The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
A
1
A
00
0
k
U S DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION
Office ot Educational Research and Improvement
I
EDUC TIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
4ND
his document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it
II
Minor changes have been made to Improve
reproduction Quality
Points of view or opinions stated in his does
ment do not necessarily represent official
0i
OERI position or pohcy
v=i
mar I
'Cr
11 zr1
Is
:
(WB) EARNINGS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN
What is the earnings gap? When we talk of comparing women's earnings with men's earnings, we find
that no matter how we measure them, women's earnings are below those received by men. In 97 percent
of the occupations for which data is available, women's median weekly earnings are less than men's
earnings. Very often men's earnings are used as the "yardstick" to measure women's, and we say
women's earnings are a percentage of men's. The earnings gap is the difference between this percentage
ratio and 100 percent.
STUBBORN PAY GAP PERSISTS FOR 45 YEARS
30
20
10
M1 11111111111111111(
0
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
YEAR
WOKEN
-4- MEN
Souroe: Annual earnings for full-time year-round woriersfiom the Current Population Surtey
I
adjusted brinlation u9 rig CPI-U1982-84=100.
How large is the earnings gap? In 1997, the earnings gap for those paid hourly is 19.2 percent; for
weekly earnings the gap is measured at 25.6 percent. In 1996, the most recent year for which data on
annual earnings are available, the earnings gap was 26.2 percent. Alternatively, viewed in terms of
women's to men's earnings ratio, in 1997, for those receiving hourly wages, women's median hourly
earnings were 80.8 percent of men's; for full-time wage and salary workers, women's median weekly
earnings were 74.4 percent of men's. In 1996, median annual earnings for women reached peak levels at
73.8 percent of men's annual earnings. All three measures are developed from Current Population
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Survey (household survey) data and released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the Bureau of
the Census.
Why the difference among measures? We find that the three measures which compare women's
earnings with men's earnings differ for several reasons. Median weekly earnings relate to full-time wage
and salary workers; median annual earnings are for full- time year-round workers while hourly earnings
are reported for wage and salary workers who are paid an hourly wage, without regard to whether or not
they work full-time or year-round wage and salary workers. In 1997, about 60 percent of all wage and
salary workers were hourly workers; 50 percent of all employees paid hourly wages were women. When
considering the earnings of women and men who work year-round full-time, it should be noted that
women are employed fewer hours in the week and fewer weeks in the year than their male counterparts.
Less time at work contributes to a part of the earnings difference when women's weekly and annual
earnings are compared with men's.
Earnings of persons under 25 years of age
1979-1997
500
900
300
200
100
0
L
L
I_
1979 1980 1881 1982 1983 1984 1885 1888 1987 1988 1988 1990 1991 1892 1993 1994 1995 190 1997
-111
WHITE MEN
BLACK WOMEN
WHITE WOMEN
-6- HISPANIC MEN
-k BLACK MEN
-hr HISPANIC WOMEN
Source: Data for full-time wage and salary workers from the Current Pcpulati on Survey adjusted for inflation using the CPI-1.11982-84=100
Figu re2
3
Table 1. Women's earnings as percent of men's earnings, 1979-1997
Year
Hourly
Weekly
Annual
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
64.1
62.5
64.4
64.6
65.4
66.7
67.8
68.2
69.2
70.0
70.2
70.1
71.9
74.2
75.8
77.1
76.4
75.5
75.0
74.4
59.7
60.2
59.2
61.7
63.6
63.7
64.6
64.3
65.2
66.0
68.7
71.6
69.9
70.8
64.8
65.1
67.3
69.4
69.8
70.0
70.2
72.1
73.8
75.4
77.9
78.6
80.3
80.4
80.6
80.8
81.2
80.8
4
71.5
72.0
71.4
73.8
Earnings of persons age 25-54
1979-1997
500
400
300
200
100
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 199'
* WHITE MEN
-0 WHITE WOMEN
-a BLACK WOMEN
-0- HISPANIC MEN
* BLACK MEN
HISPANIC WOMEN
'Source: Data for full-time wage and salary workers from the Current Population Survey adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U 1982-84=100
Figti rc3
Are we closing the earnings gap? Figure 1 provides perspective on annual earnings adjusted for
inflation for women and men working full- time year-round from 1951 through 1996. A gradual closing
of the wage gap between women and men since 1973 is apparent. Full-time year-round workers have
different characteristics from other workers. Figure 1 outlines the relatively steady climb in women's real
earnings while men's earnings peaked in 1973 and have drifted downward since. Recessionary dips
appear in both women's and men's real earnings in the early 1980's and in the early 1990's. When we
look at the 45-year period as a whole, women's real earnings have increased by 1.2 percent each year
while men's earnings have grown by only .9 percent each year. Though annual earnings for women and
men have been available from the CPS since 1951, hourly and weekly wages by gender have been
calculated on a regular basis only since 1979. Table 1 presents the ratio of women's earnings to men's
earnings for median hourly and weekly earnings along with median annual earnings for comparison. The
hourly and weekly ratios were prepared by BLS, and the annual ratios, by the Census Bureau. Figures 2
through 4 present weekly earnings data for full-time wage and salary workers, by age and race/gender
groups from 1979-1997. Figure 2 shows a steady downward trend with a closing together of real
earnings for all race/gender groups 16-24 years old. For those 25-54 years old, white and black men's
earnings have gradually moved down while white women's earnings have gradually risen, exceeding
black men's earnings in 1991. Black women's earnings have remained relatively stable. For those 55 or
older, there has been little change in the relative positions of the various race/gender groups in the 18
year period. It appears that older workers, in general, have not experienced the earnings decline that
younger workers have.
5
Earnings of persons age 55 or older
1 979-1 997
500
400
300
200
100
0
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1986 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
it WHITE MEN
-1IF
BLACK WOMEN
WI-ITE WOMEN
-6- HISPANIC MEN
-* BLACK MEN
-6 HISPANIC WOMEN
Source: Data for full-time wage and salary workers from the Current Population Survey adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U 1982.84=1001
Figure4
What reasons have been suggested for the differences in earnings between women and men? Often
discrimination has been suggested as a major reason for the differences in earnings between women and
men. Others have suggested that women choose certain occupations so that they can balance work and
family obligations. "Crowding"of women into a few jobs results in such an abundant supply of women
workers in these jobs that wages are depressed. Some argue that the wage gap is not a problem. It is a
matter of women making different choices in life.
What does research tell us about the trends in earnings differences for women and men?
Researchers have suggested that the wages of all working women did not increase relative to those of
working men between 1920 and 1980 because the skill (as measured by education and experience) of
working women did not increase relative to working men over this period (Smith and Ward, 1983).1 But
Figure 1 shows improvement in women's real earnings compared to men starting before 1980, as early
as 1973.
Researchers broadened their inquiry into earnings differences between women and men in the 1980's.
The earnings distribution for both women and men widened during the decade. But because women's
hourly earnings grew faster than men's and because their annual average hours of work increased, while
men's hours of work did not, a larger segment of all working women had annual earnings of $20,000 or
more at the end of the decade than at the beginning even when measured in constant dollars (Levi and
Murnane, 1992).2
Sorensen conducted research into the differences in earnings ratios during the 1980's between women
and men and between black and white workers.3 She identified two divergent trends. "Women made
tremendous gains in their wages relative to those of men" while "The pay disparity between blacks and
whites increased for both women and men." Her research suggested that the human capital
6
characteristics of women (education and work experience) compared to men of the same race increased
over the decade. Increases in work experience was more important in raising women's earnings than
changes in education, however. The occupational distribution of women and men also tended to
converge. The wider gap in earnings between black and white men was related to changes in industrial
attachment and in the wage structure during the 1980's which increased the returns to education for
white men.
In the March 1998 issue of the Monthly Labor Review, Hecker pointed out that among college
graduates, some of the differential in earnings between women and men can be accounted for by age and
educational attainment.4 In part, this earnings differential is caused by a higher proportion of working
women than men being in the young age group and ,a lower proportion being in the older age group
where earnings tend to peak, reflecting returns to experience. When the major the major field of study
was considered, women's earnings were generally even closer to the earnings of men; when the
occupation and major were considered, women's earnings moved even closer still to men's earnings.
The choice of both occupation and major for college graduates are significant factors in determining
earnings. Although, women college graduates earned less than men did overall, the earnings gap lessens
significantly in most cases when women are compared with men with similar educations and similar
occupations.
June O'Neill has cited a study using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth which found
that among women and men 27 to 33 years old who have never had a child, women's earnings were
close to 98 percent of men's earnings.5 Although this is good news, children should not be used as an
excuse to pay women less. In 1997, 40 million children depended on the earnings of a working mother.
Which occupations have shown the greatest tendency for women's earnings to lag behind men's
earnings? Table 2 presents women's median weekly earnings as a proportion of men's for selected
occupations. The groups included in this table are those in which the ratios of women's earnings to
men's earnings are the lowest in 1997. Ratios are also presented for 1983 to show the recent trend in
relative earnings for women and men. Table 2 also presents the proportion of women's employment to
total employment for each occupation.
Historically, women have "crowded" into a few occupations. In 1997 the six most prevalent occupations
for women were, in order of magnitude, school teachers (except post-secondary teachers), secretaries,
cashiers, managers and administrators, registered nurses, and sales supervisors and proprietors. In 1997,
about one-fourth of all women workers were employed in these occupations. It has been argued that
women choose these occupations because there tends to be less skill obsolescence for workers who leave
and reenter the labor force. It has also been argued that the educational commitment for employment in
these fields is less than in some others, and workers can have more time at home for other
responsibilities.
There may be other factors which are difficult to measure that also affect women's career decisions. To
what extent have women been denied the opportunity to find employment in other occupations? Have
they been fearful of entering occupations where few women are employed because of lack of knowledge
about the field, or fear that sexual harassment may be a factor? These are aspects which are difficult to
quantify.
Gupta reported that "(research) results indicate that sex differences in occupations are due both to
differences in preferences and to differences in employer selection."6 It should be remembered that
occupational segregation has been disappearing; there are far fewer "women's" jobs and fewer "men's"
jobs than in earlier periods.
What other factors besides occupational choice affect the earnings gap? It has been suggested also,
that seniority within the firm and in the job has much to do with earnings of American workers. If this is
the case, then the work experience of the two groups will have an impact on the earnings ratio of women
to men. In 1990 Topel stated that his "estimates imply a very strong connection between job seniority
and wages in the typical employment relationship: other things held constant, 10 years of job seniority
raises the wage of the typical worker by over 25 percent."7
7
Data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) showed that for all men only 1.6
percent of all potential work-years were spent away from work while for women workers, 14.7 percent
of all potential work-years were spent away from paid work.8 Thus, women spend significantly more
time away from work and are apparently unable to build the seniority that men achieve. The increase in
the proportion of women who are working or looking for work that began shortly after World War II has
been one of the most significant social and economic trends in modern U.S. history.
Women to men
earnings ratio (percent)
Women,
employed
(percett)
Occupational class
1983
1997
1997
Total
74.4
66.7
43.1
Financial managers
Marketing, advertising, public relations managers
Education, related fields administrators
Management related financial officers
Miscellaneous therapists
66.6
69.5
69.7
62.3
59.5
63.8
N.A.
N.A.
48.9
33.5
58.2
55.2
78.9
Social scientists and urban planners
Designers
Insurance sales representatives
Securities, financial services sales representatives
Retail,-personal services sales workers
69.7
64.9
65.3
70.9
50
53
50.5
51.6
32.5
57.6
General office supervisors
Production occupations supervisors
Precision metalworking occupations
Printing machine operators
Production inspectors, checkers, examiners
68
64.1
67.9
65.2
66.8
68.4
63.1
60.1
67.1
68.8
N.A.
63.6
64.5
63.3
N.A.
67.8
56.3
N.A.= Not available. Earnings data are not developed for occupations with fewer than 50,000 employees.
68.7
19.2
6.6
20.8
45.5
Earnings and education by sex/racelethnic type, 1997
1103
1203
1303
303
303
q133
203
3
Some co lege. no degree
4years of high school. no dblorna
Bachelors degree
3 years of hi3h school
High solo)! graduates. lo college
Assoc ate degree
Kidders
Lessthan 1 year h gh school
N-ITE IVEK
WiTE WOMB
-A- BLACK MEW
-la BLACK WOMEN
-0- FISPAVIC IVEN
Fig(' re5
Overall, the participation rate for women grew between 1975 and 1990, but at a gradually slowing pace.
From 1990 to 1993, however, it changed little. Subsequently, the participation rate resumed its upward
trend. Mothers were primarily responsible for the gains in women's labor force participation rates both
before 1990 and after 1993.9
Jacobson and Levin found that when women re-enter the labor market, their earnings are much lower
than those of a comparable group of women who did not leave the labor market. Over time, that
difference diminishes, but never disappears, even after as long as 20 years. One possible interpretation is
that even after many years, employers view gaps as a signal that the individual is not as dedicated a
worker as a woman who did not leave the work force. This view may be reflected in reduced promotion
possibilities, different job assignments, and other actions by employers that reduce wages.1°
The relationshipbetween education and earnings, particularly for young women, deserves further
attention. 1997 average weekly earnings data for full-time wage and salary workers by the level of
education received, for different gender and race groups is presented in Figure 5. It is apparent from the
graph that as education increases, earnings also rise dramatically, through the doctoral degree.
Turnover data for women and men have shown higher rates for women than for men. There are costs
associated with hiring, and recent surveys by private employment agencies indicate that these costs can
be substantial. The recent change in women's labor force participation tends to narrow the differences in
9
turnover rates between women and men with a concurrent increase in women's earnings. Additionally,
the growing tendency of employers to provide child care benefits, flexitime, and family leave policies
can further strengthen women's opportunity to meet family responsibilities with fewer work
interruptions.
Have women's earnings continued to gain relative to men's in the 1990's? Many researchers agree
that the relatively sharp increase in women's earnings compared to men's earnings apparent in the
1980's resulted from women's increased experience and education when compared to men. The women
who left the labor market had human capital characteristics that were significantly different from those
who entered the labor market during the 1980's. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that labor market
discrimination against women declined.
However, the pace at which women's earnings have been rising compared to men's earnings has slowed,
particularly after the recession of the early 1990's.
The ratio of women's annual earnings to men's annual earnings continued to climb haltingly through
1996, reaching a peak at 73.8 in 1996, the most recent year for which data is available. The number of
women working full-time full-year continued to increase during this period. Census data in 1990 showed
that less than half of working women (46.4 percent) worked full-time year-round. By 1997, this figure
had climbed to 54.8 percent. As more women worked full-time full-year, annual earnings for women
climbed relative to men's.
The ratio of hourly earnings for women compared to men rose without interruption from 1979 to peak
levels of 81.2 percent in 1996, but declined in 1997 to 80.8 percent. However, after the 90-91 recession
women's hourly earnings compared to men's earnings rose by only half a percentage point between
1992 and 1995, a snail's pace compared to the increases apparent in the 1980's.
There has been a significant slowing in closing the weekly earnings gap between women and men. The
ratio of weekly earnings of full-time women and men rose steadily from 1979, peaking in 1993 at 77.1
percent; since that time the ratio has been dropping and, in 1997, was measured at 74.4 percent. The
reasons for this decline are not clear, and we will probably have to wait to see if the earnings ratios will
resume the gradual increase in women's earnings relative to men's earnings that we have seen for the
last 2 to 3 decades.
However, we can examine earnings in more detail to see if we can uncover some possible reasons for the
changes in earnings differences between women and men.
One aspect of earnings which has sparked much discussion is the increase in earnings inequality among
individuals, among households, and among women and men. The general economic consensus seems to
be that earnings inequality grew, without question, between the mid-1970's and the mid- 1980's; whether
inequality has continued to grow between the 1980's and the 1990's is not completely clear.11 However,
most researchers seem to concur that earnings disparity has declined between women and men, and
among the races, while earnings disparities by skill has increased.
Bernstein and Mishel contend that starting in the mid-1980's, those at the top of the wage scale
continued to pull away from those in the middle, with middle- and low-wage workers suffering similar
losses in real wages. Over the 1989-96 period, the best description seems to be that wages of high- wage
workers grew, while those of the rest of the work force flattened or declined. However, in 1997, weekly
earnings for those in the bottom 10 percent of the pay scale rose 1.6 percent, the largest increase since
1979 when the statistical series was first began.
Reasons for the increase in disparity set out in the Economic Report of the President Transmitted to the
Congress, February 1997, include technological change (45 percent), international trade (12 percent), a
decline in the real minimum wage (10 percent) a decline in unionization (10 percent), rising immigration
(8 percent), and other causes (15 percent).
Randy Ilg of the BLS has examined the quality of employment growth, using median weekly earnings
10
data from the CPS as the relative measure of job quality; the data were developed for a group of 90
major industries and occupations, a matrix of occupations within industries.12 Because month-to- month
changes in 90 series would be hard to track separately, they were ordered into a more manageable
format. Individual data cells were ranked in descending order by the median weekly earnings of all wage
and salary workers in 1993. The occupation-industry cells were then grouped into three categories-highest-, middle-, and lowest-earnings-- that each accounted for approximately one-third of total
employment in 1988. Using a 12-month moving average, the data show the percent change in
employment for each of the three earnings groups using the annual average for 1989 as the base.
Between 1989 and 1997, employment in the middle-earnings group declined and then recovered to about
the 1989 level. On the other hand, the highest- and lowest-earnings groups increased at approximately
the same rate until 1993, when the highest-earnings group accelerated. Employment in the
highest-earnings group increased by about 20 percent between 1989 and 1997 compared to about 10
percent for the lowest-earnings group; as noted earlier, there was almost no net employment change in
the middle-earnings group. Thus, after the 1990-91 recession, it appears that employment in the
highest-earnings group pushed ahead substantially faster than either of the other two groups.
Between 1993 and 1997, employment of men rose 2.4 million in professional and managerial
occupations compared to an increase of 3.0 million for women. Table 2 provides data on selected
occupations where women's earnings are the lowest relative to men's earnings. Almost all these
occupations are those at the upper end and the lower end of the earnings spectrum, jobs into which
women and men have been streaming since 1993, with women entering in greater numbers than men.
Ilg's research showed that the highest-earnings group contained primarily managers and professionals
from every industry. Among groups with lowest earnings, net gains in employment were concentrated
among sales and service occupations in retail trade and service occupations in services sector. Between
1996 and 1997, more women than men found jobs in the these two industries.
What about sex discrimination? Sex discrimination still exists in the American workplace, but the
magnitude of its effect on the earnings gap is hard to measure. Statistical studies have successfully
attempted to measure the effects on the male-female earnings differential of several factors. Employee
characteristics, such as occupation, education, and experience, have been examined using statistical
techniques to assess the impact each has on women's and men's earnings. Most often the effects of
discrimination in these studies are included in an "all other" category and are not measured separately.
However, individuals and Federal agencies responsible for enforcement of civil rights legislation
continue to win cases in which women have been discriminated against in the workplace, thus
demonstrating that sex discrimination persists. As an example, two to three million dollars a year has
been awarded each year between 1992 and 1997 to those winning cases filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
What can we conclude? It appears that women's earnings have been climbing when compared with
men's earnings, gaining steeply during the 1980's. However, after the recession in the early 1990's,
women's labor force participation rate stalled for about three years. During this same period women's
earnings compared to men's earnings failed to show the steep gains exhibited during the 1980's.
Between 1980 and 1990 the ratio of hourly earnings climbed by 13.1 percentage points; between 1990
and 1997 the ratio climbed by only 2.9 points.
Between 1980 and 1990 the annual ratio climbed by 11.4 points; between 1990 and 1996 the ratio
climbed by only 2.2 points.
Between 1980 and 1990 the weekly earnings ratio climbed by 7.5 percentage points; between 1990 and
1997 the ratio climbed 2.5 percentage points.
The reasons for the slowdown in the earnings ratios climb are not clear; the trends in real earnings for
women and men need to be followed to find out if these changes are previews of a new equilibrium
developing between women's and men's earnings or if some other structural changes are underway.
11
Endnotes:
1/ James P. Smith and Michael P. Ward, Women's Wages and Work in the Twentieth Century, RAND
Corporation, October 1984.
2/ Frank Levi and Richard J. Murnane, U.S. Earnings Levels and Earnings Inequality: A Review of
Recent Trends and Proposed Explanations, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXX (September
1992), pp. 1333-1381.
3/ Elaine Sorensen, Gender and Racial Pay Gaps in the 1980's: Accounting for Different Trends, Urban
Institute, Washington, D.C., 1991.
4/ Daniel E. Hecker, Earnings of college graduates: women compared with men, Monthly Labor
Review, March 1998, pp. 62-71.
5/ June O'Neill, The Shrinking Pay Gap, Wall Street Journal, October 7, 1994.
6/ Nabanita Datta Gupta, Probabilities of Job Choice and Employer Selection and Male-Female
Occupational Differences, American Economic Review, Vol. 83, No. 2, May 1993.
7/ Robert Topel, "Specific Capital, Mobility and Wages: Wages Rise with Job Seniority", Working
Paper No. 3294, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1990.
8/ U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 10, Male-Female
Differences in Work Experience, Occupation, and Earnings: 1984, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1987.
9/ Howard V. Hayghe, Developments in women's labor force participation, Monthly Labor Review,
September 1997, pp.41-46.
10/ Joyce P. Jacobsen and Laurence M. Levin, Effects of intermittent labor force attachment on women's
earnings, Monthly Labor Review, September 1955, pp.14-19.
11/ Robert I. Lerman, Reassessing trends in US. Earnings inequality, Monthly Labor Review,
December 1997, pp.17-25.
Jared Bernstein and Lawrence Mishel, Has wage inequality stopped growing?, Monthly Labor Review,
December 1997, pp.3-16.
12/ Randy E. Ilg, The nature of employment growth, 1989-95, Monthly Labor Review, June 1996,
pp.29- 36.
Randy E. Ilg, Strong job growth continues, unemployment declines in 1997, Monthly Labor Review,
February 1998, pp.48-68.
FURTHER READINGS:
Barbara R. Bergmann, Does the Market for Women's Labor Need Fixing?, The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Winter 1989, pp. 43-60.
Francine D. Blau and Andrea H. Beller, Trends in Earnings Differentials by Gender, 1971-1981,
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, July 1988, pp. 513-529.
Victor R. Fuchs, Women's Quest for Economic Equality, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Winter
1989, pp. 25-41.
The Journal of Economic
Morley Gunderson, Male-Female Wage Differentials and Policy Responses,
Literature, March 1989, pp. 46-72.
earnings: better pay or longer
Michael W. Horrigan and James P. Markey, Recent gains in women's
hours? Monthly Labor Review, July 1990, pp. 11-17.
Journal of Economic Perspectives,
Edward P. Lazear, Symposium on Women in the Labor Market, The
Winter 1989, pp. 3-7.
Jonathan S. Leonard, Women and Affirmative Action, The Journal of
1989, pp. 61-75.
Economic Perspectives, Winter
James P. Smith and Michael Ward, Women in the Labor Market and in the Family, The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Winter 1989, pp. 9-23.
Francine D. Blau, Trends In The Well-being of American Women, 1970-1995, National Bureau of
Economic Research, Inc., Working Paper 6206.
Jacob Mincer, Human Capital Responses to Technological Change in the Labor Market, Working Paper
No. 3207, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 10, Male-Female Differences
in Work Experience, Occupation, and Earnings: 1984, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 1987.
NOTE: For a copy of this fact sheet complete with corrected Figures 1-5, contact Ms. Arline Easley on
(202) 219-6601 extension 136 or send a self-addressed mailing label to the U.S. Department of Labor,
Women's Bureau, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room S-3311, Washington, D.C. 20210.
13
@FedFRASER