>Doug, this is precisely the kind of reasoning thak makes good headlines but
>poor science. Income disparity has been relatively well studied. It
>naturally yields itself to regression that allows the separation of the
>effects of different variables. These studies were able to seprate the
>effects of industry, qualifications, position, or seniority from those of
>sex or race. It turned out that the effect of sex and race were not as
>strong as they appeared to a naked eye, but still statistically
>significant. That led to the formation of the segmented labor market
>theory basically claiming the existence of two labor markets: one with
>decent pay and opportunity for a promotion, and the other one comprising
>mainly of low paying dead end jobs.
Well, no kidding. I've read a good bit of this literature, and even written on it. And yes, all other things being equal there is identifiable race and gender discrimination in wages, usually of around 10%. But, to quote Joan Robinson, cet. is rarely par., so controlling for "the effects of different variables" - education, occupation, industry, etc. - is to control for the effects of "pre-market" discrimination: the crowding of women and nonwhites into low-wage jobs, crappier educational opportunities, etc.
So here you are, conceding, sort of, that race and sex are categories with real material/social effects. Where's that leave your argument that it's all a figment of the Cultural Left's imagination?
Doug