September 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
Blog powered by Typepad

« Association of Private Enterprise Education (APEE) 2014 | Main | What is the point of punishment? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

There is a certain sexism (for lack of a better word) in assuming that women (on average) must be making the same commitment to the market than men do (on average). Equality does not mean equal in our preferences. To assume so is itself a kind of sexism.If person X does not want to work long hours at a law firm but person Y does, guess who will advance faster and better?

The point is this. Job performance is not measured simply by the title of the job. If a person wants to live a fuller life with pursuits outside of work, he or she will do less well than the workaholic with the same title.

The preferences that men have on average are not better or worse than what women have on average. But not everything that makes life worthwhile is translatable into market rewards. To demand that it be so is to demand exploitation of the consumers.

Mario Rizzo.

Rather than making the effort to try and show people why it's not my opinion it's far more profitable to take the opportunity to teach people about builderism.

When people complain about the options on the's imperative that we try and help them understand the process by which better options are placed on the table.

For example...we can compare the options on the table during Mao...and the options currently on the table for people in China. Is there a significant disparity in their options? If so...why is that? Why have the options significantly improved? The answer is builderism.

If somebody wants women to be paid more...then they should start a company that offers women higher wages. If it's acknowledged that it's not easy to do...then perhaps we can help generate the respect and recognition that people deserve when they do provide any number of people with better options.

I have two reactions to these expectations for equal pay.

  1. If said discrimination really exists then it describes an opportunity for an entrepreneur. Go into business; hire women for a higher wage than they could otherwise get; sell your product for a price below the price which can be reached by your competitors who pay higher wages to men; take business away from your discriminating competitors; profit; narrow the hated wage gap; make yourself rich. Anyone who knows that they see discrimination should be able to act in this way to alleviate the discrimination. Anyone who refuses to act so to alleviate their complaint may be falsifying their preferences.

  2. People who want to equalize dollar wages across the two sexes have fallen already into a sexist error, I believe, by focusing upon a male value. Earning lots of dollars is probably a male value, more than a female value. Men on average want dollars, if I am not mistaken, so they can support a wife and family. Women on average, unless I am mistaken, place a higher value on quality time with young children. Consider what it would be like with the shoe on the other foot. Suppose the unit of currency were pegged to one hour of quality time with a bright healthy young child. A review of incomes in this currency would find women vastly overpaid compared to men. A considerate, progressive government would force a redistribution in the currency, from women to men. I would suggest that the Democrats in Congress go to work with this aim.

I can't believe this comparable worth stuff is still around. The courts in the 80's decided this was nonsense.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books