orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/21/85)
A recent article actually may lend support to my earlier contentions that jobs have shifted from well-paid manufacturing jobs to low-paid service jobs: > > > > 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. > If it is indeed true, as I have read in various articles summarizing studies done on this question, that 1)well-paid factory jobs are declining (this is *undoubtedly* true) 2)the major increase in jobs has been in low-paid service jobs Then it only makes sense that 65% of new jobs have gone to women. As the husband gets laid off from his $20-30k factory job, the wife is increasingly forced to go out and work at McDonald's or anywhere she can get a job. Since she has probably been out of the labor force for years low-paid service jobs are what she will probably get. This would seem another deceptive use of statistics by the right-wing similar to their attempt to try to make it look as if the country is going broke aiding the poor by lumping Social Security in with welfare programs. Note it says "65% of all the wage and salary growth has gone to women". The phrasing of this makes it sound as if women are getting more raises than men. I don't think that's what it really measures but rather simply totals all increased wages and salaries from new jobs combined with any raises. If this is true then of course if women are getting most of the new McDonald's type jobs then they will also get most of the wage and salary growth. But *how much*? If women were getting new jobs comparable to those of men then they should get *at least* the same increase in wage and salary growth as their increase in jobs. They are not: instead women are getting 78% of the new jobs predominately in low-paid service positions but only 65% of increased pay. If it is indeed true that most of the new jobs are low-skilled and lowpaid service jobs, and these are taken mostly by women then this explains why women are not getting the share of increased total wages one would expect if they were getting new jobs equivalent to men. Thanks to National Review for pointing this out! tim sevener whuxn!orb