3 ms·
> https://www.inc.com/laura-montini/study-men-with-families-make-more-money.html https://www.inc.com/laura-montini/study-men-with-families-ma... > "Flash forwa
by anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> https://www.inc.com/laura-montini/study-men-with-families-make-more-money.html https://www.inc.com/laura-montini/study-men-with-families-ma...
> "Flash forward two decades later, and the comparisons look similar. In 2010, men with children earned a median income of $40,947, and those without earned $29,904. Mothers earned a median income of $24,350, and those who didn't have children earned $24,244."
Now of course there are a lot of confounding factors here, but for an averaging of the median to a two-income household this means households with children earn "$65,297", while those without earn "$54,148".
And those increased incomes means a larger social security check to spend in their old age.
- notch898a 4y agoWouldn't the appropriate comparison here be equal income earners with and without kids? The former paid a greater tax into social security, in effect, as they made the larger investment once you include raising the tax generation machine.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoIs it fair to compare equal income earners with and without kids though? How much of each earners income is because of, or despite, having children? I think it would be better to compare not based on income, but on other demographic factors such as work locale, job duties, career trajectories, education, partner, etcetera. That would show to what extent having kids is a net benefit or liability.
- notch898a 4y agoI think the wholistic benefit of children is an entirely different question.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoSure, but part of that, for men at least, is a direct financial benefit (the fatherhood bonus). Of course there's also the motherhood penalty. These things have to be factored into the equation.