Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!qubix!steven
From: steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: 59 Cent Statistics
Message-ID: <536@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Sep-83 16:31:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: qubix.536
Posted: Fri Sep 23 16:31:16 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Sep-83 13:16:09 EDT
References: <767@bronze.UUCP>
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 59

>  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