Women who have kids tend to earn less than women who don’t, a phenomenon known as the “motherhood penalty.” But USA Today reports that that when a woman has children makes a difference.
Researchers at the University of Maryland in College Park and the University of California at Los Angeles reviewed 35 years of data from some 2,200 women born between 1944 and 1954, and found that women who had kids in the early- to mid-20s or even younger didn’t fare as well economically as those who delayed.
Sociologist Joan Kahn, one of the study’s authors, comments:
“Women who delay childbearing end up as successful economically as women who didn’t have children, and we look at it basically throughout their adult years — well into their 50s,” she says.
The point, she says, is that women who are younger when they have kids and attempt to get back into the workforce later may not have that up-front investment in education and training, which those who have kids later benefit from. They earned equivalent wages and had higher status occupations just like women who were childless.
Comments 4
Roshni Muralidharan — April 19, 2010
I think it is very interesting that the age at which a woman has children can affect their careers so much. I think ability and skills is what should matter more in the workforce. For example a straight A female student may decide to get married right when she is done with college and have kids and then go back to work when she is 30. If she is able to interview and prove herself as capable as the other candidates applying for a job then she should be able to do just as well in her career as she would have if she had not had children.
MeToo — April 28, 2010
The outcome in this study is "earnings." But it should be a combo of accumulated wealth, as the outcome for the past up til now, and earning power, from now going forward. This analysis will favor the mom who had kids early, not later.
Add up annual income, from ages 20 to 40: the women who delay having children seem to be the winners: the number is greater. But, where is this money? The typical American at average income, or even above average income, has not built up much wealth; they have consumed what has come in. Subtract out wealth sunk in the home versus other forms of wealth, and it becomes more apparent that the savings is the key outcome, not the earnings. Wealth tied up in a home is not very fluid, partly because if you liquidate it, you need to go find some other place, less costly, to live. If, however, it were in gold coins, or stocks, you just sell a bit whenever you want.
If you earn $50K/year for 20 years, your income total was a million. If your income was $100K for 20 years, your total income was 2 million.
If the person earning 100k/year lived a lifestyle of the person earning 50K/year, and saved the rest, that person would have 1 million in the bank. A million dollars in gold coins, or stocks, to be used at will: investment opportunity, medical care, dream vacation, etc.
But this is far from the case for the average American. So, summing annual incomes is not the proper outcome. It is more relevant to sum accrued wealth, with annual income being a modestly correlated proxy for accrued wealth.
This is the context. The salary sum is misleading. That money is long-gone.
Now, going forward: the woman who had kids early, upon reaching the age of 40, has a couple adult-age kids who are each generating wealth through their labor. It will be roughly 20 years before the child-delaying mom's family begins to see this wealth stream.
desa0122 — May 5, 2010
What neither of the previous posters take into account is the business aspect of salaries. Businesses want to hire the most competent workers when they can still be productive to the company so that they can get the best work out of them. What this means is that a worker that enters the work force immediately upon graduation is still a "fresh face" in the field but has also just had recent experience from school, meaning that the burden to train them will ideally be less. What this means for the employee is that she can gain valuable skills and experience earlier. As her life continues, she will have the experience and the education both to fall back on, often leading to higher wages, especially at different companies. So the woman in her 20s will be in the prime of her career to be trained into her field and have transferrable skills for each employer. When she takes maternity leave in her 30s to accommodate a new child, she will have the experience to fall back on still, which will act as a crutch for her earnings.
Let's contrast this situation with the mother that has a child first. That woman has effectively made an educational gap for herself now; the skills she learned in high school/college will be less and less relevant to her life as she focuses on childrearing. When she enters the marketplace again, she may still be extremely qualified to work, but now she is disadvantaged in every position for which she applies. A candidate of similar age will have had more work experience than her; a candidate of younger age will be a better investment because of a smaller gap between her education and her job. This places the mother in a job that pays her less, because she did not help her job prospects by having a child first.
[kinsey] More Women In The US Are Choosing Not To Have Children « LadyGrollman — July 8, 2010
[...] of a “motherhood penalty,” or the discrimination mothers face in terms of being hired and in wages. In a study of the impact of parenthood on hireability and pay, a group of sociologists, [...]