Politicizing the pay gap.

Abortion wasn't the only rallying cry at last April's "March for Women's Lives" in Washington, D.C. When it was Senator Hillary Clinton's turn to speak, she declared: "This administration is filled with people who ... claim the pay gap between women and men is phony...." The term "pay gap" refers to the statistical observation that American women make 77 cents to every dollar earned by American men. For decades, militant feminists have maintained that the pay gap can only be explained by systemic workplace discrimination that puts less value on work done by women. But it's actually a rhetorical contrivance deployed in the service of an anti-free market agenda.

An assistant business editor of the local newspaper here in Appleton, Wisconsin, chimed in with a column that included the following remarks: "Before seeing those numbers, I really thought women and men who do the same job would receive the same pay. For example, at most businesses receptionists who are typically women--are paid less than delivery personnel or those who work in the warehouse, who are typically men. I'm sorry, but that's just not right. Is a receptionist's work any less of value than someone who works in a warehouse?"

Seeing me obvious contradiction between her premise in the first sentence and the example she used in the very next sentence, I decided to give her a call. Our brief conversation went something like this. "Why should anyone be upset about the pay gap?" I asked. She replied, "Because men and women should be treated as equals." "But the types of jobs done by women aren't always the same as those done by men," I countered. "That doesn't mean that discrimination doesn't exist," she rebutted. Pointing out her flawed reasoning, when she used an example of two different jobs to support her argument that men and women should get the same pay for the same job, I then asked, "If the receptionist wants to make more money, why doesn't she just apply for a job in the warehouse?" "Look," she said, "why don't you just write a letter for the op-ed page?" I couldn't help but recall a line from an old 1980s' tune: "Put 'em under pressure and you watch them fall apart."

In any case, who should decide how much a receptionist is worth compared to a warehouse worker--the government or the free market? And why should we believe that there would be no discrimination if we were to leave it up to the government to decide?

Any study of the pay gap and the reasons for its existence inevitably yields the following:

* Women leave the labor force for longer periods of time, primarily to bear and raise children. This slows career development, and the promotions and pay increases that go with enhanced work experience.

* Men are generally physically stronger than women, so they dominate employment in fields where the work is physically demanding (e.g., heavy industry, mining, construction) and where there is a greater chance of physical injury. These types of jobs command higher wages to compensate for the greater risk of bodily harm.

* Women work fewer hours per year, because more women work part-time, and more men work at jobs that are not only full-time, but also offer overtime pay.

* Women choose certain lower paying occupations for a variety of reasons not related to pay, such as status and workplace environment. For example, most women prefer to be secretaries, rather than auto mechanics, even though auto mechanics generally make more money.

Ultimately, what critics want us to believe is that the pay gap is a symptom of a despicable social problem--namely, gender discrimination in the workplace. But I have yet to hear the answer to a very simple question: If such discrimination really existed, and a business could hire a woman to do a job for significantly less money than it would pay a man, why would any intelligent employer hire a man? It should be intuitively obvious that free market competition would quickly eliminate any pay premium based on gender.

Why, then, do some people still want us to believe that the pay gap is due to job market discrimination against women? The answer is that some groups in society would benefit from policies that could be implemented, based on the assumption that such discrimination actually existed.

Comparable worth, or pay equity, has been the most popular policy proposal put forward by feminist social engineers. It is based on the notion that wages and salaries should be calculated by government on a scale of socioeconomic value that transcends the traditional economic forces of supply and demand. Each job is considered to have an intrinsic value to an employer, which proponents claim can be objectively determined. Some states actually attempted to implement comparable worth policies during the 1980s, but the courts rejected them as a remedy for the alleged discrimination. However, as recent events show, those who want to expand the role of government in the workplace are not going to let the matter rest.