Harvard University’s David Elwood, Columbia University’s Elizabeth Ty Wilde, and New York University’s Lily Batchelder wanted to determine if there is an economic cost to women having kids and if so, was it affected by their education level and age.
The results depended on the woman’s skill level. Low-skilled women weren’t getting very many raises so they didn’t tend to lose out there, but for high-skilled women, who were getting raises, the raises pretty much stopped after having kids.
The high-skilled women could help curtail some of the effects of having kids on their incomes by waiting longer to have kids.
- “Low-skilled women don’t get very big raises, and having kids does little to change that.The so-called wage trajectories (think of a line graph showing a worker’s wages growing over time) of low-skilled women are much flatter than those of high-skilled women. Having children didn’t change those trajectories very much.
- For high-skilled women, kids spell the end of raises. High-skilled women have steep wage trajectories. Those trajectories flatten out almost precisely at the moment they have children.
- Low-skilled women don’t seem to make their lost wages back. Ten years after having children, low-skilled women have wages that are six percent lower than their counterparts.
- High-skilled women don’t make that money back, either. Ten years after having children, high-skilled women have wages that are 24 percent lower than their counterparts.
- Becoming a parent seems to have no effect on men’s wages. “
So what do you think of this study? Do you agree with the results? If high-skilled did your raises end after you had kids? If high-skilled do you think you make as much as women counterparts who didn’t have kids?
If low-skilled do you think you’ve kept up with counterparts pay?
What do you think of their point that a man’s income is not affected at all by having kids?