Rakesh's post has been bothering me for quite some time and I thought I'd finally comment. I don't disagree with the gist of it; I just have some thoughts to share.
Rakesh:"However, there seems to be a big wage gap between those who work in mfg and those in pure services--secretarial work, catering, janitors, landscaping, house cleaning, etc." Rakesh then has Galbraith theorizing that the investment in plants and equipment explains the differences in wages.
Where do teachers, retail workers, wait staff, actors/actresses, nurses and child care providers fit in under this theory.
Teachers, actors, and child care providers work in industries with high labor percentages-- labor accounts for a high percentage of the costs. Actors have been unionized since the 30s and have a pretty good contract under SAG representation. Teachers were poorly paid until recently when unionization took hold. Child care providers are still paid poorly.
In retail and food service, labor costs are realtively low (especially compared to the above, maybe to manufacturing.) Only grocery stores have any degree of unionization and that may be mostly attributable to the presence of the butchers on the premises. Their craft unions may have inspired the rest of the store to unionize.
In my field, retail books, there's a huge amount of inventory stting around inside the stores. With books, if you sell it within 30 days, you can pocket the profit without ever having to finance the product. If the inventory sits around, it becomes a financing nightmare. Add in downtown rents and other fixed expenses and a strike looks very winnable.
Every retail strike I've heard of has resulted in a win for the workers. But there are too few strikes.
I don't know what to say about nurses.
But it seems to me that the pay of retail and service workers bears a higher correlation with the percentage of men in the field than with anything else. Teachers unionized when men came into the profession and then more came into the profession once the pay rose. Grocery store workers had unionized male butchers on the premises. I would guess that the Screen Actors Guild has been predominantly male for some time.
As long as the work is seen as women's work the pay remains a pittance.
James in Philly
-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Subject: Re: Temping Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 12:12:00 -0400 (EDT) Size: 4969 URL: <../attachments/19980830/850bf84f/attachment.eml>