All contributors to the recent discussion of financial parity for men and women teaching in day schools and yeshivot have accepted without discussion the premise that establishing a rule of equal pay for equal work would benefit any group that was previously receiving lower pay because of irrational discrimination. While this has been the conventional wisdom in the U.S. since the early 1960’s, it has been very seriously questioned by economists. Nobel laureate Gary Becker, for example, has explained that requiring equal pay for equal work makes discrimination costless, and therefore more likely to occur. In other words, if Group A is a target of irrational discrimination, they may end up working on average for only 75% of the wages for non-Group A workers. If so, any employer that refuses to hire Group A workers must pay 33% higher wages than those who hire Group A workers. This is the cost of discrimination. If, however, a rule of equal pay for equal work is enforced, then the employer that refuses to hire Group A workers pays the same wages as employers that hire Group A workers. Thus, there is no cost to its discrimination.
This is not just a theoretical proposition. There are many documented examples of favored groups demanding equal pay for equal work as a means to prevent competition from disfavored groups. For example, both white railroad workers in the U.S. during the late 19th century, and white miners in South Africa during the mid-20th century demanded equal pay for equal work as a way to block the hiring of black workers. These white workers understood that if employers could hire black workers for less than they were paying white workers, those employers would have an economic incentive to hire black workers regardless of their prejudices; and any employer that followed its prejudices would pay a significant price to do so. Therefore, the white workers wanted to make sure that black workers could not be paid less than white workers, and thus eliminate the economic incentive to hire black workers.
What does this have to do with salaries for men and women in day schools and yeshivot? Assuming that irrational discrimination accounts for women teachers currently being paid less than men, if all day schools and yeshivot were somehow forced to pay equal salaries for equal work to men and women, their discrimination would become costless, which would increase the amount of discrimination. In other words, if there is currently irrational discrimination against women in day schools and yeshivot, equal pay for equal work should be expected to reduce employment opportunities for women.
Jeff Zuckerman
Silver Spring, MD
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2015 12:47PM by mlb.
