[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Thursday, May 28 - 9:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In 1963, an Equal Pay Act was passed under President Kennedy, but proponents argue that it has not succeeded in closing the wage gap, so a new law has been proposed -- the Paycheck Fairness Act -- which is supposed to put teeth into the original legislation.  What most people should understand, but don't, is that the very concept of "equal pay for equal work" is wrong both morally and economically. The original law, passed in 1963, should be repealed instead of strengthened and updated.  The so-called wage gap that the legislation is intended to address is a smokescreen that fails to recognize the very real differences in performance that serve to explain the differences in pay.

 

The following figures are often quoted as a justification for the legislation:  "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2013, women who worked full time earned, on average, only 78 cents for every dollar men earned. The figures are even worse for women of color. African American women earned only approximately 64 cents and Latinas only 56 cents for each dollar earned by a white male." (From an ACLU advocacy group)  Obviously, these figures are simply group averages and say nothing about whether the groups performed exactly the same work, or were equally as productive.  So they give a presumptuous and misleading picture of these differences in pay by suggesting that they're due to discrimination. 

 

Moreover, does the catch phrase "equal pay for equal work" even mean what it says?  The answer is no, because what it really means is equal pay for unequal work.  How so?  Well, imagine two workers doing the same job, but one is more productive than the other. Are they doing equal work? No, because they are not equally productive. However, since they’re doing the same kind of work, the “equal-pay-for-equal-work" principle says that they must be paid the same wage.  What will be the result of this principle if it is fully and successfully enforced?

 

George Reisman gives the following example: “Imagine 2 workers one of whom produces 10 units while the other produces only 9. Which one will be employed if their pay must be equal? If a less productive worker must be paid the same as a more productive one, he will be unemployed if a more productive worker is available.  For less productive workers to avoid unemployment, their wages need to be less than the wages of more productive workers. Lower wages offset lower productivity. If the wages of the less productive are sufficiently lower, they can out compete the more productive. Requiring equal pay for unequal work is the enemy of less productive people. It deprives them of the ability to compete.

 

“If women were paid less than men for the exact same work [i.e., for the same productivity], then hiring only women would maximally increase profits.” It would increase profits to the point that there was no clear difference between the wages of men and women for the same work. The wages of women would be bid up as employers competed for their less expensive labor while the wages of men were bid down until there was no obvious difference between the two forms of labor.

 

The misnamed “equal-pay-for-equal-work” principle would make wage competition for the same job impossible, because it would prevent workers from competing for a job by being willing to work for lower pay than their competitors.

 

Moreover, imagine the effect of such a principle if it were extended from prices for services to prices for goods. And why shouldn’t it? If it’s valid for the one, it’s valid for the other. In that case, businesses selling the same product would not be allowed to compete with each other by offering consumers a lower price than their competitors. Consumers would have to pay the same prices for the same products on the premise of "equal pay for equal goods."

 

The principle of "equal pay for equal goods and services" is a bad idea, as it would prohibit competition among businesses and workers and destroy incentives for improved productivity and economic efficiency. It would also prevent consumers and businesses from benefiting from the lower prices that such competition makes possible.

 

Last, but not least, it would destroy economic freedom.

 

(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/29, 1:42am)



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Thursday, May 28 - 10:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The question that must be asked is, "By what right does a government tell one person what they can or can not pay another?"  

 

If a law is not describing something that protects individual rights, it is presuming the government owns some aspect of a person, his liberty or his property.  That "Equality of Pay" is a violation of the freedom of association, and the right to form voluntary contracts.



Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, May 29 - 1:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I am more concerned with the impact this type of legislation has on the self-esteem of women.  Mentoring young women in the workplace, I preach things like knowing your worth and negotiating on your own behalf and accepting that your personal choices will impact you professionally and above all else YOU ARE CAPABLE.  This legislation says that none of those skills matter and indeed, women are not capable.  Not capable of self-awareness, not capable of negotiation, not capable of making sound, informed, rational choices for themselves.

 

It's damn near indoctrination into the minds of girls that they cannot succeed on their own.

 

Further, as a mother of a young son, I worry about a future in which the focus is so much on girls that the boys get left behind.  One factor of the wage disparity is the imbalance between men and women at the executive level.  No one argues that the imbalance exists, and many work very hard at helping women to go after those jobs.  But no one seems too concerned about the imbalance between men and women in professions like nursing or primary education or stay-at-home parenting.  (Actually, healthcare organizations do actively recruit male nurses, but outside of that industry, the general public seems silent on the topic.)  It is absolutely a wonderful thing to encourage girls to work for corner offices if that's what they want.  It should be equally as wonderful to encourage boys to work for home and family if that's what they want.  That alone could even the wage gap more effectively than more legislation.

 

Disgusted rant over.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, May 29 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Dividing people by gender (or by race) is nearly always an ugly approach with mixed messages at best.

 

It seems that part of progressivism is a requirement that people be seen as members of some artificial group and that they inherit from the group some grievances and that is the basis for angry pursuit of a government solution.  It seems to be the main style of polemics taught in the universities.  Women's studies or Black Studies or Hispanic Studies - all taught that way and the level of manufactured outrage appears to be the only currency recognized.  "We are so deeply offended that you must give up some rights."



Post to this thread
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.