Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uvacs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!slb
From: slb@uvacs.UUCP (sandy)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: opportunities, women
Message-ID: <2270@uvacs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 13:33:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: uvacs.2270
Posted: Fri Jul 26 13:33:08 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 09:19:41 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <5788@utzoo.UUCP> <2204@watcgl.UUCP> <1168@ubc-cs.UUCP> <997@ihuxk.UUCP>
Organization: U.Va. CS dept.  Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 45

> > In article <2204@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes:
> > >> Are garbagemen really worth more than McDonald's counter hands?  Probably
> > >> not, and the appropriate salary is probably closer to the McDonald's level
> > >> than the (unionized) garbagemen level.
> > >> -- 
> > >> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> > >> 				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
> > >
> >                  ... One can even argue that the working conditions for
> > the garbage collector are better than the burger flippers, since the
> > former doesn't have a supervisor breathing down his neck every minute
> > of the day, and he gets to work outside as opposed to remaining in a 
> > cramped kitchen the whole day...
> > the pay should be enough to provYde for an adequate supply of such people.
> > 
> > J.B. Robinson
> 
> Lest people think that being a garbage collector is one big picnic
> ($8/hour and all you can eat (standard garbage collector joke),
> I'd like to point out that garbage collecting is very tiring,
> physical work, at least in most locations.  Lifting enough garbage to
> completely fill up a garbage truck 2-3 times (after compacting) every
> day is a lot more tiring than serving up fast food.  Also, it is a pretty
> dirty job...
> 
> Bob Schleicher
> ihuxk!rs55611
> 

This points up a standard problem with EPFWOEV - namely, if the market is
not the way to set a value on some profession, what is?  Some feel it should
be according to the amount of training required to master the profession,
some think it should be the rarity of the ability required
(i.e. artistic or athletic talent), some think it should be according to
how risky or how unpleasant the tasks involved.  Many, of course, think it
should be some mixture of the above, but just which ones - what *precise*
mixture?  If you can't even agree on the relative worth of Whoppersloppers
and garbage-collectors, how can you ever hope to agree on, say, junior
executive accountants and senior-lead-programmer-analysts? I mean, is an easy,
dangerous, nasty job worth more than a nice safe intellectually challenging
one?  I suspect your answer will depend on whether you're a big brawny
type or a PH.D-in-English-type (not that the two types are exclusive :-)).

sandy
decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!slb