The latest piece of proposed government intrusion into American business is the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act. The problem this bill purports to solve is the alleged discrepancy between the wages of men and women in the U.S. workforce. Across the board, women earn 77% of what men earn in “similar jobs.” Based on this statistic–it’s questionable but I don’t debate it here–we are supposed to conclude that evil corporations are conspiring to discriminate against women.
The flaws in this argument are clear. First, it begins with the Marxian premise that workers have not choice but to accept any wage they are offered. However, the employment contract works both ways. Individuals who aren’t offered sufficient wages are free to seek employment elsewhere.
Second, if women are willing to work for 23% less than men, then savvy companies would hire more women until the disparity disappeared. If the left is correct and evil corporations are only interested in profits, then why wouldn’t they hire only women instead of overpaying men to do the same work?
Finally, the 77% statistic assumes that all employment and employees are equal. As a group, women are more likely to leave the workforce for family considerations and reenter the job market later in their lives. Likewise, men are more likely to pursue employment that requires longer hours, overnight travel, and other sacrifices in exchange for additional compensation. Put another way, although not true in every individual case, women tend to prefer different kinds of jobs and are willing to accept lower wages in exchange for more desirable working conditions as part of the package. Economist Thomas Sowell has crunched the numbers and dispels the gender-pay myth brilliantly, so I’ll refer interested readers who seek additional details to his explanation:
Do women really get paid less than men?
Of course, some individuals discriminate inappropriately for a variety or reasons; this will always be the case. But if there isn’t a widespread gender-pay problem–the leftist might ask–then what would be wrong with passing the Paycheck Fairness Act anyway? The answer is quite simple. This piece of legislation requires employers to prove that any gender differences in pay are based on non-gender factors. Requiring firms to prove that they are not discriminating not only violates the Constitutional assumption of innocence but also needlessly increases paperwork and litigation. And we wonder why more and more firms seem averse to hiring anyone these days.
This bill, like previous “equal pay” proposals, is mostly political, with its supporters hoping to brand Romney and Republicans as anti-women if they don’t support it. I haven’t heard Romney clarify his position yet, which it unfortunate. This one should be a no-brainer.
Agree 100%. I want to get behind Romney but he needs to step up to the plate. Why is he silent?
This is clearly another gotcha like the Sandra Fluke deal. Romney was right to sit that one out. He has to pick his spots to some extent but this one, however, offers an opportunity. He could say, “This is a good example of what Senate Democrats do. Instead of finding ways to help employers, they do the exact opposite. Instead of cutting red tape, they add to the regulatory burden of small businesses. Oh this bill would provide jobs – for their buddies, the lawyers. Is this what we want from our elected representatives? They are there to run the government, but they haven’t even passed a budget. Instead they try to run the economy and our lives while the only budgets they impact are those of American businesses. It should be clear by now that the only jobs they care about are theirs and those of their cronies.”
Then have a female CEO, come out and start slamming the bill and Harry Reid. Every time it comes up, ask him to get the CBO to tell us what it costs the taxpayer. Emphasize that we already have laws against gender discrimination.