>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Lines: 28
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <1990Dec8.214629.14521@cbnewsk.att.com>, shy@mtgzz.att.COM (Susan Hallander) writes:

|> I wonder if the gender and marital
|> status of the people who dole out the raises has anything to do with
|> the statistics you quote. Could it be that the raise-dolers figure
|> that single men don't need as much money as their married counterparts
|> because they aren't supporting a family, and single women need more
|> money then married women because they aren't being supported by
|> anyone. I bet raise-dolers are generally married men.

|> In an ideal world, everyone would be given salaries and raises based
|> on the quality of their work, but that's not how it happens.

As a "generally married" man, who's been both the recipient and
"raise-doler", I'd have to say my experience, in technical fields in
large companies, does not jibe with your theory.  I can't think of an
instance where the marital status of the employee came into
consideration.

My comments on the statistics quoted come in two flavors: One, the
data are so mixed that gender and marital status *can't* be isolated
as factors; Two, there is some degree of self-selection on salaries --
married people often don't take the lower paying jobs because they
can't afford to do so.  They have to wait until they find the "better"
job.  Single people will be more flexible in what they will accept.

All of is not to deny that gender-based pay discrimination exists, just to
say that that oft-quoted statistic is (probably) more B---s--- than value.