MyDraadloos
Expert Member
I question the quality of her data ...... lies, damn lies and statistics.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A182739
IT SEEMS that some circles cling to the belief that affirmative action has devastated the prospects for young white people and — to a lesser extent — coloured people.
Yet however much some people cherish this perception, the data show it is simply wrong.
Even if we take skills and age into account, unemployment remains highest among Africans, especially African women. Management in the private sector is still heavily dominated by whites with remarkably little change in representivity since the mid-1990s. And the poverty rate for whites is a fraction of the rate for the rest of the population.
The figures on joblessness demonstrate that non-Africans still have first claim on most jobs. In September 2004, unemployment ran at 46% for Africans under 30 years old. In contrast, it was 30% for coloureds and Asians in that age group, and 10% for white youth. Among African women under 30 years old, three out of four were unemployed.
Some of the discrepancy reflects differences in education. But significant differences remain even if we look at people with the same educational achievements. Thus, one out of 10 African university graduates under 30 was unemployed in September 2004. The figure was under one in 20 for other groups. In short, it is clear that the inherited racial hierarchy still largely determines who will get a job.
Even if they found employment, Africans were less likely than whites to hold powerful positions. In 2004, Africans constituted two-thirds of all employed people while whites made up a seventh. But Africans held just 14% of senior management positions in the private sector not counting the self-employed. Coloureds and Asians contributed 17% and whites 54%. Compared with data in the October household survey, representivity among private-sector managers had worsened slightly since 1996.
Even in the public sector, senior management was far from representative. The public sector accounted for about a fifth of all employees. Africans held 47% of senior management positions, coloureds 15%, and whites 39%. In other words, whites were over-represented by a factor of two.
As might be expected, the relegation of black people to lower levels in employment was reflected in the distribution of incomes. In 2004 only 7% of whites earned less than R1500 a month compared with 61% of Africans and 31% of coloureds. Meanwhile, Africans accounted for only a fifth of the top 5% of income earners, while whites made up nearly three-quarters. True, the situation was better than in 1996, when Africans constituted just a seventh of the high-income group. But the change was hardly overwhelming.
Perhaps the most disconcerting facet of persistent racial inequality relates to tertiary education. A university degree often forms a prerequisite for economic and social power. Yet in the early 2000s, Africans made up just more than half of all university students and less than half of students in historically white institutions. Meanwhile, whites made up a third of all university students, and two-fifths of those in the privileged schools.
True, lower levels of education contributed to worse economic prospects for Africans. But educational discrepancies should not be blown out of proportion. According to the September 2004 Labour Force Survey, Africans accounted for two- fifths of university graduates, about the same proportion as whites. The average African under 30 years old had about 10,5 years of formal education, compared with 11 years for the average coloured youth and 12 years for the average white. Given these data, why does the myth persist that affirmative action has had a tremendous effect?
One factor is that some individuals view the loss of privilege, not as a requirement for equality, but as a loss of entitlements. They resent the fact that they can no longer count on an assured career with the competition suppressed by law.
A second explanation lies in high unemployment itself, and especially the job losses of the late 1990s. It is fatally easy for some workers to blame ethnicity for the shortage of jobs, rather than the economic shifts associated with downsizing in the public sector and tariff reductions.
Ultimately, the only solution is to reduce the unemployment rate to well below the current crisis levels. No one wins if every group seeks only to increase opportunities for itself while a third of the labour force remains excluded from the economy.
‖Makgetla is a Congress of South African Trade Unions economist.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A182739
IT SEEMS that some circles cling to the belief that affirmative action has devastated the prospects for young white people and — to a lesser extent — coloured people.
Yet however much some people cherish this perception, the data show it is simply wrong.
Even if we take skills and age into account, unemployment remains highest among Africans, especially African women. Management in the private sector is still heavily dominated by whites with remarkably little change in representivity since the mid-1990s. And the poverty rate for whites is a fraction of the rate for the rest of the population.
The figures on joblessness demonstrate that non-Africans still have first claim on most jobs. In September 2004, unemployment ran at 46% for Africans under 30 years old. In contrast, it was 30% for coloureds and Asians in that age group, and 10% for white youth. Among African women under 30 years old, three out of four were unemployed.
Some of the discrepancy reflects differences in education. But significant differences remain even if we look at people with the same educational achievements. Thus, one out of 10 African university graduates under 30 was unemployed in September 2004. The figure was under one in 20 for other groups. In short, it is clear that the inherited racial hierarchy still largely determines who will get a job.
Even if they found employment, Africans were less likely than whites to hold powerful positions. In 2004, Africans constituted two-thirds of all employed people while whites made up a seventh. But Africans held just 14% of senior management positions in the private sector not counting the self-employed. Coloureds and Asians contributed 17% and whites 54%. Compared with data in the October household survey, representivity among private-sector managers had worsened slightly since 1996.
Even in the public sector, senior management was far from representative. The public sector accounted for about a fifth of all employees. Africans held 47% of senior management positions, coloureds 15%, and whites 39%. In other words, whites were over-represented by a factor of two.
As might be expected, the relegation of black people to lower levels in employment was reflected in the distribution of incomes. In 2004 only 7% of whites earned less than R1500 a month compared with 61% of Africans and 31% of coloureds. Meanwhile, Africans accounted for only a fifth of the top 5% of income earners, while whites made up nearly three-quarters. True, the situation was better than in 1996, when Africans constituted just a seventh of the high-income group. But the change was hardly overwhelming.
Perhaps the most disconcerting facet of persistent racial inequality relates to tertiary education. A university degree often forms a prerequisite for economic and social power. Yet in the early 2000s, Africans made up just more than half of all university students and less than half of students in historically white institutions. Meanwhile, whites made up a third of all university students, and two-fifths of those in the privileged schools.
True, lower levels of education contributed to worse economic prospects for Africans. But educational discrepancies should not be blown out of proportion. According to the September 2004 Labour Force Survey, Africans accounted for two- fifths of university graduates, about the same proportion as whites. The average African under 30 years old had about 10,5 years of formal education, compared with 11 years for the average coloured youth and 12 years for the average white. Given these data, why does the myth persist that affirmative action has had a tremendous effect?
One factor is that some individuals view the loss of privilege, not as a requirement for equality, but as a loss of entitlements. They resent the fact that they can no longer count on an assured career with the competition suppressed by law.
A second explanation lies in high unemployment itself, and especially the job losses of the late 1990s. It is fatally easy for some workers to blame ethnicity for the shortage of jobs, rather than the economic shifts associated with downsizing in the public sector and tariff reductions.
Ultimately, the only solution is to reduce the unemployment rate to well below the current crisis levels. No one wins if every group seeks only to increase opportunities for itself while a third of the labour force remains excluded from the economy.
‖Makgetla is a Congress of South African Trade Unions economist.
