>I disagree, Kelly. I think differential pay is fine, as long as everyone
>has enough.
my oral fix is fixed again! woohoo!
dabnabit. i didn't say we should pay people equally. i was challenging the assumption upon which we now tend to allow the woman lawyer with housekeeper to assume that her salary of 50$k is deserving and the housekeeper's "good salary" of 25$k is based on anything that is justifiable. why is a lawyer's labor more beneficial to society than that of a housekeeper? a kindergarten teacher? don't tell me about education b/c i know perfectly well that you know that much of what schooling is about has to do with socializing us into professions... so it's certainly not about the differential time spent rec'g training.
i'm perfectly fine with differential rewards, but the way we decide those things has to be called into question. and we ought to start now by questioning the way we justify the differentials currently!
kelley
>This view is virtually universally shared among working people, as far as
>I knwo, and I _don't_ think this is bourgeois ideology. Moreover, it's
>important that we be able to give people incentives to do kinds of work we
>want done that they might not otherwise do, that we do reward effort and
>acheivement, and that we get some sense of what it costs us to have people
>do the various things they do. I don't say the labor market in capitalsim
>does this very well. But I don't think everyone should receive the same
>income regardless of the value of their work (or lack of it) to society. --jks