From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: statistics and questions
Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:26:37 GMT

Gordon Fitch writes:
> 
> I gather that one of the critical determinants in women's
                                                    ^^^^^^ people's
> income and hierarchical status is time in grade -- or
> maybe more accurately, time in job experience generally.
> I've seen it repeatedly said that women who have put in
> the same time get the same money and the same promotions;
> may do a little bit better, in fact.  "Time" refers to
> both hours per day and years of employment.  
> 
> Those who are interested in equality for women should
> then look at this question of time.  If the women have
> put in less time, what else have they been doing?  My
> guess is that they have not been predominantly lounging
> about watching TV and eating pretzels.  My guess is
> that a lot of them have been taking care of children,
> or possibly other needy members of families.  But I 
> don't have any statistics at the moment.

Yes, the fact that people's income is determined to some extent by
'time in grade' probably does affect women more negatively than men.

However, I think that in many cases 'time in grade' does represent
an actual 'human capital' experience variable that is realistically useful to
the employer in many cases.

I wonder a bit about what is happening with older employees (getting near
retirement age), though.  It may not all be pure capitalism at some
point.  I'd be interested in other opinions on this.

> Now, if this is the case, I think it's interesting that
> time spent in child care is considered wasted by 
> employers.  I've done it, and it's by far the most
> demanding work I've ever performed.

But, does it  help you write manuals better?  (Or whatever it is you do).

>  So I think we might
> be looking at an example of how prejudice works so that
> no one has to look at it.  Women's work in raising
> the next generation, a critically important task for
> any civilization, is devalued, but it's done off the
> stage.  When she finally comes to work, all the guys
> are already there congratulating themselves on their
> industriousness.

> A similar analysis can be applied to the many-hours-
> per-day theory, also known as the "Mommy Track".

> As a related phenomenon, consider the demographics,
> status and wages of day-care workers, another group
> of people who engage in child care.

I'm not so sure that the demographics of day-care workers don't simply
reflect the law of supply and demand.

The relative merits of occupations are often unclear - a coal miner
may perform very demanding and dangerous work, and not get paid that
much for it.  Supply & demand sets the price of all work in a capitalistic
society, not just women's work.

Actually, under the traditional arrangement, women get a fairly good 'pay'
for what they do.  It just isn't a direct salary.  The man worked, the
woman was his partner and shared his lifestyle.  This really does have 
advantages for women over a pure capatilistic arrangment, IMO.  A partnership
is much more equal than the alternative employer-employee relationship that
would otherwise develop (IMO again).
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1761 soc.men:17070 soc.women:17153