Sources

Furchtgott-Roth, Diane & Christine Stolba, “ ‘Comparable Worth’ Makes a Comeback.” The New York Times (February 4, 1999).
 

'Comparable Worth' Makes a Comback

It appears that the feminists who supported former President Clinton through the Monica Lewinsky affair have been rewarded. In February, 1999, Mr. Clinton announced the commitment of $14 million to establish an “Equal Pay Initiative” while also supporting Sen. Tom Daschle’s proposed “Paycheck Fairness Act.”  Clinton explained these steps as proactive steps as an effort to prevent the expansion of a gap in pay between men and women that is reflected by the fact that in 1999, women earned “about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns.”  This attempt to codify the frequently discredited theory of comparable wealth under another name would be enforced by the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Control Compliance.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba question the need for such action. They point out that it is already illegal to pay unequal wages to equally qualified men and women who do the same job. When this does occur, women sue and invariably win. But such discrimination is rare. “When adjustments are made for age, experience, education, occupation, and position, women earn approximately the same as men,” Furchgott-Roth and Stolba point out.

They suggest that Mr. Clinton’s claim that women earn only 75 cents to a man’s dollar is based on a crude comparison: all women’s salaries vs. all men’s salaries. The reality is, however, that the average woman’s salary is 75% of the average man’s because the average woman has less work experience and is more likely to choose a job that gives her the flexibility to combine work and family and to take time out of the work force to bear and raise children. Rather than discrimination, it’s greater choice for women.

In reality, the only way to get rid of the average pay gap is to mandate equal pay for different jobs (i.e., “comparable worth”). That’s exactly what Clinton’s proposal does, say Furchgott-Roth and Stolba.  Since comparable worth has been rejected in courts all over the country, it would require enforcement by legislation-authorized bureaucratic intervention.

Under the Clinton plan, government bureaucrats would “objectively” determine a job’s worth by considering working conditions and knowledge required to perform a task. “Neither experience or risk, two factors that increase men’s average wages relative to those of women, are included as relevant job-related criteria,” says Furchgott-Roth, while also noting: “Thus—these criteria favor traditionally female occupations over male ones (secretaries over truck drivers), and white collar jobs requiring education over blue-collar work.”

Advocates of comparable worth say that all they want to do is correct market flaws due to discrimination against women, but federal legislation, suggest the authors, is a big step toward an economy ruled by bureaucratic dictate. A philosophical problem of such action is that it suggests that women can’t make it on their own. If feminist claims that “women can do any job” are valid, the principle of comparable worth works against women’s interests. Logic also dictates that if employers had to pay women higher-than-market wages, fewer women would get hired in the first place.

As of February, 1999, unemployment for both men and women was near a 30-year-low; wages and workforce participation rates for women were at an all-time high; and the economy was expanding robustly. Furchtgott-Roth and Stolba contend that the best way to help women succeed economically is to keep the economy strong. This is something that in their opinion, Washington can’t accomplish by giving bureaucrats more power over the market.
 
 

NOTE: An interesting and current discussion of comparable worth can be accessed through the following Web link: http://www.payequityresearch.com/worth.htm