3 ms·

> If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). I generally agree with this line of thought, but yo

by sbov 9y ago

> If you control for age and whether women have children the gap shrinks a lot (in some areas it reverses). I generally agree with this line of thought, but you're also missing the higher level question: why, in our society, do we have to control for women who have children, but we don't have to control for men who have children?

jeffreyrogers 9y ago
Because women get pregnant and are the primary caregivers in most families? Edit: Basically you have to control for what's causing women to work less when the have children. And the obvious answer is because if you're a woman it's hard to work when you have a child at home. If you're a man that's not really true since typically your wife/girlfriend takes care of the child. You can argue that maybe men should take more responsibility for raising their kids, but that's more of a social/political issue than an economic one.
- jadedhacker 9y ago
  Political and social issues and economic issues are one. They are only disconnected in the strange milleu of libertarianism that America finds itself in.
- watwut 9y ago
  How is that not economic issue? That is just ridiculous claim. It may be issue that is not caused by her employer sexism, but impact on her retirement or perspective in case of divorce or simply buying power or what not is absolutely economic.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    People have a choice in whether or not they procreate. If you can't afford to do it or are unwilling to sacrifice the extra income to focus more on your family, then you shouldn't have children. Just as if I chose to go live in the wilderness, it would only make sense that my income would drop. No one would be at fault and I wouldn't expect the government to make up the difference for my "lost" income.
    - watwut 9y ago
      And a lot of people going into wilderness would be economic issue with economic consequences. Your first paragraph applies equally to men - but men are statistically less willing to sacrifice extra income to focus more on familly. Maybe men should not have children (?!). Nevertheless, ignoring judgemental moral in previous paragraph, it does not make theoretical "men with children earn less" something that needs to be discussed as not economics.
NutriSugar 9y ago
You can. Last I read, men who don't have children end up making less than men who do, and for young men in cities it has become less than women in the same demographic.

by sbov 9y ago

jeffreyrogers 9y ago

Because women get pregnant and are the primary caregivers in most families? Edit: Basically you have to control for what's causing women to work less when the have children. And the obvious answer is because if you're a woman it's hard to work when you have a child at home. If you're a man that's not really true since typically your wife/girlfriend takes care of the child. You can argue that maybe men should take more responsibility for raising their kids, but that's more of a social/political issue than an economic one.

jadedhacker 9y ago
Political and social issues and economic issues are one. They are only disconnected in the strange milleu of libertarianism that America finds itself in.
watwut 9y ago
How is that not economic issue? That is just ridiculous claim. It may be issue that is not caused by her employer sexism, but impact on her retirement or perspective in case of divorce or simply buying power or what not is absolutely economic.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  People have a choice in whether or not they procreate. If you can't afford to do it or are unwilling to sacrifice the extra income to focus more on your family, then you shouldn't have children. Just as if I chose to go live in the wilderness, it would only make sense that my income would drop. No one would be at fault and I wouldn't expect the government to make up the difference for my "lost" income.
  - watwut 9y ago
    And a lot of people going into wilderness would be economic issue with economic consequences. Your first paragraph applies equally to men - but men are statistically less willing to sacrifice extra income to focus more on familly. Maybe men should not have children (?!). Nevertheless, ignoring judgemental moral in previous paragraph, it does not make theoretical "men with children earn less" something that needs to be discussed as not economics.

NutriSugar 9y ago

You can. Last I read, men who don't have children end up making less than men who do, and for young men in cities it has become less than women in the same demographic.