Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.7 $; site uiucdcs
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!dahlback
From: dahlback@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Discrimination against women an
Message-ID: <29200236@uiucdcs>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 17:13:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29200236
Posted: Fri Jul 19 17:13:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jul-85 04:58:29 EDT
References: <678@lll-crg.ARPA>
Lines: 8
Nf-ID: #R:lll-crg.ARPA:-67800:uiucdcs:29200236:000:383
Nf-From: uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA!dahlback    Jul 19 16:13:00 1985



The idea that "pure market forces" will raise wages in conditions of
high demand sometimes seems thin. Secretaries aren't very well paid,
yet the newspapers are full of want ads for secretaries, and there are
even articles about how many secretarial jobs go untaken. What happened
to pure market forces? Sometimes I think that what happened to it is 
the concept of "women's work".