If the principle of equal pay for work of equal value is valid, then the practice of paying workers in third-world countries at a lower rate than workers doing the same jobs in industrialized nations is unjust. Recently Henry Shue argued that the principle is not valid. In this paper I criticize Shue's arguments and offer additional arguments in support of his conclusion.
I. Transnational corporations have found it profitable to establish manufacturing operations in third-world nations in part because labor costs are considerably reduced. The practice of paying workers in a third-world nation at a lower rate apparently conflicts with a principle which has gained widespread support in other contexts, the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. For example, it has been claimed that certain jobs traditionally performed by women are of equal value to employers as other jobs traditionally performed by men but that since the women are paid at a lower rate they are being unjustly treated. The argument is that since the jobs are of equal value and since jobs of equal value should be remunerated at the same rate, the salaries for the traditional women's jobs should be equal to the salaries for the comparable men's jobs.