Die Lohndiskriminierungslüge rund um den "Gender Pay Gap" zwischen Mann und Frau ist eines der Standardwerkzeuge der feministischen Propaganda, um die öffentliche Empörung zu Gunsten von mehr weiblichen Privilegien zu geringen Kosten umzumünzen. Nun wurde dieses Lügenmärchen von Antifeministen, Maskulisten und Männerrechtlern schon
intensiv mit Fakten, Studien und rein logischen Überlegungen widerlegt.
Vielfach wird von unserer Seite gegen eine behauptete Lohndiskriminierung argumentiert, indem angeführt wird, dass niemand in der Wirtschaft mehr Männer einstellen würde, welche die gleiche Leistung wie Frauen erbringen, dafür aber 23 % mehr Lohn kosten. Denn gerade die Löhne sind in westlichen Ländern einer der grössten Kostenpunkte in der Wirtschaft, so dass Einsparungen bei Firmen, welche nur Frauen einstellen würden, von mehr als ein Fünftel ohne Leistungsverlust ein gewaltiger Wettbewerbsvorteil gegenüber der "frauenfeindlichen" Konkurrenz darstellen würde.
George Reisman liefert in seinem Buch "Capitalism" die genau gleiche Argumentation, wenn er erklären will, wieso mittelfristig im Kapitalismus zwangsläufig gleicher Lohn für gleiche Leistung gezahlt wird. Er tut dies, weil in den USA im Prinzip die gleiche Problematik herrscht, wie bei uns mit den Feministen - die dortigen Linken argumentieren analog, dass Schwarze in der Wirtschaft beim Lohn diskriminiert werden würden. Dass dem nicht so sein kann im Kapitalismus, führt Reisman gekonnt und auf ähnliche Weise wie vorher hier geschildert, aus. Allerdings versteht er als Meister seines Faches, dieses Argument wesentlich besser und anschaulicher zu präsentieren, als jeder von uns es bisher konnte.
Zunächst stellt Reisman die These auf, dass Lohndiskriminierung bei Randgruppen und Minderheiten im Kapitalismus nur dann existiere, wenn diese vom Staat aktiv propagiert oder geduldet werde, weil ein freier Markt automatisch danach strebt, gleiche Löhne für gleiche Leistung zu zahlen:
"Equal Pay for Equal Work: Capitalism Versus Racism
The uniformity-of-wages
principle [= "In a free market there is a tendency toward an equalization of wage rates for workers of the same degree of ability"] must be understood as implying the existence of a powerful tendency under
capitalism toward equal pay for equal work. Despite the prevailing belief that
capitalism arbitrarily discriminates against such groups as blacks and women,
the fact is that the profit motive of employers operates to eradicate all
differences in pay not based on differences in performance. Where such
differences persist, they are the result of government intervention or private
coercion that is sanctioned by the government."
Er erklärt kurz den Mechanismus des uniformity-of-wages principle:
"Where the profit motive is
free to operate, if two kinds of labor are equally productive, and one is less
expensive than the other, employers choose the less expensive, because doing so
cuts their costs and raises their profits. The effect of choosing the less
expensive labor, however, is to raise its wages, since it is now in greater
demand; while the effect of passing by the more expensive labor is to reduce
its wages, since it is now in lesser demand. This process goes on until the
wages of the two kinds of labor are either perfectly equal or the remaining
difference is so small as not to be worth caring about by anyone."
Nun geht Reisman dazu über, zu eklären, dass schon kleine, hypothetische Lohnunterschiede bei gleicher Leistung zwischen zwei Gruppen bereits gewaltige, positive Effekte für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit des Unternehmens und für den persönlichen Wohlstand des Unternehmers selbst hervorrufen, wenn die jeweils "billigere" Gruppe bevorzugt von ihm eingestellt wird:
"As illustration of the fact
that even very small differences in wage rates could not be maintained under
capitalism, consider the following example. Assume that white workers of a certain degree of skill are paid $5 per hour.
Assume that black workers of identically the same degree of skill can be
hired for just 5 percent less, that is, for just 25¢ an hour less. Assume that a factory must employ
500 workers of this degree of skill. With a 40-hour week, over a 50-week
year, this slight difference in hourly wage rates results in a saving of labor
cost and a corresponding extra profit per year of $250,000 if the factory owner
employs 500 blacks rather than 500 whites (for 25¢ x 500 x 40 x 50 = $250,000).
Even in the case of a small
establishment employing only 10 workers, the annual saving in labor cost, and thus
the extra profit attaching to the employment of blacks, would be $5,000 (since
25¢ x 10 x 40 x 50 = $5,000)— enough for the owner to afford a new car every
other year or to make significant improvements in his business. It is doubtful that there are many
employers so bigoted as to be willing to indulge their personal prejudice in favor
of whites at a cost of $250,000 per year, or even $5,000 per year. The
clear implication is that even slight differences in wage rates would make the
employment of blacks in preference to whites virtually irresistible. Not only would a 5 percent
differential in wages not be sustainable, but neither would a 2 percent or even
a 1 percent differential. Every such differential would lead employers
to hire blacks in preference to whites, and would thus bring about a further
rise in the wage rates of blacks and a further fall in the wage rates of
whites, until a virtually perfect equality was achieved."
Daraus folgert Reisman, dass jedes Vorurteil (oder neudeutsch: "bias") gegenüber bestimmten Gruppen bei der Einstellung in der Privatwirtschaft zwangsläufig "bad business", sprich, unvorteilhaft für den Unternehmer ist:
"Indeed, profit-seeking employers qua profit-seeking
employers are simply unconcerned with race [and gender]. Their principle is: of two
equally good workers, hire the one who is available for less money; of two
workers available for the same money, hire the one who is the better worker. Race [and gender] is simply irrelevant. Any consideration of
race [or gender] means extra cost and less profit; it is bad business in the literal sense
of the term."
Doch Reisman belässt es nicht bei dieser bisherigen Ausführung, welche der Argumentation der Männerrechtsbewegung gegenüber der Lohndiskriminierungslüge der Feministen im Wesen nach gleicht. Denn er geht nun dazu über, die Konsequenzen eines Szenarios zu schildern, in denen die Mehrheit der Unternehmer in einem Markt Vorurteile gegenüber Schwarzen (oder Frauen) hätten, diese also nicht beschäftigen wollen, während eine kleine Minderheit von rational denkenden Unternehmern nicht über diese gruppenbezogenen Ausschlusskritierien verfügen. Aus den Ergebnissen dieses Szenarios konkludiert er, dass mit der Zeit die rational denkenden, vorurteilsfreien Unternehmer sich gegenüber den bigotten Unternehmern durchsetzen werden:
"It should be realized that one
of the great merits of capitalism is that by its very nature employers are
virtually compelled to be oblivious to race. The freedom of competition under capitalism ensures this result. For
even if, initially, the majority of employers were so fanatically bigoted as to
be willing to forgo extra profits for the sake of their prejudice, they would
be powerless to prevent a minority of more rational employers from earning
these extra profits. (“Rationality”
in this context means not passing moral judgment against a person on the basis
of his racial membership and not allowing such a judgment to outweigh the
desire for profit. Such a judgment represents a logical contradiction in that
morality pertains only to acts open to choice, while a man’s racial membership
is not open to his choice. The irrationality is then compounded by the
sacrifice of one’s own objective good—the earning of a profit—for the sake of the
irrational judgment).
Because of their higher profits, the more rational
employers would have a relatively greater income out of which to save and
expand their businesses than the irrational majority. Moreover, since they
operated at lower costs, they could afford to charge lower prices and thus
increase their profits still further by taking customers away from the
irrational majority. The result of these factors would be that the more
rational employers would tend to replace the less rational ones in economic
importance. They would come to set the tone of the economy, and their attitudes
would be transmitted to all other employers, who would seek to emulate their success.
In this way, capitalism
virtually guarantees the victory of rationality over racial [and gender-based] bigotry."
Daraus folgt, dass wenn Angehörige von "unterrepräsentierten" Gruppen tatsächlich überlegene Fähigkeiten aufweisen, diese sich mittelfristig zwangsläufig in der Wirtschaft gegenüber dem gewöhnlichen Arbeiter durchsetzen werden:
"This discussion also provides a rebuttal to the
accusation that under capitalism the skills and abilities of groups such as
blacks are not utilized. For it follows that the unhampered profit
motive leads employers to place the members of all groups in the highest
positions for which their skills and abilities qualify them. Consider the
following example. Assume that a skilled lathe operator must be paid $15 per hour,
and that black workers who have been taught this skill in a trade school are
presently employed as janitors at $5 per hour. The black workers would almost
certainly be willing to change their jobs for a raise to, say, $10 an hour. Any
employer who hired them as lathe operators at $10 per hour would thereby add $5
to his profits for every hour of their work, as compared with employing whites.
Over the course of a year
composed of 50, 40-hour weeks, his extra profit would amount to $10,000. And
this would be on the labor of just one man.
It is obvious that under
capitalism, if the skills and abilities of blacks or any one else are being
wasted in low-skilled, low-paying jobs, it is to the financial self-interest of
employers to change the situation, indeed, to seek out such workers, and in
many cases even to incur substantial costs in training them. And it follows
that the greater the extent to which a group’s skill or ability is wasted, the
greater is the profit to be made by rectifying the situation. For example, if a
black with the ability to do the work of a $100,000-a-year company vice
president is working as a $20,000-a-year clerk, it is even more to the interest
of an employer to seek him out and rectify the situation than in the case of
the lathe operator working as a janitor. In this case, the employer could
double the black worker’s salary to $40,000, and at the same time add $60,000
to his own profits by employing him in a capacity commensurate with his skill
and ability.
Of course, just as in the
initial case, the wages and salaries of blacks brought into the more skilled
and higher-level jobs would more and more tend to match those of the white
workers performing these jobs. Because as employers competed for blacks, their
wages would rise, while, in order to be competitive with the black workers, the
white workers would have to accept reductions. Indeed, once the first few blacks or members of
other groups in a comparable situation are brought into an occupation in which
they were previously unrepresented and
succeed in proving their ability by actual satisfactory performance, a dynamic
effect ensues. The breaking of the taboo, followed by the visible proof
of its lack of rational foundation, changes the way in which such individuals
are viewed. The demand for their services then greatly increases. (The
history of major league baseball provides an excellent illustration. Once the
taboo on the admission of blacks was broken with the employment of the very
able Jackie Robinson, all barriers to the admission of blacks soon fell.)
In connection with the fact
that free competition with members of so-called minority groups can entail a
fall in the wage rates of the average member of the groups already established,
most notably, white male workers, it should be realized that any such reductions
in wage rates would take place as part of a process operating to raise the real
wages—the actual standard of living—of the average member of all groups. For it
would be accompanied by reductions in the prices of consumers’ goods greater
than any reduction in after-tax money incomes experienced by the average member
of the groups already established. This conclusion is conclusively demonstrated in later chapters of this
book."
Zu guter Letzt erklärt Reisman, welchen negativen Effekt Gleichstellungspolitik auf den Aufstieg von auf diese Art und Weise privilegierten Gruppen hat, denn würde man nun zum Beispiel zum Lohn der Frauen einfach den "Gender Pay Gap" dazu addieren (wie es die Feministen fordern), dann verlieren Frauen ihren Wettbewerbsvorteil gegenüber Männern. Sie würden genauso teuer werden, wie Männer, was dazu führen würde, dass sie nicht mehr bevorzugt eingestellt werden (dieses Gegenargument setzt natürlich voraus, dass es tatsächlich so etwas wie eine von Feministen behauptete, echte Lohndiskriminierung gäbe!):
"Ironically, such measures as equal-employment-opportunity
laws directly rule out the very possibility of employing blacks or women at
lower wages for the same work as whites or men. They thus directly
prevent businessmen from finding the employment of blacks or women in the
higher positions to be unusually profitable—profitable enough to begin defying
traditions and customs based on nothing more than empty stereotypes."
Gesamthaft kann man also sagen: Wären Feministen tatsächlich an der Abschaffung von Diskriminierung interessiert und nicht einfach an kurzsichtiger Privilegierung ihrer weiblichen Klientel auf Kosten von Männern, dann würden sie ihre dümmlichen Gleichstellungsmassnahmen wie Frauenquoten, Ausgleich des "Gender Pay Gaps" ohne vermehrte Eigenleistung und andere Frauenfördermassnahmen abschaffen und stattdessen mehr Kapitalismus fordern. Aber dafür müsste man nicht nur über die eigene Nasenspitze hinaus denken können, sondern auch noch etwas vom Kapitalismus verstehen - was angesichts der weit verbreiteten, politisch linken Einstellung vieler Feministen nahezu hoffnungslos ist.
