Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!robinson
From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Equality through Reaganomics ? Medians again
Message-ID: <110@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 19:00:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.110
Posted: Sun Nov 24 19:00:56 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 25-Nov-85 01:48:04 EST
References: <7800672@inmet.UUCP> <658@spar.UUCP> <835@whuxl.UUCP>
Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 26
Summary: 

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