BUT, BUT, BUT The women we are talking about, working class women of all races (the largest percentage increase in teen births has been amongst caucasian teens) do NOT go to college, nor do they receive professional degrees. Work by Elaine McCrate and (I forgot the other author's name, oops) has pointed out that the population of young black women bearing children in their teens is the same population working in dead end jobs with or without bearing children at a young age. ALSO, of the over 100 job categories listed in the census, 90% of wage earning women are concentrated in the 8 lowest paid job categories -- not in 'careers'. This goes to the heart of why I think it is dangerous to make too much of the strides women have made in some occupations and the marginal increases in income they have received as a result. MOST working women STILL do NOT have careers. Most working women still have jobs at the bottom of the pay scale which they keep because they must. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 96-11-27 14:48:46 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerald Levy) writes: > >(2) Is there reason to believe that having a child while a teenager, in >general, has an adverse affect on the ability of the mother to >finish high school and/or attend college? Is there reason to believe that >poor women without high school diplomas or college degrees are more likely >to remain poor? Is there reason to believe that having a child while young >and poor can (in the presence of the lack of affordable or >employer-offered free daycare) affect the ability of the mother to obtain >better-paying jobs? > >Jerry > > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: from anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu (anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu >Received: from anthrax (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu >Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:46:30 -0800 (PST) >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >From: Gerald Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:7621] Re: Technology Shock and Teen Pregnancy >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >X-Comment: Progressive Economics >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >MIME-Version: 1.0 --------------------- Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerald Levy) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 96-11-27 14:48:46 EST Doug Henwood wrote: > Empirically speaking - and I know what high regard you have for empirical > work, Jerry - there's no evidence that early childbearing has any "affect" > on the long-term employment prospects of poor women. (1) I have a very high regard indeed for *some* empirical work. I have a very low regard for empiricists. (2) Is there reason to believe that having a child while a teenager, in general, has an adverse affect on the ability of the mother to finish high school and/or attend college? Is there reason to believe that poor women without high school diplomas or college degrees are more likely to remain poor? Is there reason to believe that having a child while young and poor can (in the presence of the lack of affordable or employer-offered free daycare) affect the ability of the mother to obtain better-paying jobs? Jerry
