President Obama has frequently called for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. For example, on July 20, 2010, he declared, “Yet, even in 2010, women make only 77 cents for every dollar that men earn…So today, I thank the House for its work on this issue and encourage the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, a common-sense bill that will help ensure that men and women who do equal work receive the equal pay that they and their families deserve.”
But the Paycheck Fairness Act is not a common-sense bill. Rather, it would lower hiring in America and increase hiring abroad. Further, it would hurt women, the very group it is designed to help, by depriving them of jobs. Within groups of women, the lowest-skilled might be hit the hardest, because it might be harder for employers to justify their salaries in lawsuits.
Lower levels of employment are never justified. But at a time when the unemployment rate is 9.6 percent, when 14.8 million Americans are out of work, when 42 percent of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or longer, it makes no sense to discourage employers from hiring workers.
Furthermore, the bill is misnamed because it responds to a false problem. As will be discussed below, there is far less pay discrimination against women than is alleged by professional feminists. With numerous anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (signed into law by President Obama in January 2009), women do not need more remedies for discrimination. Courts have sufficient tools, and use them. The pending bill would only burden employers with more regulations and paperwork, further discouraging hiring.
I decided that I would check the disparity between men and women's income within my own accounting/tax practice.
See, in Ohio, when both spouses work it is often advantageous for the taxpayer to file separate returns (tax tip for those of you who do your own returns). Out of 446 married couples, I filed 58 separate returns indicating that both spouses were probably employed.
In that scenario, men earned an average of $56,566. The wives earned $55,593 Meaning that women earned a disgusting 98.3% of the men's income. They're so hosed.
The PFA is attempting to equalize income based on skills sets. For instance, it doesn't take a high school education to be a roofer but it probably does to be a clerical person. Under PFA that clerical person should be paid more than the roofer. Nevermind, that no one wants to be on top of a blistering roof in July the nice cushy indoor job should pay more.
But hey, let's go ahead and pass the law and Obama can just take up job orders the next time he makes a run to India, Indonesia and South Korea.