Comparable Worth

 

Comparable Worth

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1984 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. The article has been slightly edited.]

“Comparable worth” is beginning to replace the chimera of “equal pay for equal work.” (The reason that equal pay for equal work is losing to comparable worth is that it has failed to transfer enough wealth from the productive to the politically powerful.) But what is comparable worth? How should wages be determined?

In a free market, the consumer determines wages. Wages are paid according to how much one contributes to society. Everyone is paid what he is worth. (If a person believes that he is underpaid, he is free to find a job that pays more.) However, government intervention distorts a worker’s real worth.

The government can distort wages in many different ways. It can do it indirectly by granting monopolistic privileges to labor unions and public utilities. Most of its economic regulations distort wages to some degree. These regulations create nonproductive and otherwise unnecessary positions. Businesses are forced to hire people who do nothing but placate governmental officials. Taxes can have both an indirect and a direct impact on wage rates.

Besides taxes, the government directly distorts wages in several other ways. The most obvious is to fix wages as was done during the wage freeze of the 1970s. Also, the government fixes a minimum wage and forbids anyone from working if his economic contribution to society falls below this arbitrary number. Further, it distorts wages by forcing businesses to hire a minimum number of politically privileged groups (commonly called minorities, although they may not be in the minority and although many minorities are not so privileged). Moreover, it dictates equal pay for equal work. (No two people do equal work because no two people are equal. No two people can be equal because no two people are identical. Only identical people can do equal work. Yet, the government does not let the facts stand in the way of its lust for power.) Now, it is pushing an idea that will give it complete control over the workers and the economy — comparable worth.

Comparable worth is an arbitrary and subjective approach that attempts to compare the tens of thousands of different occupations in the United States and to determine the relative value of each when compared with all other occupations. The comparable worth approach subjectively determines the economic contribution of each occupation to society. This means that one’s political influence determines one’s economic worth. White-collar workers develop comparable worth schemes. Not unexpectedly, these schemes always elevate white-collar jobs and lower blue-collar jobs. The subjective approach of comparable worth would replace the objective approach of the free market in determining wages. Bureaucrats would determine wages instead of consumers.

The outcome of the comparable worth approach would be economic chaos. The government would gain complete control over the lives of every worker. Class conflict, the lifeblood of democracy, would be encouraged. Thus, the blue-collar worker, who is normally discriminated against by comparable worth, would be pitted against the white-collar worker. Courts would be filled with litigation. The wealth of the politically powerful would rise, although their economic contribution to their fellow man would decline. Of course, the government would grow astronomically as it tried to administer this draconian program. All this would be the result of using the arbitrary and subjective approach of comparable worth to determine wages instead of the objective and unbiased approach of the free market.

If the desired goal is tyranny and a larger and more powerful government, then wages should be determined by comparable worth. If one should be paid according to his political influence, then wages should be determined by comparable worth. If the desired goal is liberty and justice, then wages should be determined by the free market. If one should be paid according to his economic contribution to his fellow man, then wages should be determined by the free market.

Copyright © 1984, 2026 by Thomas C. Allen.

More economic articles.

King on Where We Are Going– Part 1

King on Where We Are Going– Part 1

Thomas Allen

In “Where We Are Going,” Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pages 143–176, Martin Luther King, Jr., discusses the development of civil rights programs, power, Negro economic activity, labor unions, Negro political power and voting, Negro leaders, and poverty. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

(First, I must remind the reader that most conservatives and nearly all conservative commentators consider King a conservative. Furthermore, many conservative commentators assert that King is an archconservative and the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him. Hereafter, all these conservatives are referred to as King-idolizing conservatives. Since King is an archconservative, these King-idolizing conservatives should advocate everything that King advocated.)

King blames the Vietnam War for the slow progress of the civil rights movement and the cause of the absence of program advancement. Although many programs had been proposed, most had been ignored. Moreover, the federal government failed to enforce existing laws that would have advanced the cause of the civil rights movement.

Chastising the federal government, King declares, “Underneath the invitation to prepare programs is the premise that the government is inherently benevolent.” (P. 144.) (One thing that the civil rights movement taught, or should have taught, Southerners is that the federal government is malevolent — just as it was during the First Reconstruction.)

Next, King complains about shifting the burden of producing civil rights programs from the White majority to the oppressed minority. This shifting of the burden gave Whites an excuse to do nothing and to claim that Negroes wanted nothing. (Placing the burden on Whites allowed Negroes to blame Whites for the failure of such programs although they failed because of the Negro’s innate attributes. Nevertheless, when Whites finally did push forward civil rights and related programs, they gave the country to the Negro and then enslaved themselves to the Negro. Is the country any better off because of this suicidal act of Whites?)

King declares, “When a people are mired in oppression, they realize deliverance when they have accumulated the power to enforce change.” (P. 144.) (Now the Negro has the power to enforce change. Have they changed the country for the better or the worse? If for the better, why is America destroying itself and why is America far, far more divided today than in the 1960s?)

Then, King states, “Our nettlesome task is to discover how to organize our strength into compelling power so that government cannot elude our demands.” (P. 145.) (King’s followers accomplished this goal. Not only do the federal and State governments not elude Negro demands, but they also exceed those demands while Whites attack each other for not giving the Negro more. Reparations are the only demand where Whites have not yet surrendered, but that surrender is coming.)

King wanted programs that would satisfy the Negro’s aspirations. (Within a few years after King’s death, Whites showered Negroes with rapine, benefits, and privileges that Whites never enjoyed. Yet, Negroes still demand more.)

Next, King laments that “too few Negro thinkers have exerted an influence on the main currents of American thought.” (P. 146.) (This problem has now been solved. Has the country improved because of it?)

Continuing, King complains about the lack of Negro businesses. (Negro businesses were growing under segregation during the Jim Crow Era. However, the civil rights moment diminished them — at least initially.)

Although King condemns labor unions in other essays for discriminating against Negroes, he praises them in this essay for creating racial harmony and for providing Negroes hospitality and mobility. Further, unions had brought Negroes high wages. Still, Negroes needed to increase their influence in the labor movement. He notes, “The coalition of an energized section of labor, Negroes, unemployed and welfare recipients may be the source of power that reshapes economic relationships and ushers in a breakthrough to a new level of social reform. The total elimination of poverty, now a practical possibility, the reality of equality in race relations and other profound structural changes in society may well begin here.” (P. 150.) (King-idolizing conservatives take note.)

Then King discusses Negroes using their vote as consumers to exert economic power. They needed to use the boycott to give them what they demanded. (Some Whites attempted to use the boycott to counter Negro boycotts. However, because of a lack of White unity and disorganization, White boycotts failed. Unlike White boycotts, Negroes were unified and organized in their boycotts; therefore, they succeeded. Now, after 55 years, Whites finally learned something from the Negro and are using boycotts to punish businesses that promote wokeism and queerdom, but not interracial mating. Since the country is rapidly succumbing to wokeism and queerdom, how effective these boycotts will be, remains to be seen.)

Part of the Negro’s demands was quotas for Negroes. The workforce in each category should reflect the percentage of the Negro population. (Qualifications of the Negro for the job did not matter. What mattered was his race. Consequently, all King-idolizing conservatives need to support hiring based on race to meet the quota.)

Next, King comments on the rising political power of the Negro. The population in major cities was rising because of Negro migration and because the Negro birthrate was exceeding that of Whites in the cities. “The two trends, along with the exodus of the white population to the suburbs, are producing fast-gathering Negro majorities in the large cities.” (P. 154.) (As a result, Negroes have taken control of several major cities. In other major cities where they do not control directly, they control indirectly through their kowtowing White slaves.) By controlling governments of large cities, especially in the North, Negroes obtained enough political power substantially to “determine the political destiny of the state.” (P. 154.) 

King remarks that through a coalition of urban minorities, Negroes will control the Democratic Party. (Where Negroes are a significant part of the electorate, Democrats usually need the Negro vote to win. The question is, do Negroes use White Democrats or do White Democrats use Negroes?) Continuing, King states that even the Republican Party needs the Negro’s vote to win, especially in the presidential elections. (Even today, most Republicans believe that they need the Negro vote to win although only a small percent vote for Republicans and although Republicans have won more presidential elections than Democrats since the 1965 voting rights act. If Whites valued the interest of their race as Negroes do theirs and voted for the candidate that served their racial interest as Negroes do, no White presidential candidate would need the Negro vote.)

Then, King comments on Negroes destroying the power of the Dixiecrats and Southern reactionaries. Consequently, they eliminated the power of Dixiecrats and Southern reactionaries in Congress. Thus, Congress can impose the Negro’s agenda on the South and then the rest of the country(, which it did). 

Next, King discusses the need for Negroes in party politics. Traditionally, White political leaders have manipulated Negroes. (Some believe that White political leaders still manipulate Negroes. White oligarchs have been highly successful in manipulating Negroes to increase the power and wealth of the oligarchs.) He criticizes the typical Negro politician, most of whom were frontmen whom Whites had picked and supported. About these Negro politicians, King writes, “Tragically, he is in too many respects not a fighter for a new life but a figurehead of the old one.” (P. 156.) Then, he comments on the poor performance and distrust of Negro politicians.

About what Negroes need to do, King states that “we shall have to do more than register and more than vote; we shall have to create leaders who embody virtues we can respect, who have moral and ethical principles we can applaud with an enthusiasm that enables us to rally support for them based on confidence and trust.” (P. 158.) (This goal has only been partially achieved. Many Negro politicians have come forward whom Negroes and even many Whites enthusiastically support. However, most of these Negro politicians lack moral and ethical principles — just as many White politicians lack moral and ethical principles.) Continuing, King demands, “We will have to demand high standards and give consistent, loyal support to those who merit it.” (P. 158.) (Negroes have failed to demand high standards. But, then, since King’s moral and ethical standards were low, he may have been considering his low standards as high. Anyway, most Negroes give consistent loyal support to Negro political leaders whatever their standards. Many Whites are also guilty of supporting Negro politicians with low standards and with no moral or ethical principles.)

Next, King describes the need for Negroes to become politically independent and ways to force machine politicians to bow to the Negro’s will. Then, he states, “The future of the deep structural changes we seek will not be found in the decaying political machines. It lies in new alliances of Negroes, Puerto Ricans, labor, liberals, certain church and middle-class elements.” (Pp. 158-159.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More social issues articles.