Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646 From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Discrimination against women and statistics Message-ID: <1340227@acf4.UUCP> Date: Tue, 25-Jun-85 16:17:00 EDT Article-I.D.: acf4.1340227 Posted: Tue Jun 25 16:17:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 03:09:58 EDT References: <8204@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: New York University Lines: 34 >/* tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) / 1:48 pm Jun 21, 1985 */ >Mike's got this "thing" about arrogance. That's an arrogant thing to say! (Just kidding :-) >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. The problem here is what is the "worth" of a certain kind of work. This matter is much too complex for an administrative body to determine. The mere fact that people claim that type X work is more valuable than type Y work cannot be considered areasonable measure of worth, if only because most people don't know what most jobs entail (in fact, many people don't know what THEIR OWN jobs entail). >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. The point is, people cannot be trusted to make these decisions politically. I'm not saying that most are dishonest, just that they have no basis on which to make such a decision -- and that is what makes it "arrogant." >Tony Wuersch Mike Sykora