Mike Allen’s Axios AM this morning came out with numbers from the Institute for Policy Research showing women as slightly better educated than men and slightly less likely to be in the workforce. Once again, numbers don’t lie, conclusions do.
What do the numbers mean? Can’t tell. Numbers naturally bounce within a range. The better educated factoid may mean – emphasis on “may” – a profusion of girls willing to sit a total of 16-18 years in a school desk to get degrees in the “soft sciences” and the law. Without a deep dive, who knows what the figure means. High concentrations in the “soft sciences” – a term meant to cover a subject without much math, physical science, and classical reading – says nothing about employability and practical knowledge given their huge corruption potential. “Better educated” may mean a greater acceptance of curricular hoop-jumping, not “better informed” or any other similar synonym.
For instance, identity studies (gender, race, ethnicity, etc.) doth not make an Einstein. They make partisan activists.
Watch the drop in female workforce participation be used to press the campaign for more government spending and employer mandates. But, as before, what does the number really mean? It may mean more women choosing child-bearing and raising than a paycheck. An uptick in fertility might go a long way in explaining the statistic.
Don’t think for a moment that such women don’t contribute to the national wealth. Raising the next generation is the most fundamental act in making social capital, the basic stuff of economic growth. A unionized government worker isn’t a substitute for mom.
When we allow superficial numbers to proliferate, and put them in the hands of partisans to be massaged for political impact, we get nonsense, and worse. We get a ballooning public debt that will fall upon the heads of those very same kids. Number crunching becomes kid crunching.
RogerG