Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Equality through Reaganomics ? Medians again
Message-ID: <835@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Nov-85 10:29:41 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.835
Posted: Thu Nov 21 10:29:41 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 21:45:32 EST
References: <7800672@inmet.UUCP> <658@spar.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 34

The following statistics really don't tell us much at all:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
 
I have already pointed out that in fact this indicates the new jobs
women are getting are *not* as well-paid as men.
But this is really a poor measure overall which tells us almost
nothing.  The questions to be asked in comparing women to men
and whether they are truly achieving equality are:
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.
  (at least it hasn't gotten worse as have the poverty rate,
   unemployment rate, income inequality, trade deficits,
   savings rate,etc ad nauseum..............................)
2)out of the new jobs created how many well-paid professional
  jobs were filled by women?  Has women's representation in
  professional jobs like medicine, law, engineering, science,
  etc. appreciably increased?  I believe they have increased
  slightly, regardless of Reagan's attacks on affirmative action.
 
The statistics cited by National Review are both deceptive
and irrelevant.  But that is hardly surprising for National Review.
Nor for the Detroit News and the media in general.
          tim sevener  whuxn!orb