I watched Hillary Clinton proclaim victory in the New York primary. Her supporters were ecstatic. Her biggest applause line was her call for equal pay for women. Who could be against equal pay for women? But let’s be very clear when we hear her speak about equal pay for women we are not talking about equal pay for equal jobs. That precedent is already set. In fact, employers who would knowingly pay a female a lower rate than a male with comparable education, experience, and skill sets face severe liabilities through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agency and others.
Hospitals for instance, do not pay a male nurse at a different rate than a female nurse for the same job. What candidate Clinton is referencing is equal pay for equal work. In other words, are female dominated professions, such as teaching, of the same value and therefore deserving of the same pay as male dominated jobs, such as plumbers? To discern that answer will take an army of bureaucrats and years of data with little hope that it will be satisfactory to anyone.
Right now the market determines the pay for different jobs and professions. To determine relative value seems to me an invitation for the government to be even more intrusive than it is today.