Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.women
Subject: net.politics,net.women
Message-ID: <242@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 16:59:06 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.242
Posted: Tue Feb 19 16:59:06 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Feb-85 05:06:45 EST
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 26
Xref: linus net.politics:6959 net.women:3980

Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)

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.

I can't accept this without more evidence (references).  (-:

While it is true that we are comparing opinions, not reporting actual
studies (and we all have better things to do than look up the citations
for the facts), it is also true that a good argument has support.  One
man's grist is another man's reference.