Lent Post: Equal Pay

Salvete. Before I begin, a friend of mine has started up a blog. Even though I agree with only half of the blog, it is very well writ, and, as was desired, it makes the average debater think and reflect. You may find it at http://iconosceptic.wordpress.com/.

So, the debate for "equal pay" is going on. My response is going to be controversial. You have been warned.

First, income inequality between men and women has far too many factors to be hailed as fact. One would have to include job types, job requirements, job rarity, job hours, and job quality. These practically cannot be measured by any outsider beyond biased narratives; thus, the statistics are essentially worthless. They may serve as a rough estimate at best, but there must be ample room for doubt, bias, and error.

The same goes with a large amount of statistics. Gun crime statistics cannot be accurate because either there were murders/homicides not recorded and thus not included in the report, or the statisticians fudged the numbers to fit the logic behind the gun statistics, thus polluting and biasing the statistics. Either way, there should be ample room for error in the result.

But I digress. People seem to miss the point about "equal pay," most likely because it seems to be too offensive to mention. The business is the organization providing the payroll, so they can be as sexist, homophobic, or racist as they want. To be sure, if I ran a business, pay would be determined based on merit and product, and in no way based on background, race, gender, or any other prejudiced manner. However, when the government establishes a foothold on the output of a business's income, it steps into very dangerous territory.

However, the case is different when the government contributes to a business's income. Because the government is controlled by all American citizens, the government should pay women and men without prejudice and based on merit. In that case, a racist, sexist, and otherwise prejudiced company does not need to receive money from the government. Should the government manipulate its investments to target the business by strengthening the business's rivals? Of course not, although that is possible under my strategy. However, if a company wants to function separate of the social and fiscal policies of the government, it has the right to do so, though the government has just as much right to retract its investments.

Such is my opinion. I'm planning on a solid day of video games tomorrow. It sounds like fun.