The metaphorical constraints to pay equity: Why so many economists are outraged by comparable worth

The doctrine of comparable worth is frequently denounced by economists as inefficient, unnecessary, unworkable, incredibly costly, and replete with unfortunate consequences for the same low-wage workers it alleges to be helping. This paper attempts to identify an explanation for both the vigor and content of economists' common antipathy toward comparable worth. The methodology of the paper is taken from Donald McCloskey's recent The Rhetoric of Economics and Feyerabend's epistemology of conversation.A content analysis of economists' criticisms of comparable worth reveals a much different methodology from that deified in the beginning chapters of Principles of Economics texts. Facts and empirical validation are not the primary bases responsible for their conclusions. The theoretical and empirical support for current relative wages is not solid enough to explain either the near-unanimity of economists' arguments or their vitriolic tone.This paper analyzes the fundamental role played by metaphor in guiding economists' analysis of comparable worth. Metaphor is treated in this paper as a pre-rational image that, much like Kuhn's paradigms, provides insight and establishes blind spots.