12 votes

The cost of having children - women lose earnings for five years after childbirth

9 comments

  1. [4]
    vakieh
    Link
    To me it's surprising it isn't permanent, based on a comparison to women who don't have kids with the same starting experience. If experience increasingly adds to your ability to produce value,...

    To me it's surprising it isn't permanent, based on a comparison to women who don't have kids with the same starting experience.

    If experience increasingly adds to your ability to produce value, and your pay is based on that ability, then taking a break from working effectively (best case scenario) puts your experience gaining in your field on pause, starting up again when you go back to work.

    I honestly don't know of a reasonable argument why it shouldn't be permanent.

    2 votes
    1. [2]
      Micycle_the_Bichael
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      NOTE: This is a complete assumption based on information in the article and the thoughts in my head. I have no other data to offer should this be taken as anything more than me guessing As a stab...

      NOTE: This is a complete assumption based on information in the article and the thoughts in my head. I have no other data to offer should this be taken as anything more than me guessing

      As a stab in the dark, maybe it has something to do with a max out in monetary returns for experience? I have never seen a job have a listing requiring more than 10 years of experience for a position. If at a certain point experience starts to matter less and less (because after so many years it is assumed you've picked a lot up), then your pay would eventually be nearly the same as if you hadn't had a kid.

      Basically, I'm wondering if the equation of pay as it relates to experience over time converges. If this were the case, then it also could be true that despite the "bump" in the graph (time spent not working to raise a child) isn't strongly correlated enough with time to stop the graph from converging, it just changes the amount of time that must pass before we reach convergence (see this wikipedia page for more information on graph convergence.)

      Edit: Holy comma splice Batman. I shouldn't be allowed to write sentences before having coffee. It will have no change on my argument, but I am going to try and turn my post from 2 run-on sentences into 2 paragraphs. Also, I tried my sources and give a description of convergence proofs without getting too into maths. I'm happy to talk more about how convergence proofs work and how I see them relating to this post if there is interest.

      3 votes
      1. Octofox
        Link Parent
        They don't require 10 years experience but they require things that are built up on previous experience. So instead of requiring 10 years general manager experience, they require experience in...

        They don't require 10 years experience but they require things that are built up on previous experience. So instead of requiring 10 years general manager experience, they require experience in being a manager and an MBA. Because no one just starts working as a manager with an MBA this means you will have had a long career before this which is not listed on the requirements but realistically is required.

        I guess the reason we don't see this reflected in the data is because most people don't push to progress this far and are happy with a mid level job.

    2. Catt
      Link Parent
      Because experience plateaus in pretty much any position. 5 years is already a long time to catch up 1 year off (give or take half a year).

      Because experience plateaus in pretty much any position. 5 years is already a long time to catch up 1 year off (give or take half a year).

      2 votes
  2. [4]
    joelthelion
    Link
    I'm surprised there's no impact on fathers. Having children definitely has an impact on my work output.

    I'm surprised there's no impact on fathers. Having children definitely has an impact on my work output.

    2 votes
    1. Catt
      Link Parent
      Speaking just from my friends group, I think it's because fathers are less likely to risk leave or anything like taking a sick day for kids unless their job is already secured. As an extreme...

      Speaking just from my friends group, I think it's because fathers are less likely to risk leave or anything like taking a sick day for kids unless their job is already secured. As an extreme example, I know company where people are advise to take their vacation and just not tell anyone they are having kids. Same company, where literally everyone that took parental leave was let go for "unrelated reasons".

      3 votes
    2. [2]
      Greg
      Link Parent
      It's a lot harder to judge output than presence in most jobs, though, and the mother generally takes more time off. I think the vast majority of office workers could get away with being 20% less...

      It's a lot harder to judge output than presence in most jobs, though, and the mother generally takes more time off. I think the vast majority of office workers could get away with being 20% less productive each day without being called out (partly because that's actually damn hard to quantify in a lot of cases), but they'd soon hear about it if they stopped turning up on Fridays.

      The father more or less gets a pass even if he's staring sleep-deprived into a blank spreadsheet, whereas the mother takes the hit for the time that she has to be absent (by biological necessity, by societal expectation, and by choice). I've also heard it theorised on more than one occasion that just the expectation of this happening also contributes to the gender pay gap. Mandating equal parental leave seems a fairly quick and easy way to circumvent both problems, although doing so is only meaningful if the parents can actually take that leave without retaliation.

      3 votes
      1. joelthelion
        Link Parent
        I agree with what you're saying, but I'd had expected sleep-deprived fathers to get fewer promotions. Clearly not the case, or at least not enough to have a measurable impact on income.

        I agree with what you're saying, but I'd had expected sleep-deprived fathers to get fewer promotions. Clearly not the case, or at least not enough to have a measurable impact on income.

  3. Octofox
    Link
    We do need some more incentives for less people to have kids.

    We do need some more incentives for less people to have kids.