WOMEN’S WAGES

But the supposed injustice to woman is illusory.  Trade Boards will not knowingly fix women’s rates at a point at which they can undercut men.  Nor if women are properly represented on them will they fix their rates at a point at which women will be discarded in favour of male workers.  In industries where both sexes are employed, if the women workers are of equal value with the men in the eyes of the employer, they will receive equal pay; if of less value, then, but only then, proportionately less pay.  It is because women have received not proportionately but quite disproportionately less pay that they have been undercutting men, and the Trade Boards are—­very gradually, I admit—­correcting this error.  For well-known historical reasons women have been at an economic disadvantage, and their work has secured less than its worth as compared with the work of men.  The tendency of any impartial adjustment of wages is to correct this disadvantage, because any such system will attempt to secure equality of opportunity for employment for all the classes with which it is dealing.  But it is admitted that there is a “lag” in women’s wages which has been but partially made good.

If the standard wage must provide for a family, what must be the size of the family?  Discussion on the subject generally assumes a “statistical” family of man and wife and three children under age.  This is criticised on the ground that it does not meet the human needs of larger families and is in excess for smaller ones.  The reply to this is that a general rate can only meet general needs.  Calculation easily shows that the minimum suited for three children is by no means extravagant if there should be but two children or only one, while it gives the bachelor or newly married couple some small chance of getting a little beforehand with the world.  On the other hand, it is impossible to cater on general principles for the larger needs of individuals.  The standard wage gives an approximation to what is needed for the ordinary family, and the balance must be made good by other provision, whether public or private I will not here discuss.  I conclude that for adult men the minimum is reasonably fixed at a figure which would meet the “human needs” of a family of five, and that for women it should be determined by the value of their services relatively to that of men.[1]

[Footnote 1:  I am assuming that this value is sufficient to cover the needs of the independent woman worker.  If not, these needs must also be taken into account.  As a fact both considerations are present to the minds of the Trade Boards.  A Board would not willingly fix a wage which would either (a) diminish the opportunity of women to obtain employment, or (b) enable them to undercut men, or (c) fail to provide for them if living alone.]