I won t presume to summarize our policy debate about comparable worth, but here are a few observations. Occupational segregation and the lower valuation placed on predominantly female occupations are part of a self-reinforcing network of social conventions, cultural influences, and individual bargains about who will have primary responsibility for childcare and housework. They therefore tend to choose more flexible or less demanding jobs. Because they earn less, they tend to get saddled with more domestic responsibility. These responsibilities reinforce the original bias in the allocation of burdens.
Examples exist at both higher level and lower level of work.
Think of the choices between real estate versus litigation practice, general practice versus surgery, teaching versus manufacturing with frequent overtime. It is not at all unusual to look to employers to solve perceived social problems. Many statutes take this approach, and it is surely constitutionally permissible. Let's focus our discussion at the beginning of Monday's class on whether the theory of comparable worth is a good method to solve this particular social problem. Then we will turn to consider somewhat analogous questions involving sex discrimination in pensions.