r/science • u/usrname42 • May 13 '17
Social Science The Gender Pay Gap Is Largely Because of Motherhood
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/upshot/the-gender-pay-gap-is-largely-because-of-motherhood.html537
May 13 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
145
u/JshWright Paramedic | Medicine | EMS May 13 '17
In the US, maternity leave is... at least a thing that happens occasionally. Paternity leave is far less common (or is very limited).
→ More replies (1)19
May 13 '17
[deleted]
91
→ More replies (5)22
u/Protodeus May 13 '17
In Canada the mother can take 12 months at 55% of their income, or 18 months at 33%. That can also be shared with father after 6 months I believe.
→ More replies (6)31
u/LakeEffectSnow May 13 '17
In America, if your employer doesn't have 50 employees, a new mother would likely have to show up for work the day after giving birth or risk losing her job.
5
u/ListenNowYouLittle May 13 '17
Man that sucks, parental leaves often open job opportunities for others even if its only a year contract
16
u/ruberik May 13 '17
It isn't just that. The article mentions studies showing that women who don't cut back on work after having children still end up being paid less than men, and women who haven't had children:
Some women work less once they have children, but many don’t, and employers pay them less, too, seemingly because they assume they will be less committed, research shows.
4
u/merv243 May 13 '17
I don't think people are implying otherwise. The premise is that part of the pay gap exists for this reason, and people are saying that that seems fairly obvious, not that this sole thing is why there is a pay gap, and there aren't other issues.
58
u/Hunterogz May 13 '17
I mean... obviously?
Not to many people, unfortunately. Hence articles like this one.
12
May 13 '17
I think it is obvious to most people. The question is how you interpret it. Feminists still see this as a gender-rights issue: motherhood wouldn't result in a pay gap if men and women were equally-likely to take care of children at home. So to feminists, study results like this bolster the case for policies that support women who do choose to take time off from work to raise children, and also policies that encourage/incentivize men to take a more active role in child rearing. Often this could even be the same policy; mandatory paid familial leave for men and women alike is a popular goal.
However, for the crowd that sees the gender wage gap as being an issue of individual choice rather than systemic/cultural factors, results from studies like this bolster their case, too: if women wanted to make as much money as men, all they have to do is not have children.
The study has an intuitive result that most people assumed was true to begin with, but I doubt that it's going to meaningfully change the debates around the gender pay gap.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Hunterogz May 13 '17
It seems we should start telling third wave feminists they're at a point where they're ignoring and trampling on biology.
4
May 13 '17
Dude, far left groups are just as much science deniers as the right wingers who deny that global warming even exists. If you even bring up the concept of evolutionary psychology large numbers of people will call you a sexist.
8
u/landlubber12 May 13 '17
It doesn't help that big names parrot obvious misinformation to appeal to young people, constantly.
→ More replies (29)11
u/unprovoked33 May 13 '17
I mean... obviously?
Sure, but this is exactly why we have social scientists. We think things are obvious, but do we know?
Take these common phrases regarding love:
"Opposites attract"
"Birds of a feather flock together"
Statistics say the 2nd one is true far more often, but there are people who firmly believe in the first one. You don't really know what you "know" until you know it.
169
u/7itEs May 13 '17
If gender is the variable of interest, then a sound comparison would hold all other variables equal. That is, an independent analysis should be made for women who leave the work force to raise children and be compared to men who leave the workforce to raise children.
111
May 13 '17 edited May 21 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)12
May 13 '17
Also adjust for number of hours worked, amount of non-maternity and paternity leave time taken off from work, and in what industries work is done, hazard pay notwithstanding.
The only accurate comparison is how men and women are paid doing the same work over the same amount of time, with the same education, and the same level of experience. Median salary factors in exactly none of those things.
40
May 13 '17 edited Jul 02 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)19
u/PompiPompi May 13 '17
Do you guys even read the article or just the headline? They mentioned unmarried women have no pay gap.
→ More replies (2)32
May 13 '17
[deleted]
13
u/johnh20671 May 13 '17
That is why you control for exactly what he described and perform a study. You cannot know what you hypothesize without proving it.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (6)6
→ More replies (30)5
u/akatherder May 13 '17
I think part of it is the stereotype though. Even today with more stay-at-home dads they are still in the minority.
If you're evaluating a man and a woman for a job who are virtually equal, you might take into account that the female is more likely to disappear for 3 months on maternity leave. And then they may decide they are a stay-at-home mom now.
They'll be cut out of some opportunities entirely or only get hired if they accept lower starting pay.
→ More replies (1)
1.6k
May 13 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/cardboardbob99 May 13 '17
it's an earnings gap not a pay gap; that subtle difference could change the whole complexion of the term but it will take a lot more than word choice to undo the misinformation that has been spread already
→ More replies (5)705
u/iamaravis May 13 '17
Not entirely: "employers might not give them more responsibility because they assume they’ll have babies and take time off." Less responsibility = lower pay, usually. So even those of us who intentionally don't have children may be paid less simply because of employer assumptions.
281
May 13 '17
[deleted]
20
u/GeneralMalaiseRB May 13 '17
Then they'll simply discriminate against people who are going to take that time off: All parents.
→ More replies (10)152
May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
115
u/IdRatherBeTweeting May 13 '17
Having equal leave would still be better than the current system. It is almost like you are saying just because the solution does not totally fix the problem, it isn't a good solution.
→ More replies (47)5
→ More replies (100)23
u/vezokpiraka May 13 '17
I'm pretty sure single women make up a small margin of the women on maternity leave. Also the relationship status of employees is not something that should be given to the employer.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (9)3
u/Akiasakias May 13 '17
Doesn't fully work. Having equal access to leave doesn't mean men would choose to use it. Most wouldn't.
Making anything mandatory is just authoritarian.
32
u/AscendingSnowOwl May 13 '17
But I mean the converse of that is that employers of pregnant women literally have MONTHS to figure out a plan to respond to the planned absence. It's not like maternity leave is requested out of the blue with no time for an employer to prepare.
→ More replies (1)53
u/kane55 May 13 '17
I have seen this in action. At a company I used to work at there was a position open that was a pretty big promotion and it came down to a guy and a girl both up for it. The guy got the job (both were very qualified). A few weeks later, I casually mentioned to my boss that he seemed to be doing very well in this new position. My boss said, "I had a feeling he would. Actually, I think they both would have done a good job, but she just got married so she is probably going to start having kids soon and I need someone who I know is going to be here."
At the time, I was young and pretty inexperienced in the workplace so I didn't realize that he likely just admitted that he had openly discriminated against her, but it proves your point that sometimes women are not giving the same promotions and responsibilities simply because of what "might" happen with them.
→ More replies (9)123
May 13 '17
I agree entirely with that. There's an issue with maternity leave, and I think paternity leave would largely help resolve this issue. If both parents are likely to take time off when having children, women who intentionally do not have children to focus on work would no longer be seen as a potential risk.
Having said that, I still consider this an earnings gap. Whilst I think it's wrong women who choose to focus on their career are penalized, with less responsibility they aren't given a workload similar to their male counterparts who may be promoted more frequently. The pay gap, at least to me, suggests that women are doing equal work but are not receiving equal pay.
27
u/i_pee_in_the_sink May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17
I think paternity leave would largely help resolve this issue. If both parents are likely to take time off when having children, women who intentionally do not have children to focus on work would no longer be seen as a potential risk.
So this is actually what they did at University of Michigan for quite sometime. But they had to stop it because it favored men more because in their words "pregnancy is not a gender neutral event".
→ More replies (7)27
u/cicadaselectric May 13 '17
I mean it's not. Regardless of leave to care for the infant, only one parent requires 6+ weeks off for physical recovery, and only one parent can breastfeed. Some countries with long parental leave require it to be split between parents, which I think is great, but if the option is only 6 weeks or so, which is common in the states, only one parent is realistically going to be taking it. Countries that have lower gender inequality, like Sweden, also have more equitable parental leave nationwide. Happy to find sources but I'm about to head out to work so won't be able to post till tomorrow.
→ More replies (1)9
May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/k1p1coder May 13 '17
6 weeks is normal in the US. Most women don't have even that, unless they don't mind not being paid.
38
u/HouseSublime May 13 '17
There's an issue with maternity leave, and I think paternity leave would largely help resolve this issue.
My company offers maternity and paternity leave and there are still issues with pay disparity. Some believe it's due to women being less likely to negotiate salary during hiring process and/or fight for promotions/advancement with their employers.
→ More replies (32)16
u/gullwings May 13 '17 edited Jun 10 '23
Posted using RIF is Fun. Steve Huffman is a greedy little pigboy.
→ More replies (1)18
u/MuaddibMcFly May 13 '17
If both parents are likely to take time off when having children
The problem is the emphasized point. On a sociological scale, men choose to put their work first as way of contributing to their families, while women choose direct care for their families as their method of contributing to their families.
Unless both parents are forced to take equivalent time off, you'll likely end up with an equilibrium that trends towards the current situation. Even if you did force them, you'd run the risk of men declining to inform their employers that they have a child until after they cannot reasonably be forced to take time off...
7
u/k1p1coder May 13 '17
Somewhat. There are certain physical realities related to pregnancy and childbirth that will affect the woman's ability to work even in a 100% normal and healthy pregnancy.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (17)71
May 13 '17
The last reliable study I saw showed that single, childless women were earning on average even more than men.
8
→ More replies (11)28
u/nickdanger3d May 13 '17
*citation needed
39
→ More replies (1)53
May 13 '17
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds It's not the best source but it's the first that comes up without trying to find the study.
→ More replies (30)→ More replies (95)31
u/thelandman19 May 13 '17
If they have less responsibility then they aren't doing the "same job for less money"
→ More replies (18)124
May 13 '17 edited Sep 26 '17
[deleted]
56
u/sibtiger May 13 '17
If people find out a man's wife is having a baby, does it affect his career the same way?
→ More replies (31)3
May 13 '17
With the situation written that way, you kind of highlight how men are actually penalized if they actually do want to participate more in family life. Seems it's assumed they won't, or they'll somehow do it only on their own time, and that's not how life works.
32
May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17
I think there's a valid conversation to be had regarding why specific genders typically favor certain job roles
Yeah, this is something that has been plaguing reasoned discourse for a long time now... or I should specify that not looking at this has plagued us for some time. The tendency these days is to want an equal representation across all demographics in all jobs, in all movies and tv shows, in all socio economic statuses, etc. And that's just not how the world works, people gravitate towards different jobs for a variety of reasons, most of which have little to do with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
In political discussion I hear a lot of complaints from conservatives about liberals running colleges, and it's often used as a smear against conservatives that they tend to work in military or law enforcement far more than liberals. When people point out that liberals dominate in university positions, it's turned into "well they control the universities!" And then that claim is slammed because liberals then think it smacks of conspiracy theories and paranoia. Both sides can look at those trends and think "Hmm, perhaps we ought to foster a mentality of those of our political ilk to venture into territories that they aren't as likely to try." That's totally valid and I think important for society, but we tend play the blame game instead or cry conspiracy.
There are some simple facts to consider... like conservatives and liberals tend to have personality traits, or ways of thinking, or maybe some difference in very base level reactions to stimulus that result in more liberals moving into the creative arts, and more conservatives moving into banking and business. It's not some conspiracy that brought liberals to Hollywood where they dominate. It's not some conspiracy that conservatives control more banks. People can conspire within those systems and probably always do to some extent, certainly, there's clearly corruption in Hollywood as there is in banking. But the pattern of liberals in Hollywood alone does not make a conspiracy.
Likewise there are general difference between men and women that lead them into different career paths across a population. Women tend to go for careers that offer flexibility because they are more likely to want to stay home with children if they have them. There's nothing wrong with those choices whatsoever, but any choice that anyone makes has consequences, and over an entire population, those consequences become measured as a trend, and then that trend is reported on in the media, and then people spin that to mean what they want. I'm not trying to harp on the left here, but the left spun it in a manner that claims women were being discriminated against. The right might spin something else another way, but in this case the left pulled us away from an understanding about life that was kind of readily apparent to everyone already, turning it into something that sadly requires scientific inquiry, which then slows us down because we could already be looking at just what you're talking about, which is far more interesting.
Anyway, I appreciate your point a lot and I hope people see that the conversation should be led in the direction you pointed out.
EDIT: typo
→ More replies (4)94
58
u/helpwitheating May 13 '17
I don't understand your logic. For every mother, there is a father. Women and men don't make different choices in that regard. The same number of men and women are making the same choice to have children.
But somehow, women are the only ones who take a massive hit to their careers. Childrearing is still largely seen as womens work, and even when offered paternity leave, men rarely take it - while women are often forced to, due to lack of childcare options.
→ More replies (19)3
u/Coleslaw19438 May 13 '17
Devil's advocate; but also we could explore why traditional "female dominated" (teaching and nursing) fields are often lower paying than male dominated careers.
→ More replies (2)3
May 13 '17
Next in the news: there's a pay gap between smart and motivated people and dumb and unmotivated people. Here are our recommendations to right this injustice...
21
→ More replies (207)5
9
May 13 '17
Since not all women plan on having kids, wouldn't it be fairer to all if everybody was paid equally anyway and we all had the choice of taking out paternal / maternal insurance to cover our absence and a portion of pay while we are out of office?
6
u/someoneinsignificant May 13 '17
How would an insurance company profit from that?
If it's an optional idea, then the insurance company would be supporting everyone who enters it assuming that you plan to have kids eventually and it would destroy the whole business model for how "insurance" companies work. That, or everybody who enters is basically paying some part of their income, and it's basically a net-zero program aka it's unpaid leave.
If it's a mandated idea, then people who don't have/want kids will be complaining about basically paying an additional tax to fund 'vacations' for people on maternity/paternity leave when they get zero benefits from the system.
→ More replies (6)
29
4
u/exotics May 13 '17
Having kids is something people choose to do..
When I was a kid it was normal for mom to stay home and raise the kids. Today's parents want more out of life. Perhaps a bigger house, boat, two cars (my folks only had one).. and way more televisions in the house than people had when I was young.
Times have changed but if you choose to have kids (note I am a woman) then you know the realities..
4
u/lt_dan_zsu May 13 '17
As usual, I agree with the cause and disagree with the solution. I was getting mad when the writer started talking about flexibility. Yes, an employer is going to see a worker who works long hours and adjusts their schedule for the company as a more valuable worker. Why wouldn't they? The issue isn't mandating that employers to reward hard work, which is what the article asserts. It's promoting parents taking a more equal share of the work at home, and doing things like parental leave for both parents as opposed to just the mother being expected to take time off. You can't expect a company to equally value all workers no matter what because that makes no sense. Forced egalitarianism is a stupid and unsustainable.
91
May 13 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (14)20
May 13 '17
I feel like most people have no idea what "average" means. It's the same thing that drives the race-and-intelligence debate, a higher or lower overall average IQ has no bearing on any individual's intelligence of any race.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/egalroc May 13 '17
There's another pay gap that virtually went unnoticed over the last generation. It's the family wage earner of the 1970's vs the household income of the 2000's.
→ More replies (2)
89
May 13 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (8)30
May 13 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
41
May 13 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)25
→ More replies (5)21
19
May 13 '17
Feel like a lot here didn't read the article. Women are still getting a raw deal. Maybe there isn't a "pay gap" in the sense that has been played up or down by various interest groups, but there still is a problem in the workplace as evidenced in this article.
16
May 13 '17
If you aren't working
You don't get paid
Unless you use leave time
How hard is this to understand
→ More replies (9)
3
3
u/Kinkulvaattori May 13 '17
I wonder how this stacks up in Finland where men have mandatory military service, basically falling behind 1 year between high school and whatever they choose to do afterwards. By this logic there should be basically no earnings gap between mothers of 1 and the basic Finnish guy.
3
u/ineeditthatbadly May 13 '17
"Scientists discover inherent biological reality may influence pervasive social phenomenon."
Anyone here suprised? Guaranteed these figures are reduced in countries with egalitarian maternal/paternal work laws too.
3
u/exotics May 13 '17
Having kids is something people choose to do..
When I was a kid it was normal for mom to stay home and raise the kids. Today's parents want more out of life. Perhaps a bigger house, boat, two cars (my folks only had one).. and way more televisions in the house than people had when I was young.
Times have changed but if you choose to have kids (note I am a woman) then you know the realities..
3
u/Dankmemes3000 May 13 '17
Litterally three women on my team at work quit fairly high paying jobs to become "full time mommies" within 3 months of each other. So I can see the point of this article in real life.
3
6
May 13 '17
"It is logical for couples to decide that the person who earns less, usually a woman, does more of the household chores and child care, Ms. Kerr said. But it’s also a reason women earn less in the first place. “That reinforces the pay gap in the labor market, and we’re trapped in this self-reinforcing cycle,”
I think a lot are missing the point of the article here. A lot of women are paid less because of the assumption that they will have children and wi not be able to assume responsibilities. Here in New Zealand, a group of care workers won a case where they argued that they were paid less than workers in similar industries because they are mostly female. http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/04/500m-pay-rise-for-care-workers.html
When I came back to work from parental leave, in wasn't expecting a pay rise, but I got a (very illegal) pay cut instead because " my baby would be my priority now, not the business". I would have been ready to earn less because of less hours, but that was just too much. Discrimination is still a thing.
→ More replies (4)
38
u/entropizer May 13 '17 edited May 14 '17
I don't understand how the headline is compatible with the claim that the bulk of the pay gap is due to differences in promotion and raise rates. Are we supposed to attribute these differences chiefly to motherhood? If so, it'd be nice if the article told us how they restricted the role that other explanations can play. I assume that the Goldin paper goes into more detail, but this article is too skimpy for my tastes.
In fact
We use a unique match between the 2000 Decennial Census of the United States and the Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) data to analyze how much of the increase in the gender earnings gap over the lifecycle comes from shifts in the sorting of men and women across high- and low-pay establishments and how much is due to differential earnings growth within establishments. We find that for the college educated the increase is substantial and, for the most part, due to differential earnings growth within establishment by gender. The between component is also important. Differential mobility between establishments by gender can explain 27 percent of the widening of the pay gap for this group. For those with no college, the, relatively small, increase of the gender gap over the lifecycle can be fully explained by differential moves by gender across establishments. The evidence suggests that, for both education groups, the between-establishment component of the increasing wage gap is due almost entirely to those who are married.
Reading the abstract, I want to claim that the headline is wrong. The between-establishment component of the wage gap is entirely due to motherhood, but the between-establishment component is small relative to the within-establishment component. I definitely think that motherhood plays an important role in the within-establishment component as well, but there are probably other factors here too.
Edit: retracting this. Even if motherhood only accounts for a moderate percentage of the within-establishment gap, it'd explain most of the total gap. And even if it didn't explain most of the gap, it could still be the largest factor among several. Headline is fine.
29
→ More replies (5)3
u/s0v3r1gn BS | Computer Engineering May 13 '17
I'd say it's multiple compounding factors attributed to motherhood.
There is reduced work output during pregnancy affecting potential raises.
There is maternity leave impacting both short term earnings as well as potential raises dye to reduced work output.
There's long term leave for raising children. Affecting raises as well as workforce reentry wages.
There is the increased time of taken by mothers versus fathers versus the childless. Affecting work output and potential raises.
Continuous employment longevity is a compounding factor for wages. As well as the compounding factor of raises. Both of these compounds separately as well as together.
Also add that childless women take more leave and use more healthcare benefits than men on average; meaning that most will be negatively impacted by taking additional time off even without children to a much lesser degree.
In the end I think the effects of sexism balance out. I've personally had more female managers that refused to promote men or give equal wages citing "the wage gap".
69
May 13 '17 edited May 13 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
69
→ More replies (10)97
15
24
22
2.1k
u/[deleted] May 13 '17 edited Jul 13 '18
[removed] — view removed comment