From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: $.59 and all that (was something else)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:39:32 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.031523.4578@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
)In article <791@dogear.spk.wa.us> root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
)>In article <1992Apr10.071528.2325@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

aaron:
)>>Oh, poppycock!  Is it $0.59, $0.63, $0.70 or what?  

bob:
)>Whoa, Aaron. I have to call you on this paragraph.
)>
)>The figures that have been bandied about are reflective of the way it is.
)>They aren't an overall-income average, they're figures for man with job
)>versus woman with same job.

Nope.  The $.59, $.63 and $.70 'family'  are overall income average figures.
$.70 is average earnings per hour (circa around 1984).  $.59 is median
income ratio for men vs women around 1981 for 'full time workers'.  Income
is earnings/hour * hours + social security, public assistance, welfare,
interest, dividends and a bunch of other stuff - basically any source
of money income regularly recieved -  not including 'noncash' benifits
such as foodstamps.  As near as I can tell, child support payments or alimony
are not subtracted from the men's income, however.  Note that 'full time
men's hours' are greater than 'full time women's hours' by about 8 hours per
week, according to Warren Farrell.  (He quotes US. bureau of Labor Statistics
for this, the money income $.59 figures are Census Bureau ones.)

None of these figures controls for *anything* at all - they are pure
average and/or median figures.

For some figures for Electrical Engineers, controlled by experience,
we have the following figures from the IEEE.

1990 IEEE salary survey.

Experience   Number        Median   
             M    F        M     F     Ratio
<= 3       318   41       33.7  35.0   1.04
3-4        292   30       40    34.4    .86
5-6        342   44       44    42.3    .96
7-9        458   45       50    49.5    .99
10-14      769   37       58    52      .90
15-19      597   21       64    58      .91

I believe other professions are reasonably similar, but I don't have the
data for them.  Note that the above is median earnings, and doesn't address
the relative amount of time male and female engineers work.

Someone way back when (2-5 years ago) dug up the P60 Census Bureau (Current
Pop. Report) figures, and got numbers that I recall as not being all that
different than those for EE's for a bunch of other professions.  At least
that's my recollection - unfortunately, I don't have access to these
particular volumes to double check the numbers nowadays and (probably more
importantly) the associated definitions as it is important what is measured
and what is controlled for.

A number in the $.90 range seems quite reasonable, though, as one gets
approximately $.75 for men vs women earnings per hour after compensating for
the difference in average experience between the two (the exact figure
depends slightly on the means of compensation) - and one can get another
9-10% or so not by demanding the same profession, but only looking at one
statistical variable - 'percent female in the occupation' and 'partialing it
out' by regression analysis.  (This is from a 1984 analysis based on the
SIPP study - conducted by the Census bureau, but separate from the Current
Population Reports.)

The conclusion that the majority of the difference in earnings per hour is
due to women 'clumping' into lower paying jobs seems inescapable.  (And
don't forget the difference in hours worked if you look at earnings figures.)

Other lesser factors include relative amount of union participation,
'skilled trade' factors, profession, and some others I forget.  Though
interestingly enough, women going into engineering did not have the
same statistical boost that men did.  Women got a statistical boost from
nursing/medical professions though (as I recall). [This is also from the SIPP
survey].

Many 'feminists' will no doubt argue that this clumping is involuntary -
others will point to the AA programs that give women the legal right to
prefered hiring into any profession they choose and be skeptical about
this claim.  'But AA's not working' may be the response.  'Well, maybe women
really *aren't*  pressured into earning top $$$ compared to men by cultural
factors and AA really is working' is the obvious reply.

Anyway, regardless of the murky state of 'equal opportunity',  $.59 and that
ilk *are* average figures and NOT related to 'equal pay for equal work' at
all.  The figure for equal work is probably in the $.90 percent range, though
I lack specific data for anything other than IEEE engineers.