Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Equality through Reaganomics ? M
Message-ID: <7800750@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Nov-85 16:12:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800750
Posted: Tue Nov 26 16:12:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Nov-85 01:16:20 EST
References: <835@whuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 49
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-83500:inmet:7800750:000:2305
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 26 16:12:00 1985


>> >> "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."
>> 
>> >Good 'ol Jan, ever-ready with the suggested non-sequitur (not-so-cleverly
>> >hidden in the title.  Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with us your
>> >reasoned conclusion from this quotation.
>> 
>> Glad to; I thought it was obvious. My apologies. *Business deregu-
>> lation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action*.

>Fortunately, others have adequately rebutted the original "conclusion", and
>their rebuttals serve equally well for this one.  

You are rewriting history. Just look at the quote above. I gave you FACT,
no conclusion. Food for thought. As a public service. You ASKED for my   
conclusion. I gave it to you: the "original" and only.
(On the rebuttals, see below).

>... 	you didn't establish that your
>statistics had anything to do with equality (as other rebuttals have shown.)
>Without a base of reference, you might just as well be saying that women
>are getting further ahead of men, which certainly wouldn't be equality.

Right you are: *if* women were *ahead*  of  men,  the  statistics
would  show  they are getting *further* ahead, and it wouldn't be
equality. Facts being what they are, statistics  show  what  they
do. Base of reference is all around you.

Now, for the rebuttals. I assume you mean two notes by Tim Sevener's, as
the others I read consist of silly ad hominem flames. They con-
tain some nice analysis. However,  it does not rebut. Con-
sider Tim's typical case: a man lost a 20K job at a plant, a wom-
an has to take a 10K job at McDonald's.  Certainly  *bad*  -  but
even  then,  there  would  be *leveling* of the sexes - it would
just be leveling *down*. 

Whether the case is really typical for today's economy,  is  much
under discussion on the net. But it is a different question.

The best feature of Tim's analysis is that he has posed some relevant
*questions* . Some conceivable answers to them *would* refute the 
above conclusion; others would *confirm* it. In either case, facts,
not flames, and logic, not ideology, are required.

			Jan Wasilewsky