The Economic Possibilities of Comparable Worth

Abstract

Professors Fischel and Lazear have set themselves about a most difficult task. For the sake of their argument they concede that job segregation and the disparity between wages in maleand female-dominated occupations is due to discrimination against women. They acknowledge that this discrimination may take the form of barriers to the entry of women into certain occupations, or may consist of broad, societal sexism which channels women into occupations they might not otherwise pursue. And they concede-as history requires-that the market alone cannot be counted upon to eradicate discrimination. Yet they claim to demonstrate that the remedy known as comparable worth or pay equity is not appropriate under any circumstances and will leave women worse off than they were without the remedy.' As Professor Becker demonstrates,2 the Fischel and Lazear thesis is vulnerable on a variety of grounds. I examine their economic analysis and find it incomplete and unconvincing. Fischel and Lazear make two basic economic arguments against comparable worth: 1. Raising wages in female-dominated occupations to the level of wages in comparable, male-dominated occupations fails to reallocate jobs between men and women or restore wages to the levels which would exist without discrimination; and 2. Increasing wages in female-dominated occupations will reduce employment in those occupations, resulting in a loss of jobs for women, making them worse off than they are now. Neither of these arguments is persuasive. As to the first argument, I do not know of any advocate of comparable worth who