Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site achilles.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hou5a!hou5h!eagle!mhuxi!mhuxj!mhuxl!achilles!smb
From: smb@achilles.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: 59 Cent Statistics
Message-ID: <625@achilles.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Sep-83 15:43:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: achilles.625
Posted: Sun Sep 25 15:43:32 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Sep-83 02:38:13 EDT
References: <767@bronze.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 22

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