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