Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!jcp
From: jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Comparable Worth
Message-ID: <8290@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 19:56:10 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8290
Posted: Tue Feb 12 19:56:10 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 14-Feb-85 23:33:52 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 16

Before comparable worth will be a viable standard, the disparities
between the various male-dominated jobs relative to skill level
will have to be addressed.  All the arguments for this concept
make the argument that there is a relatively smooth function
relating skill to pay.  In my experience this is rarely true.
It would appear that you could prove almost any comparable worth
you wanted by choosing appropriate examples.

This is one advantage of using statistics in court, you can get
statistics to say virtually anything you want, given sufficiently
fuzzy data.  (and the data here *IS* very fuzzy).

					-JCP-
PS:
	Hint: the hard part is defining 'worth' rather than
'comparable'.  Do we really want the courts doing that???