Medical doctors are often—not to say always—generally more well paid than nurses (see, e.g., OECD 2011, pp. 114–115). Why is that so? Does it have to be like that? Should it be this way? The same, and many similar questions, can, of course, be asked regarding differentiated pay in any other industry than the healthcare sector. How are pay levels generally decided? Could and should other factors replace the existing ones?
It has been shown that “the market” currently is one of the factors that has a great impact on the level of pay (see, e.g., Armstrong and Brown 2017) (for an interesting and thought-provoking discussion of the market as a pay setter, see Ohlsson and Rombach 2014), and that level of education is another such important factor (see, e.g., Hussey and Jetter 2017). On such backdrop, it would make perfectly sense to argue that at least in market economies it would be impossible to practice “equal pay for all”, and that it would be unfair to not give those who choose to educate themselves some returns on their investments.
Against such argumentation, one could, on the other hand, argue that people are given different “tools” in their lives, tools that make them better or worse prepared for taking on well-paid jobs, and—since nobody chooses which tools to be born with, differentiated pay is an unfair system (for a discussion on this, see, e.g., Lister 2018). Furthermore, one could question whether pay in itself and the chance of getting a pay raise really are motivating factors in the long run, and—if so—whether it is healthy for humans that such factors are used to increase motivation. Is there even a risk that some people choose a certain profession because it is well paid instead of being genuinely interested in it? Would we, for instance, get better leaders if leadership positions not automatically—which often is the case—come with higher pay (than what non-managers within the same profession are paid) (see, e.g., Örtenblad 2018)? Could there, thus, be reasons for equalizing pay? One could also wonder that if level of responsibility is a factor that can justify differences in pay levels, why, then, do bus drivers generally get so relatively low pay?
Against such arguments, in turn, it would be reasonable to question if everything really has to be totally equal—why should not those who work harder, take on more responsibility, or take on positions that nobody else is either capable or eager to take on be compensated for their additional efforts? If some are motivated by the chance of getting a pay raise, why would such opportunities have to be eroded?
As quite a few chapters in this book claim, pay inequality has recently increased (e.g., Schaff, Chap. 11 in this volume; Knudsen, Chap. 12 in this volume)—not least in companies, between those who are paid the most and those who are paid the least (see, e.g., Dorey, Chap. 8 in this volume; Mohan, Chap. 9 in this volume). Pay inequality is presently an issue of debate (e.g., Knudsen, Chap. 12 in this volume) and has also begun to be more frequently questioned and discussed (e.g., Cooke, Chap. 7 in this volume; Dorey, Chap. 8 in this volume; Reilly and Brown, Chap. 10 in this volume).
In this book, the suggestion of letting all people—no matter in which profession they work and which hierarchical position they have (inclusive of those who for various reasons do not have any job)—be paid the exact same amount, will be debated. While there are different definitions of “pay”—for instance, some include bonuses while others do not (see, e.g., Impact Group 2020), the definition of “pay” that has been the starting point for this book is, simply, “the money paid to someone for regular work” (Lexico 2020). Such suggestion is put forward in order to stimulate to reflecting critically and exploring new ideas by thinking the other way around, or, as Ohlsson and Rombach (2015, p. 151) put it, “why not the opposite?” Since differentiated pay is the established system/norm in most parts of the world—and it could be assumed that “differentiated pay” is what most people tend to take for granted and is how it should be—this book asks what if it would be the other way around (in terms of “equal pay for all”)? The result of exploring and critically reflect upon something may not necessarily be any change in standpoint; enlightenment may be the “only” outcome.
A number of (mainly) scholars—working in various academic disciplines—were invited to argue for, against, or anywhere in between equal pay for all. The book as such is multi-disciplinary; disciplines represented by the contributors include (but are not limited to) philosophy, economics, political science, employment studies, labor market, law, and business management. As the sub-title of the book exposes, the bases of some of the main arguments suggested in the book are economy, practicability and ethics (respectively)—that is, some contributors argue that “equal pay for all” is not economically defensible, others that it is impossible in practice to pay all the same amount, and yet others that differentiated pay is not an ethically defensible system. The book, though, is far more complex than that, and many more arguments are put forward. To take merely one example of such complexity, there are also those who argue that it is not ethically defensible to offer all the same pay (see, especially, Salverda, Chap. 3 in this volume; Brouwer and van der Deijl, Chap. 4 in this volume; Zwolinski, Chap. 6 in this volume).
The book is divided into four parts, containing chapters in which the authors argue against equal pay for all (Part I), chapters arguing against equal pay for all but where the idea of a universal basic income is proposed (Part II), chapters arguing for more equal pay but not for total equality (Part III), and chapters arguing for equal pay (Part IV). In addition, there is an afterword, in which the author puts forward some critique of the very question that is debated in the book (Grey, Afterword in this volume).
While (unfortunately) not each and every grown-up on earth has a relation to pay, most people do have a relation to this topic. Many get some kind of pay in return for their work. Some may be happy with what they get, while others are frustrated over not getting more pay than they get. The book should, thus, be of interest to many people, since it deals more or less directly with their pay and the level of it. The book should also be of interest for policy setting actors on the employment market, such as trade union representatives and employer organization representatives.
The book’s special character makes it relevant also for another target group. Unlike many other edited books, the chapters and their contributions are not summarized in any kind of unified conclusion for the whole book. Expressed in other words—there are theses and antitheses but no syntheses in the book. Instead, readers are offered to take part of various positions in the debate on “equal pay for all”, as well as various kinds of arguments, and are thereby given opportunities to make up their own minds. Thus, in this book one question (“is equal pay for all a good idea?”) is given a multitude of answers. For this reason, the book can also be assumed to be of interest to those who believe that there always is reason to question that which we presently tend to take for granted (such as differentiated pay), who want to challenge the existing way of thought or current practices, and who are ready to explore other ways of thought and dealing with things. Thus, of particular interest should the book be for university programs and courses where pay is a subject and where the students are intended to learn to be critical—critical in, for instance, the senses that Mingers (2000, pp. 225–226, emphasis in original) suggests...