A beautifully told story with colorful characters out of epic tradition, a tight and complex plot, and solid pacing. -- Booklist, starred review of On the Razor's Edge

Great writing, vivid scenarios, and thoughtful commentary ... the stories will linger after the last page is turned. -- Publisher's Weekly, on Captive Dreams

Monday, December 10, 2012

Statistics Time!

"Despite Massachusetts' historic leadership on pay equity--in 1945 it became the first state to require equal pay for comparable work--the gap between men's and women's salaries here is now among the biggest in the country."--Boston Globe, Dec. 10

For those who don't understand how this is possible, consider a very simple situation with 100 weremen and 100 women and two jobs: Customer Service Rep and Chemical Engineer, and absolute equality in pay.  
  • ...............................Weremen.....................Women
  • CSR @500..............30 =15,000..................70 = 35,000
  • Chem Eng @900.....70 = 63,000..................30 = 27,000
  • Total.....................100 =78,000..................100=62,000

And women make only 0.79 for every dollar made by a wereman, even though both get paid exactly the same salary for each job. 

Now allow for the fact that some proportion of women will choose the vocation of motherhood and homemaking over salaryman.  


  1. The gender equality paradox:

  2. Hmmm... Interesting. That makes sense, and helps me understand it. The way it's usually mentioned, I've always pictured it as the individual women getting paid at a lower rate (since that seems to be how it usually portrayed)
    So to have absolute equal pay in this way, every single job has to have a 50/50 split of man/woman? Don't see that happening…

    1. Not as long as people choose their own life work. There is no reason to suppose that the distribution of interest in this or that vocation is uniformly distributed.

      The obvious solution is to institute a draft. After high school the draft board will assign grads to the professions and vocations in need of diversity in sex, race, etc. without consideration of the individual's selfish desire to pursue her own interest or aptitude.

  3. The left's solution is to mandate that the Chem Eng and the CSR both are paid 700 citing systemic discrimination.

    1. And then they wonder why nobody wants to spend four to five years getting a Chem. Eng. degree, and the world is suddenly full of unemployed CSRs.

  4. This misuse of salary statistics by the current radical-feminist/mass-media-complex drives me crazy.

    Point the first: my late Aunt June [b. June 1933] was a charter member of NOW in South Jersey and a stalwart crusader for economic and political equality for women. She was a single, working mother who put herself through college while raising her daughter to earn dual degrees in business administration and history, and went on to become a small South Jersey bank VP. She left NOW after what she called the "Radical Lesbian Man-Hating Sainted-Sisters of Victimhood Feminists" took over the organization. She strongly influenced me as a child into adulthood.

    Point the second: we would discuss how **while I was in college in 1981** it was established in a large peer-reviewed study of that amongst college-educated adults between the age of 23 & 40, in matched cohort sorting by age, job-type, years experience in the job, and education-level, females earned $1.01 for every dollar a male-made.

    I wish I could lay my hands on that study's citation today because the fraud wrought upon the unsuspecting public to pervert public policy appalls me as a citizen of this country.



Whoa, What's This?