Will Your Baby Cost You a Raise?

I’ll cost you big bucks (Photo: Getty Images)

Children, it appears, are more expensive than we thought.

We all know about diapers and formula (or a breast pump) and eventually college. But a pair of recent studies suggest that having babies might cost more than we thought. It’s not just that your expenses go up when you have a kid. It’s likely that your income goes down as well. Both studies are focused on the wage effect of having children, and both find that women and to a lesser extent even men who have kids end up making less than their childless peers. And the difference can be large, as much as 40% less. The studies show that the wage effect can have a significant impact on when women chose to have children, as well as what professions they pick. That’s bad news. Here’s why:

It is easy to observe that women who take off time to have a child often see a drop in their wages. First of all, they lose out in the income that they would get while they are at home. Second it may take years for them to reenter the workforce. And when they do, many have to enter at a lower level or in a different profession than when they exit. It has been long assumed that much of that wage gap comes from women without college degrees or who have little job experience trying to restart their careers. Women with advance degrees and a high-skills, it was always assumed, would quickly make up the gap. That appears not to be the case. Worse, even women who don’t take off time might see a drop in their earnings after having a child.

Both of the studies, one headed by a professor of public health at Columbia and the other by two economics professors at Harvard, looked how having a child affects women of varying skill levels and professions. “The Mommy Track Divides,” which was head by Columbia prof. Elizabeth Wilde and published by National Bureau of Economic Research this week, finds surprisingly that it is the women with high-skills that tend to have the hardest time maintaining their wages after child-birth. High-skilled women who have children tend to earn as much as one-third less over the lifetime of their careers than their childless peers. Lower skilled women tend to see their incomes drop by less than 15%. Perhaps even more surprising: Wilde’s study also found that children tended to have a wage effect on men, though it was less pronounced than women.

Harvard professors Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz also found a large wage gap for mothers with advance degrees in their study “The Career Cost of Family,” which was released last week. Goldin and Katz looked at the wage penalty for highly educated women who take off time from work. The study found the “Mommy Penalty” differed by professional, but was nonetheless present in all areas of work.

The study found that female M.B.A.’s who have taken off 18 months from their career to raise children suffered a severe income penalty, leaving them earning 41 percent less on average than male M.B.A.’s. Regarding other female professionals who took 18 months off, the study found, female Ph.D.’s earn 33 percent less than male Ph.D.’s, female lawyers earn 29 percent less than male lawyers, and female M.D.’s earn 16 percent less than male doctors.

What causes the Mommy or even the Daddy Penalty? The assumption is that it is due to the time off of work, which can result in a change of employers and a loses of seniority. But that might not be the case. Wilde’s study found that even women who continued to work full-time in the first and second year after having a child for the same employer still saw a lifetime drop in wages of 14%. What matters most, according to Wilde, is when you have children.

The problem it appears has to do with flexibility. Either in perception or reality, there is judgment in the workforce that people with children lack the ability to work that “extra hour” when needed. That’s why Goldin and Katz say they saw less of a difference in careers where women have a greater ability to set their own office times or hours, or where more women work for themselves. Wilde saw less of an impact on women and men who had children later in their careers, where also they presumably would have more of an ability to name their own schedules or work situations.

But both of these baby effects can have a significant impact on the economy. First of all, if the Mommy penalty pushes women who would go into business into medicine or academia then that can be a major misallocation of human capital. And in an information economy more and more built on intelligence that can be a real problem. What’s more, the fact that the impact on wages drops with age, as Wilde finds, is good explanation for why women are waiting until later in life to have children. If so, the Mommy Penalty could be a significant contributor to the rising cost of healthcare and the infertility problem in America. Neither are good outcomes.

Related Topics: economics, Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Brendan McDermid / Reuters

    Facebook’s Stock Falls Below $30 for First Time

    (NEW YORK) — Facebook’s stock has fallen below $30 for the first time since its much-awaited public debut this month.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    U.S. consumer prices rose faster than expected in May. (Mario Anzuoni / Reuters)

    Consumer Confidence in the Economy Plunged in May

    NEW YORK — American confidence in the economy suffered the biggest drop in eight months as worries about the weak jobs, housing and stock markets rattled them again. The decline comes after a few months of optimism amid some positive economic news.

  • paganbarbarian

    “(I)f the Mommy penalty pushes women who would go into business into medicine or academia then that can be a major misallocation of human capital. And in an information economy more and more built on intelligence that can be a real problem.”

    The logic here seems dubious. A short sidebar on the equations showing the returns on investment for the various occupational options would be evidence to support the wildly exaggerated claim, or not, as the case may be. After all, working in business is extremely dangerous and volatile, a society where gambling on success with no safety net is commonplace. Working in science on the other hand, is a steady, stable income, a very secure job with no penalties for children, and the constant potential of vast patent profits. The opinion column appears to have been written under a cloud of ideological bias, forming unsupported assumptions about the value of human life.

  • http://rbmatudan.wordpress.com rbmatudan

    Therefore , having a baby causes you your career and a fat salary!? In some countries, they need more children and some even pay other their citizens just to procreate. Wonder what happens after that!?
    http://www.pathtoasia.com/jobs/

  • http://johnqsmith.wordpress.com johnqsmith

    Interesting.

  • http://evolvingfate.wordpress.com evolvingfate

    We all make choices that sometimes involve sacrifices to get the things we think will ultimately make us most happy. While the amount of money someone makes over their career certainly impacts happiness, it is by no means even the most important work/life factor that feeds happiness. The focus on money alone doesn’t do this topic justice. I think it would be much more interesting to see how happy people (women in particular) are given different work/life choices. That being said, I personally think we should promote policies that encourage companies to strongly support women who choose to raise families and wish to keep their career on track.

  • headybrew

    Just a comment on your claim of science being very secure. Perhaps you’re thinking of a particular area of science, or particular position, different than what I’m thinking. I work in cancer research. I can tell you that it is not necessarily secure depending on where you work, and what you’re working on. With the exception of pharmaceutical companies and some for-profit’s using their own money, a lot of research is funded through grants, often federal money through NIH, DoD, etc. These grants must be applied for and justified, and competition for funds is fierce. And with the gov’t stressing over the deficit, there are a lot of nervous scientists where I work that are worried about whether they’ll be able to secure their next grant. I have seen many many colleagues over the years lose their jobs permanently or get laid off because their bosses were unable to renew their grants or the researcher simply finished their project and moved on to something else. Additionally a lot of researchers seem to move about from one institution/research hospital/university depending on position/money offered. If their lab staff is unable to move, they’re out of a job.

  • swinnend

    This is an economic blog, so that would explain the focus on money :-)
    But I agree that the happiness from children can more then compensate this loss of revenue.
    A loss of revenue which by the way is logical, since having kids will cause you to spend less time on other things. As a parent, you are already cutting into sleep, you are also more inclined to do less overtime at work. Which means less work (or sleep-deprived), less revenue.
    That might be ‘injust’, but it is in the interest of the employer.

  • http://yourguidetochina.wordpress.com yourguidetochina

    As a new father, this is definitely unwelcome news.

    Steve
    http://www.TheChinaBusinessGuide.com

blog comments powered by Disqus