Ten days into his Presidency, Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act.  The law is designed to allow people to sue for back pay lost due to gender discrimination.  In 2007, The Supreme Court interpreted the 1963 equal pay law to mean that lawsuits had a 180 day creation window from the start of the discriminatory act.  The logic holding here was that one could accept the implied contract of a paycheck for a week of work, and then sue for a windfall.  The new law specifies that this 180 day window re-starts with each paycheck. 

So this law really doesn't guarantee equal pay (the 1963 law was supposed to cover that) as social champions would have us believe.  All it does is keep the door open for litigation under an existing law.  It's an easy campaign slogan or photo opportunity to simply declare that one is guaranteeing "equal pay for equal work."

The slogan brings me to my main issue with a left leaning social agenda.  Don't get me wrong.  Social activism has its place.  It integrated busses, made everyone five-fifths of a person, and provided voting rights that everyone was supposed to have from the beginning.  But there is a difference between crusading and muckraking.  So I guess I'm taking on the muckraking here.  Anyhow, the most left of the spectrum view work as being done for work's sake.  If we're being honest, work is done for production's sake.  That is to say, its purpose is to create value.

In the case of Lily Ledbetter, if she were as productive - or more so than her counterparts, she should receive pay with some semblance of equality.  Factors like tenure, cost of living, and basic bargaining power are included.  But all in all, it should be close, with subordinates making less.  I'm not tackling her struggle.  I am tackling those who continue to thoughtlessly trumpet the phrase, "equal pay for equal work."

Let's take the WNBA.  I worry that the activists touting "equal pay for equal work" will try using the law as a dangerous precedent.  The players, like their male counterparts, wear tank tops and try to place a ball in  a hoop that's ten feet off the ground.  "Female players should be paid similarly to the male players," would be the battle cry.  Once could say that the WNBA has no male players, but doesn't the league operate at the behest of the NBA?

Now let's look at the numbers.  The average NBA salary is $5.2 million, but any good statboy will tell you to use the median salary of $2.71 million (max deals drive up the average).  The average WNBA salary is $50,000 with a median of $40,000.  The NBA schedule is 82 games with a length of 48 minutes.  The WNBA schedule is 36 games with a length of 40 minutes.  Per minute, the NBA median pay is $688.  Per minute, the WNBA median pay is $28.

It would seem that an equal pay activist would be all over this discrepancy.  When and if it happens, I think we will finally see the flaw of the philosophy.  Per game NBA revenue (tickets only) is $857,500.  Per game WNBA revenue is $118,500.  Per player NBA revenue is $71,458.  Per player WNBA revenue is $13,166.  Over the course of a season that team figure is $70,315,000 versus $4,266,000.  Of course, this fails to incorporate revenue from merchandise and television; however, in terms of "work" the players are incidental to those revenue streams.

Another factor ignored to this point is the $12 million subsidy the WNBA receives from the above revenues, to cover operating losses.  That is a per player per minute subsidy of $66.14.  The per minute return on investment in terms of revenue and salary is $3.50 for WNBA players (salary plus subsidy).  In the NBA, this figure is $2.60.

Solely in terms of gate revenue (ignoring concessions), there is a 25% discrepancy in terms of pay and work.  But here's my question, can people sue for this 25% when their salaries have been collectively bargained?  There are many laws on the books that protect unions and the concept of unionization.  It seems that the union could ask for more.

But in the end, we're talking about the real world.  Adding concessions, merchandise, and television to the mix does matter, and that 25% quickly disappears when you factor in what that NBA player at that time ultimately means to his employer.  Without the product (the players), there is no demand.  Without demand, there is no revenue.  Without revenue, there is no profit.  Even when we dumb business down to "equal work for equal pay," shouldn't we really be talking about "eqaul pay for equal value added to the organization?"  In the case of Lilly Ledbetter, she has a case.  But for the activists out there (they exist - I know some - that's why I wrote this), you have been given a dangerous precedent to run with.  Tread lightly.  Sometimes the backlash is worse than the initial injustice.