4 ms·

Like so many others, the article fails to acknowledge that some women (and some men!) don't mind earning less if that allows them to take are of their children.

Like so many others, the article fails to acknowledge that some women (and some men!) don't mind earning less if that allows them to take are of their children. I could certainly earn more than I do today. But that would mean spending even less time with my children, so I don't. Does it hurt my career? Probably. But it's worth it.

IAmEveryone 9y ago
And these women who prefer to earn less money just happen to be the ones that get children between the ages of 25 and 35, but not before or after?
- tjansen 9y ago
  Given the choice of either focusing on your career or your children, yes. If you'd want to focus on your career and maximize your income, would you take off a few years to take care of your children? Certainly not.
- randomdata 9y ago
  Further study is warranted, I'm sure, but it seems reasonable on the surface. Those who have their children earlier have children that are older during their prime working years. Those who have children later already have established careers. 25-35 does seem to be a critical period in setting the course for one's career, so those who opt to focus on children during that time are giving up the gains they could be making in the workplace.
  - IAmEveryone 9y ago
    That's not the point. You're just providing an intuitive explanation for the study's empirical findings, which I agree with. OP's point was specifically that the wage gap may be caused by women's focus on child care instead of career advancement. Yet, as I was trying to say: that idea is hard to square with the study's findings. Presumably, those emphasizing time with their children would tend to also have children rather early, possibly before they are 25. But in that age group, the study did not find a sustained reduction in income.
    - randomdata 9y ago
      > Presumably, those emphasizing time with their children would tend to also have children rather early, possibly before they are 25. What I was suggesting is that they are choosing to have children earlier so that they have older children when it is time to start focusing on a career.
    - cptskippy 9y ago
      > Presumably, those emphasizing time with their children would tend to also have children rather early, possibly before they are 25. Who presumes that? I would presume people who are looking to start a family would want a solid foundation to start from. That means holding off on having kids until you've gotten some sort of stability. Most people in their early 20s don't have any sort of stability.
rayiner 9y ago
The point of the article is that various social factors force women to make a choice they really shouldn't have to. We have set up the economy such that the key career-building period occurs at the same time as when most women need to have kids (if they plan to have them). There is no particularly good reason for it, and we could alleviate the situation by e.g. rolling back the unnecessary focus on post-secondary and post-graduate education. Sure, some women would continue to downshift their career to focus on raising children. But many women who just want a couple of kids but aren't otherwise gunning for mother of the year (all of the women in my family) can have them at a convenient time and return focus to their career without loosing ground permanently.
- Vaskivo 9y ago
  > There is no particularly good reason for it I'd argue that that is best time we're better at everything. As living beings, our lives are optimized to produce offspring. Therefore our body and mind will be at its peak at the same time we're more fertile. (This is for both men and women)
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Both cognitive skills and fertility tend to peak at 20-30, which is why it's a human tragedy we force people to spend the bulk of that time in school.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

And these women who prefer to earn less money just happen to be the ones that get children between the ages of 25 and 35, but not before or after?

tjansen 9y ago
Given the choice of either focusing on your career or your children, yes. If you'd want to focus on your career and maximize your income, would you take off a few years to take care of your children? Certainly not.
randomdata 9y ago
Further study is warranted, I'm sure, but it seems reasonable on the surface. Those who have their children earlier have children that are older during their prime working years. Those who have children later already have established careers. 25-35 does seem to be a critical period in setting the course for one's career, so those who opt to focus on children during that time are giving up the gains they could be making in the workplace.
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  That's not the point. You're just providing an intuitive explanation for the study's empirical findings, which I agree with. OP's point was specifically that the wage gap may be caused by women's focus on child care instead of career advancement. Yet, as I was trying to say: that idea is hard to square with the study's findings. Presumably, those emphasizing time with their children would tend to also have children rather early, possibly before they are 25. But in that age group, the study did not find a sustained reduction in income.
  - randomdata 9y ago
    > Presumably, those emphasizing time with their children would tend to also have children rather early, possibly before they are 25. What I was suggesting is that they are choosing to have children earlier so that they have older children when it is time to start focusing on a career.
  - cptskippy 9y ago
    > Presumably, those emphasizing time with their children would tend to also have children rather early, possibly before they are 25. Who presumes that? I would presume people who are looking to start a family would want a solid foundation to start from. That means holding off on having kids until you've gotten some sort of stability. Most people in their early 20s don't have any sort of stability.

rayiner 9y ago

The point of the article is that various social factors force women to make a choice they really shouldn't have to. We have set up the economy such that the key career-building period occurs at the same time as when most women need to have kids (if they plan to have them). There is no particularly good reason for it, and we could alleviate the situation by e.g. rolling back the unnecessary focus on post-secondary and post-graduate education. Sure, some women would continue to downshift their career to focus on raising children. But many women who just want a couple of kids but aren't otherwise gunning for mother of the year (all of the women in my family) can have them at a convenient time and return focus to their career without loosing ground permanently.

Vaskivo 9y ago
> There is no particularly good reason for it I'd argue that that is best time we're better at everything. As living beings, our lives are optimized to produce offspring. Therefore our body and mind will be at its peak at the same time we're more fertile. (This is for both men and women)
- rayiner 9y ago
  Both cognitive skills and fertility tend to peak at 20-30, which is why it's a human tragedy we force people to spend the bulk of that time in school.