From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Why are women paid less? (was Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 18:50:09 GMT

In <1992Nov18.165926.1608@news.columbia.edu>, Elizabeth G. Levy writes:

>In article <BD.92Nov18082547@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>
>>>I don't remember the new number but recently it was announced that the
>>>average wage of women was now in the mid to upper 70's when compared
>>>with the average wage of men.  All of this gain came during the 80's
>>>when those evil republicans were supposedly trashing women and
>>>minority opportunities.
>>
>>It would be interesting to know what percentage of the
>>gap-closing was due to increasing wages for women, and what
>>percentage was due to falling wages for men.

>The 70% figure is supposed to be an error, because "this report
>artificially inflated women's earnings by using weekly instead of the
>standard yearly wages -- thus grossly exaggerating teh salary of
>part-time workers, a predominantly female group....  Later, the Census
>Bureau calculated the pay gap for 1986 using its standard formula and
>came up with 64 cents."

True only if the "system" requires women to pursue part-time work.  Far more
women *freely choose* to work part-time.  Also, some women I know have quit
their full-time jobs because their employer wouldn't let them go only part-
time.  Not many men *choose* to work full time.  There may be a cultural bias
here, but it isn't men telling women that can only work part-time.  If we are
looking for bias, let's find out how many men *apply* for part-time and full-
time positions compared to women.  If any percentage show a disproportionate
hiring of men full-time and women part-time, then you've got a beef.  Otherwise
you're looking for imaginary windmills to charge.

>"...the pay gap had only 'improved' for women by less than five
>percentage points since 1979.  And as much as half of that improvement
>was due to men's falling wages, not women's improved earnings.  Take
>out men's declining pay as a factor and the gap had closed only three
>percentage points."

Why should you take it out?  It serves no other purppse than to make the gap
look wider than it is.  Men's falling wages are a function of an increased
labor pool, with women in the workforce creating competition for jobs.  It's
called the free market.  You may have heard of it.  And shouldn't men be
complaining about falling earnings?  Oh, I forgot that men are scum who deserve
to have their pay cut even *more*.   :-)

Or perhaps men should complain because they have to work longer hours than
women do?  That can be interpreted both ways--and no doubt if the situation
were reversed, feminist leaders would make that "we're overworked" claim.  They
have an affinity for having it both ways...

> Notes are from Susan Faludi's _Backlash_, p. 364.

Y'know, conservatives regularly get flamed for providing _National Review_ or
_American Spectator_ as a source.  I think similar flamage is due here.
Quoting Susan Faludi as a source?  Come on.  I've seen you post too many
intelligent things here to believe that this is more than just an oversight.

Can anyone furnish data from a source without an agenda?

Does Faludi give apples-to-apples comparisons for full-time college grads since
oh, say 1980?  Does *anyone* have official labor statistics between men and
women in full-time positions with *similar education AND experience*?


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion