At 8:41 PM 1/24/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In the previous postings from Doug et al about the MLR progection >of job opportunities, what they stressed was the 'shit' jobs that >were projected to be created. To me, however, what is even >more frightening is the list of jobs they (it) expects to be >destroyed. This list must be doubly frightening for women -- the >list of jobs to be destroyed are almost all the "better jobs" that >women have. I note "Occupations with the largest job decline" > >Farmers -21% >Typists and word processors -33% >Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks - 8 >Bank tellers - 27% >Sewing machine operators - 26% >Cleaners and servants, private household -22% >Computer operators -38% >Billing, posting, and calculating machine operators --67% >Duplicating, mail, and other office machine operators -25% >Textile draw-out and winding machine operators and tenders -25% > >If I am not totally confused, that means that 8 of the 10 job >destruction categories are predominately "women's" jobs, many of >them "better" jobs. This is totally frightening for what it means, >if true, to the social structure of our emerging society. > >Do others read the same message from these projections? Well, if the recent past is a guide to the future, no. In the US at least, women's wages have been rising in real terms while men's have been falling, and there's nothing in store for women that can compare with the effects of deindustrialization on men. I'm certainly not trying to conclude from this that women aren't discriminated against in thousands of ways, but it's hard to argue that women are suffering more from the evolution of the labor market than are men. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
