orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/21/85)
The following statistics really don't tell us much at all: > > > > The following is from "Detroit News", quoted in "National Review" > > of Nov 29, page 10: > > > > >Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980, the country > > >has created 7,067,000 jobs, and women took 5,540,000, or > > >78.4 per cent. > > >... about 65 per cent of all the wage and salary growth since > > >1980 has gone to women, not men. > I have already pointed out that in fact this indicates the new jobs women are getting are *not* as well-paid as men. But this is really a poor measure overall which tells us almost nothing. The questions to be asked in comparing women to men and whether they are truly achieving equality are: 1)what are the median incomes for men vs. women? unfortunately it still remains true that women earn 65% of what men earn. This statistic has not changed to my knowledge during the entire Reagan administration. (at least it hasn't gotten worse as have the poverty rate, unemployment rate, income inequality, trade deficits, savings rate,etc ad nauseum..............................) 2)out of the new jobs created how many well-paid professional jobs were filled by women? Has women's representation in professional jobs like medicine, law, engineering, science, etc. appreciably increased? I believe they have increased slightly, regardless of Reagan's attacks on affirmative action. The statistics cited by National Review are both deceptive and irrelevant. But that is hardly surprising for National Review. Nor for the Detroit News and the media in general. tim sevener whuxn!orb
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (11/25/85)
In article <835@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >1)what are the median incomes for men vs. women? > unfortunately it still remains true that women earn 65% of > what men earn. This statistic has not changed to my knowledge > during the entire Reagan administration. I always have trouble with statements like the above concerning how much women make compared to men. It seems to me that the 65% figure quoted cannot be representative of the *current* situation. A far more useful number, in my opinion, would be the earnings ratio of women to men for those people who have entered the workforce in the last five or so years. This would provide a much better "snapshot" of what is going on then a number that includes women who grew up in an era when females were not only expected to perform only menial type work but were also often barred from various (high paying) professions. So how about it? Does anyone have said figure, or something close? I've never seen anything other than the all inclusive and somewhat misleading 65% number. The only reason I can think of for this is that this ratio would be higher (perhaps significantly so) than 65% and thus would not make as good a rallying point. [I imagine that the next thing I'll be reading is that the solution for this problem is anti-market place comparable worth legislation.] J.B. Robinson