F— ECONOmCS. 117 



in industry E, instead of the rate e which would be proper in the 

 absence of secondaiy differences, we should put the somewhat lower 

 rate «'. Likewise in I (above (12)), instead of the common rate t for men 

 and women equally, we should put a lower rate i' for women, retaining i 

 for men. Such an adjustment seems to cany out the recommendations 

 of the (majority of the) War Cabinet Committee when they contemplate 

 ' a fixed sum to be deducted from the man 's rate ' con-esponding to the 

 ' lower value of the woman's work,' if proved by the employer (par. 10 

 (5) p. 4). The adjustment would be in accordance with the definition 

 of equal pay for equal work given by those who are best quahfied to 

 interpret the claim : ' Any permanent disadvantage that adheres to 

 women workers as such sliould be allowed for by a pro ratd reduction 

 in their standard rates ' (Mrs. Fawcett, citing Miss Eleanor Eathbone, 

 Economic Journal, 1918, p. 3). But the reduction corresponding to 

 the demand of the employer for women as compared with men workers 

 could not well be calculated objectively by a board. It could only be 

 determined by the play of ideal competition, which exists only in idea. 

 There would be incm-red the danger either (a) of the women's rate 

 being fixed high above the point for which pi-oduction would be a 

 maximum, or (p) its being ' nibbled ' by the employer. The former 

 danger is probably, as things are, not very serious ; the latter is much 

 apprehended by experts. Altogether it would seem better to proceed on 

 the lines of Mrs. Sidney Webb's ' occupational rate,' rather than on 

 the plan recommended by the majority of the Committee. Instead of 

 fixing two rates, i and i', let us fix (for the defined unit of work) a 

 single rate for men and women ahke, say i", less than i, which would 

 have been the rate in the absence of ' secondary ' differences. The 

 readjustment will result in a redistribution of male and female work. 

 The men would back out of occupations in which previously it had been 

 worth their while to take part; the employment of women would be 

 correspondingly extended. The process may be illustrated by an in- 

 cident which Mr. and Mrs. Webb have recorded. The reduction of a 

 farthing in the pay for a dozen of stockings resulted in that branch of 

 the industry being deserted by the men and occupied by the women 

 (' Industrial Democracy,' II., p. 502). If the reduction, from i to i" 

 was inconsiderable the consequences to the consuming public would be 

 negligible upon the principle above explained (8). Otherwise a great 

 drop from i to i" might have as bad an effect on production as fixing 

 a women's rate, i', too near i, the men's rate, so as to incur the 

 danger above labelled a. 



15. The specious airangement by wlrich secondary differences may 

 be masked through the adoption of a uniform rate is not applicable to 

 another kind of difference between the work of the sexes which occurs 

 in the case of some personal services. The vexed question of school- 

 mastei's' pay illustrates this ' tertiary ' difference, as it may be called. 

 If teaching were an art as mechanical as turning a prayer-wheel, if 

 teachers were literally, as some ol them used to be called, 'gi-inders,' 

 then (apart from secondary diffei^ences) it would be unreasonable that 

 men should be paid more than women for the same operation. But 

 supposing that the presence and influence of a master, say in dealing 



