Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihnss.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihnss!warren
From: warren@ihnss.UUCP (Warren Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.women
Subject: Re: Women, Insurance, and everything
Message-ID: <2078@ihnss.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-May-84 09:36:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihnss.2078
Posted: Thu May 24 09:36:31 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 26-May-84 13:28:27 EDT
References: <1034@vax2.fluke.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 28

This really ought to be going to net.legal or net.politics.  I
don't see any really good solutions to "discrimination" in insurance
and pensions.  Any economic transaction in which the value received
is not a direct function of the price payed is going to be unfair to
somebody, at least in their definition of unfair, and all forms of
insurance and most pension and other employee benefits plans fall
into this category.  We can try to adjust it so statistically
everybodies expected returns are equitable, however without being
able to predict the future, the results will never be equitable.  It
will be interesting to see what our legal system does with this one,
but don't expect a solution that everyone will be happy with.

The problem with debates like this and even the equal pay for equal
work argument is that they lead people to believe that these are the
only reasons for the statistics on low pay for women.  Survey after
survey turns up data that show that in the same job with the same
qualifications, the pay and advancement opportunities for a woman
are still significantly less than for a man.  This is a real problem
that can be addressed without any debate over statistics or over
equal worth, and we don't seem to be doing all that great a job at
it.

-- 

	Warren Montgomery
	ihnss!warren
	IH x2494