Actually Mark I wouldn't. Unless you think capitalists don't want to make money then discriminating against women (no matter how sexist their actual attitudes) is not in their self-interest. I.e., if they can get women for less and make more, they will. The same principle applies to flex time dads. Why pay a dad more when you can pay a mom less? Mark Bunster wrote: > David Horowitz wrote: > > > You could be so much happier if you understood economics 101.The labor department > > statistics are aggregates. They don't mean anything. June O'Neill has shown that > > women already get equal pay for equal work. If women earned 70% less for the same > > work, capitalists would fire all their men workers, hire women and instantly > > increase their profits by 30%. The disparity in the aggregate statistics is > > explained by the fact that the average woman takes time out to have children (and > > therefore has less job experience) or seeks flex time jobs, again to take care of > > children, and these are just by nature lower paying jobs. > > > > To back this assertion up (beyond the implication that it's OK to pay moms less), you > would need to show me that fathers who opt for flex time or take paternity leave earn > at the same rate as women. > > -- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Mark Bunster **Milo Venus was a beautiful lass > Survey Research Lab**had the world in the palm of her hand > VA. Commonwealth U **lost both arms in a wrestling match > Richmond, VA 23284 **fighting over a brown-eyed handsome man. > mbunster@vcu.edu ** > rbunster@earthlink.net** --Chuck Berry > http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=mbunster
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/03/00 EDT