Roberts Was Right

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

Among the thousands of pages of Reagan-era documents released by the White House on Judge Roberts, one issue that has feminists up in arms is his 1980s opposition to a nonsense economic concept called comparable worth.


Comparable worth does not mean equal pay for equal work, which is already law. Instead, comparable worth signifies equal pay for entirely different jobs based on categories determined by government bureaucrats.


Comparable worth’s supporters claim that it is unfair that some predominantly male occupations – such as construction workers – are paid more than some predominantly female ones – such as teachers.


As Judge Roberts correctly wrote, this amounts to “nothing less than central planning of the economy.” For better or for worse, our economic system rewards American workers on the basis of how much the public is actually willing to pay for their service, not based on how much bureaucrats say it is worth.


For example, some may say that all classes of singers should be paid the same. But Madonna in our economy commands more in Madison Square Garden than does opera singer Cecilia Bartoli. A government decree that all types of singers should be paid the same not only would be centralized planning – it simply would not work.


Ideological, liberal feminists want comparable worth because, 40 years after the Equal Pay Act, average full-time female workers’ wages are about 80% of men’s. However, this so-called wage gap is not due to discrimination. Within each job category, men and women with the same skills and experience are paid the same for equal work, as required by law. Individuals who believe that they are being paid less than colleagues for the same work can and do sue.


The only way to reduce the so-called wage gap further is to mandate that occupations employing primarily men are paid the same as those dominated by women. Some jobs command more than others, not because they are more worthy, but because people are willing to pay more for them.


Many of the jobs that people are willing to pay others to do are dirty, dangerous jobs such as oil drilling, construction work, mining, and roofing. Other highly paid occupations have long inflexible hours such as truckers, plumbers, and electricians. These jobs are often performed by men.


Women are not excluded from these or other jobs, but often select professions with a more pleasant environment and potentially more flexible schedules, such as teaching and office work. Many of these jobs pay less.


Women’s decisions about field of study, occupation, and time in the work force can lead to lower compensation. Compared to men, women tend to choose more college majors in the lower-paid humanities rather than in the sciences. Women who choose computer science and engineering have higher incomes.


Women also take time out of the work force to have children and care for them. Employers naturally compensate workers who have taken time out of the work force less than workers who remain constantly in the work force.


How would comparable worth operate? Two bills in the Senate would work exactly as Judge Roberts predicted. One comparable worth bill, the “Paycheck Fairness Act,” introduced in the Senate in April by Senator Clinton, calls on the Department of Labor to set wage guidelines for different occupations.


Wage guidelines would be based on factors including mental demands, working conditions, and the skills required to perform a task. Such assessments, even if they could be defensibly measured, tend to favor education and service jobs over manual, blue collar work. Neither experience, risk, inflexibility of work schedule, or physical strength, factors that increase men’s wages relative to women’s, would be included.


Although the guidelines in the Clinton bill would be “voluntary,” experience suggests that federal voluntary standards are ultimately compulsory. Federal agencies could decide to do business only with those firms that meet the guidelines.


Senator Tom Harkin’s comparable worth bill, the “Fair Pay Act of 2005,” would require equal pay for equivalent jobs. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would issue guidelines for determining whether jobs were equivalent.


If Senator Harkin’s bill passed, every business with more than 25 workers would have to submit annual reports to the EEOC “with information that discloses the wage rates paid to employees of the employer in each classification, position, or job title … including information with respect to sex, race, and national origin of employees at each wage rate in each classification, position, job title, or other wage group.” It’s not just impractical, it’s Orwellian.


The defeat of efforts to impose comparable worth, paid maternity leave, universal government-funded health care and child care, and higher minimum wages has benefited women. The United States leads the industrialized world in job creation, and unemployment rates for both men and women are among the lowest.


Feminist ideologues attack Judge Roberts for not supporting comparable worth in the 1980s, saying that his position amounts to being against women. On the contrary, comparable worth would work against women, because artificially high wages would prevent them from being hired.


Comparable worth is based on an assumption that women are dumb, inferior, and weak, unable to succeed on their own, and so need government-set wages for true equality. By opposing comparable worth, Judge Roberts knows that equality is more valuable.



Ms. Furchtgott-Roth is senior fellow and director of the Center for Employment Policy at the Hudson Institute. From 2003 to 2005 she was chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use