Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!greipa!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Discrimination against women and statistics Message-ID: <226@ubvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 13:48:30 EDT Article-I.D.: ubvax.226 Posted: Fri Jun 21 13:48:30 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 06:21:14 EDT References: <8204@ucbvax.ARPA> <1340210@acf4.UUCP> Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, CA Lines: 26 In article <1340210@acf4.UUCP>, mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > > Actually, the only legitimate criteria for measuring "worth" are > supply and demand. It is arrogant for one to insist that the > rest of the world adapt to one's personal notions of "worth." "legitimate" criteria? Mike's got this "thing" about arrogance. He shouldn't assume that notions of "worth" are purely personal. They happen to be widely shared. Occupational prestige studies show that almost everyone shares the same "notions" of what are better and what are worse jobs, at least in the US and Canada -- and I'd bet in much of the rest of the world too. According to the same work, done over years, rankings of occupational prestige are also very constant, almost unchanging over large spans of time. Hence these notions aren't even fickle. So asking employers (not the rest of the world, just employers) to adapt to the notions of "worth" held by the vast majority is a clear and specifiable political proposal. Whether clear political proposals are "arrogant" or not is up to the beholder. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw