>>Jim Westrich wrote:
>> >> A look at people in the labor force reveals there is a lot of income
>> >> inequality. A fact that surprised me while running my own numbers on
the
>> CPS 1998 is that 23.7% of women in the labor force earn less than $10,000
>> >> (both low pay and part time status factor in here), while for men it was
>> >> 12.8%. 58.7% of women earn under $23,000 while only 36.3% for men.
9.9% of
>> men earn over $75,000 while 2.6% for women.
>Marta Russell wrote:
>Also, isn't there a case that can be made that inequality will not be
eradicated
>by liberalist reforms like equal pay laws because the problem is structural.
>Capitalists benefit when they can keep the wages not only low in
occupations that
>women and minorities primarily occupy - but also overall lower for women and
>minorities in all occupations. Is this called lowering the wage floor?
Equal pay laws largely help professional women. Not a bad thing exactly, but not earth shattering. Female architects (with masters) already earn more than male architects (with masters) and I wouldn't necessarily say professionally or socially female architects were "equal" to male peers.
Much of the wage gains of women relative to men were the result of men losing good jobs in the 80's. I suppose this happens somewhat now but I don't know in what proportion.
>As long as workers do not own the means of production won't inequality be
>perpetuated by a system where capital has power over labor?
Sounds about right.
Peace,
Jim "While gossip among women is universally ridiculed as low and trivial, gossip among men, especially if it is about women, is called theory, or idea, or fact."
Andrea Dworkin, *Right-Wing Women*, ch. 1 (1978).