cindym@bronze.UUCP (Cindy McMeekin) (09/22/83)
Let me quote from Natinal NOW Times, August 1980 which I keep in my desk drawer for arguments like this. Their statistics are derived from 1978 data from the Census Bureau of the US Department of Commerce, p-60 Series, NO. 118 Table LJIA - Occupation of the Longest Job in 1978, Civilian Workers 14 years and over by Total Money Earnings, 1978. Annual earnings of full-time workers: 1978 women $.594 for a man's $1 1955 women $.639 for a man's $1 (Note that we are loosing ground.) The above figures are for all occupations thrown in together. Let's look at some of the occupations separated out: computer specialists (20% women) $.72 for a man's $1 engineers (2% women) $.86 for a man's $1 insurance, real estate, stock agents & brokers (26% women) $.49 for a man's $1 construction (1% women) $.92 for a man's $1 secretaries & stenos (99% women) $.96 for a man's $1 retail trade, self employed (22%) $.50 for a man's $1 The figures do not differentiate between amounts of training or time on the job but are rather amazing as is. Cindy McMeekin tektronix!tekmdp!cindym
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (09/23/83)
> Let me quote from Natinal NOW Times, August 1980 which I keep in my > desk drawer for arguments like this. Their statistics are derived > from 1978 data from the Census Bureau of the US Department of Commerce, > p-60 Series, NO. 118 Table LJIA - Occupation of the Longest Job in > 1978, Civilian Workers 14 years and over by Total Money Earnings, 1978. > Annual earnings of full-time workers: 1978 women $.594 for a man's $1 > 1955 women $.639 for a man's $1 > (Note that we are loosing ground.) > The above figures are for all occupations thrown in together. Let's > look at some of the occupations separated out: > computer specialists (20% women) $.72 for a man's $1 > engineers (2% women) $.86 for a man's $1 > insurance, real estate, stock > agents & brokers (26% women) $.49 for a man's $1 > construction (1% women) $.92 for a man's $1 > secretaries & stenos (99% women) $.96 for a man's $1 > retail trade, self employed (22%) $.50 for a man's $1 > The figures do not differentiate between amounts of training or time > on the job but are rather amazing as is. ======================= They also do not state: 1] Full and part time (total salary is compared, NOT hourly wage) 2] More women are employed on a part-time bases in 1978. 3] How certain classifications were arrived at. (For example, you might call a data entry operator (i.e. glorified typest) a "computer specialist", and compare their salaries with those of Hardware Engineers). 4] The fact that the US Department of Commerse does not support the "statistics" nor the "conclusion". 5] The fact that NOW is a radical-feminist organisation, and has an axe to grind. They are as unlikely to show these facts in a non-slanted light, as the Tobacco Industry is when reviewing health statistics on cigarettes. 6] How the US Department of Commerse got the figures. Just because they are probably unbiased, does not mean that bias did not creep in when they weren't looking. What the statistics probably show, is just how much men SAID THEY EARNED, vs what women SAID THEY EARNED. 7] Many, many more objections, that a little book "How to Lie with Statistics", says much more eloquently than I can. (In fact, I remember that it has several examples of "Salary Finagleing" of just the above type. Steven Maurer
smb@achilles.UUCP (09/25/83)
By coincidence, this week's Newsweek (9/26, p. 80, Jane Bryant Quinn's column) gives some more hard data on male vs. female earnings: ...Demographer Nancy Rytina of the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently compared male and female pay, for full-time work, in 91 occupations. In not one case did the average woman earn as much as the average man. Commonly, she earned 25 to 40 percent less. Even in traditionally female occupations, women lose. Eighty-two percent of the elementary-school teachers were women in 1981, but they earned only 82 percent of the average salary paid their male peers. There's a grab bag of explanations for their lower pay. Some women take time off from work to rear young children; some want to work fewer hours. "But a substantial chunk of the wage gap is simply due to discrimination," Rytina concludes. Might I suggest that those who claim that discrimination does *not* account for the pay differential cite some studies of their own? Remember, anecdotal evidence doesn't count. --Steve Bellovin
ariels@tekecs.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (09/26/83)
WHAT??!! NOW a radical-feminist organization???!!! Don't make me laugh! The National Organization for Women is about as establishment as you can get! Radical to me implies revolutionary. NOW has a reformist outlook. They believe in changing the system from within the system. What I hear you saying is that the statistics that NOW has gathered do not fit your world view, therfore, they are suspect. While I agree that statistics are not facts, I think thou dost protest just a teensy bit too much. Ariel Shattan