FeministX has been
arguing that employment among married women increases fertility by supplementing family income. It's easy enough to test with GSS data. I limited the sample to married women ages 35 to 44, measured during any survey since 1990 (to maximize N). A husband's income should matter as well, and in the absence of a question about his income, I used one concerning the socioeconomic status of his job. Here are results for three different indicators of work: 1) full-time status versus all other statuses; 2) hours worked per week; and 3) personal annual income.
All coefficients are negative: spouse's income as well as the three measures for the wife, but only those with asterisks reach significance.
As a women is more committed to work and earns more money, she has fewer children. This is true, independent of the husband's income.
The negative coefficient for income is smaller than the others: a large income might make job and children less incompatible as it better enables one to pay for services to lighten one's domestic duties.
VARIABLES: CHILDS, FULLTIME2, SPSEI, HRS1, REALINC
Obviously "Inductivist" is simply cherry picking his data and thinks he can get away with it because FeministX is a woman. Any sophomore knows correlation doesn't imply causation. No wonder he's teaching at a second-rate college. What a sexually inadequate buffo!
ReplyDeleteCan I fuck you now Hot Legs?
Now Jim, you wouldn’t want to do anything rash. You know how it is with Indian immigrants, they are not kosher for the fragile Aryan, er, Nordic immune system. On the off chance that you choose to dive in those perilous waters, make sure you don’t forget to wear your tinfoil hat for protection.
ReplyDeleteAw, shuckeedurn! I forgot to talk about "inductivist's" tinfoil hat!
ReplyDeleteAre you hinting, ever so subtly, that “Inductivist” is your sockpuppet? That would certainly go a long way toward explaining why “Inductivist” tolerates your presence here as well as why you are often the first one to comment.
ReplyDelete