From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Fifty-nine cents
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:19:52 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:

>In article <JULIE.92Nov10193201@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
>> (somebody else writes):
>>>The way this statistic is commonly presented attempts to imply that a
>>>woman working the same job as a man can expect to make only 59% as much.
>>>This is what the quote under discussion tries to refute.
>>
>>It's usually presented simplistically, certainly, but I don't remember
>>hearing anyone saying that it applied to a woman "working the same job"
>>as a man (on average).

>I've seen that exact claim at least a dozen times in the last couple of years.
>If you like, I can point it out to you the next time it occurs.  Let me know.

	I remember hearing this misquoted twice in a single week, within this
last year, on television, by two different female comics, one on Lifetime and 
one on HBO.  The Lifetime version I remember fairly well:

	"...when we're making 59 cents on the dollar [voice takes on a note of
howling outrage] FOR THE SAME JOB!"  (Wild audience applause; it was Lifetime,
after all).

	The preferred statement, "Women earn 59 cents for every dollar earned
by men" is, IMO, deliberately ambiguous just so that it can be misinterpreted
in exactly this fashion.  There are no units specified, so the statement is
intrinsically meaningless.  Is this 59/hour worked compared to $1/hour worked?
Actually, it isn't.  Is the 59 to 1 for the same job accomplished?  Actually, 
no.  Is this 59 to 1 for the same job title?  No, not at all.  Is this 59 to
1 for the same experience level?  Not a bit.  Are we comparing apples and
oranges?  You bet we are.
	As stated, there's no evidence that the figures even use the *same*
units; it could be 59 cents for 1/2 hour compared to $1 for an hours work
(and the truth is scarily close to this; part of the units were "full time
job", but a full time job is defined as 35 or more hours for 6 months or more
out of the year; one persons full time job is not necessarily equivalent to
the same number of hours of work as anothers, and as women are more likely
to take off large chunks of time for birthing, temporary/permanent retirement 
to raise kids, etc, the figures would obviously be skewed to have women 
working far less hours than men).  

	Without units, people are free to make assumption about the units based
on their own prejudices.  This is the *basis* of lying with statistics; report
the result, neglect to include the units.  Let people lie to themselves.

	This statistic has some value, as Gordon points out, if you know what 
the units are, as it indicates that women do not pursue higher education as 
often as men, and when they do, they often pursue careers that pay 
considerably less.  The reasons for that are arguable and worth debating. 
The one thing this statistic does *not* indicate, in any way, is that a 
woman's work, when of the same "value" defined by education, years of 
experience, job title etc. is remunerated at a lesser rate.  Other studies, 
such as the one quoted elsewhere in this thread, suggest that *this exchange 
is not broken, and does not need fixing*, and that should be good news for 
feminists everywhere; the bias that certainly existed 30 years ago appears to 
have been eliminated.

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.