Ron, Platt is not correct. Plain and simple. Do we pay smokers more than non-smokers because we expect non-smokers to live (and thus work) longer? Should I go upstairs and ask for a raise because I changed my diet to cheeseburgers from salads? Or, like you correctly point out, should Native Americans receive more pay because they have a lower life expectancy?
More importantly, do we set a lower age for retirement for men than women? I mean, if women are expected to live/work longer, retiring at the same age would make that "annuity" bunk quite transparent. So we demand that while men can start receiving retirement/SS at, say, age 65, women are not allowed to collect until they turn 70. Quite simply, Ron, you are correct. It _is_ discrimination. The historical "justification" given to women receiving less pay has been their "undependability" in running off and squeezing out puppies. But even this is simply fabrication to justify discrimination when one wonders if a woman tells her company she's had a hysterectomy if they would up her salary. Do you think? Nope. Women receive less because they are valued less. That's the market reality. Same for any salary inequities. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
