Why women earn less: Just two factors explain post-PhD pay gap

[Spectral]

Kids are valuable to the society, we want to encourage people to have kids and I would think we'd especially want these STEM types to have kids, good jobs good educations, etc.

Yes, I understand that you advocate giving large amounts of welfare to upper middle class women that take time off from work. I think that's a reasonable position. I just want us to be clear about what hat position is - it's a large amount of welfare for upper middle class women that take time off from work.

Look at it like we're taxing women who have kids. If your goal is to maintain the current population or even increase it, you'd remove that tax.

This is ass backwards. Not handing someone money for work they haven't done isn't a "tax". The tax you're advocating is taxing the childless to give money to people with children who are doing less work.

Again, that's OK! It's a reasonable policy position. It just shouldn't be twisted to sound rosier than it is.

There is something kind of unseemly about a pair of married professors with their hands out for more money because they've chosen to have children though, isn't there?

[THE Bigzoman]

Well, as a society we need kids to replace the dying old farts. I don't see anything wrong with giving these women some kind of compensation to pay for their child rearing. It's something that benefits the nation as a whole.

Does that mean that we can hold mothers financially viable when their children turn into net liabilities?


Because the majority of those that need help from others are the ones without cohesive family structures. Statistically, they're raising tomorrow's carjackers.

I have no problem with compensation, just as long as we get to compensate them for the quality they produce.

[Sarange]

Kids are valuable to the society, we want to encourage people to have kids and I would think we'd especially want these STEM types to have kids, good jobs good educations, etc.

Look at it like we're taxing women who have kids. If your goal is to maintain the current population or even increase it, you'd remove that tax.

Having the husband stay home also reduces the family's salary.

Where do people have the most children? Places where the woman doesent work at all. Where does people have less children? Places where the woman works too.

[Deleted]

I prefer my women with a thigh gap tbh.

[Awbee]

Well, as a society we need kids to replace the dying old farts. I don't see anything wrong with giving these women some kind of compensation to pay for their child rearing. It's something that benefits the nation as a whole.

I've been saying that there should be a "wage" for raising children, and it should be correlated with the mother's previous income. Only up to a point, obviously, but there needs to be some incentive for intelligent, educated women to produce offspring.

If I dropped out of school and live off welfare, I have time from age 16 to age 40 to have a ton of kids. No downsides, I'm not losing any money. In fact, I'm getting a bit of money for each child. Gonna have lots of kids!

If I went to university to become a doctor, I might be ready to enter the workforce at 27. I will then have to work a lot to make up for all the years of no income during university, in many countries I also have student loans. When I'm 30, I might want to have children, but if I take a year off of work, that's gonna lose me 60.000 - 100.000$ per year, depending on my job. I would have to want children REALLY REALLY bad to accept that.


Obviously, the state can't pay a freshly minted academic mother 60.000$ per year. But maybe a third of her previous income, something like that ... it's a very difficult question, but I think in the long run society might benefit from the results.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a pretty absurd analogy. It's not society's obligation to compensate them for choosing to breed. And it's certainly not the employer's obligation. So who is "taxing" them? They are. Decisions have consequences. Accept them or make different choices. That's how life works.

Sure, but then you end up with highschool dropouts on welfare having 10 kids and doctors staying childless. I don't think that's healthy for a society.

[Independent voter]

I've been saying that there should be a "wage" for raising children, and it should be correlated with the mother's previous income. Only up to a point, obviously, but there needs to be some incentive for intelligent, educated women to produce offspring.

If I dropped out of school and live off welfare, I have time from age 16 to age 40 to have a ton of kids. No downsides, I'm not losing any money. In fact, I'm getting a bit of money for each child. Gonna have lots of kids!

If I went to university to become a doctor, I might be ready to enter the workforce at 27. I will then have to work a lot to make up for all the years of no income during university, in many countries I also have student loans. When I'm 30, I might want to have children, but if I take a year off of work, that's gonna lose me 60.000 - 100.000$ per year, depending on my job. I would have to want children REALLY REALLY bad to accept that.


Obviously, the state can't pay a freshly minted academic mother 60.000$ per year. But maybe a third of her previous income, something like that ... it's a very difficult question, but I think in the long run society might benefit from the results.

And people don't think of the benefits of the kids an academic mother brings to the nation. Those kids will likely pay millions in taxes to the state over the course of their lives, not to mention inventing things that improve the society, designing bridges, etc.

[Spectral]

I've been saying that there should be a "wage" for raising children, and it should be correlated with the mother's previous income. Only up to a point, obviously, but there needs to be some incentive for intelligent, educated women to produce offspring.

One thing that I think would help is a cultural shift to move motherhood back to being a central, positive role for women that choose it rather than something that's looked at condescendingly by serious professionals. I'm inclined to think that cultural shifts are more important than policies, but they're a hell of a lot harder to pull off.

If I dropped out of school and live off welfare, I have time from age 16 to age 40 to have a ton of kids. No downsides, I'm not losing any money. In fact, I'm getting a bit of money for each child. Gonna have lots of kids!

If I went to university to become a doctor, I might be ready to enter the workforce at 27. I will then have to work a lot to make up for all the years of no income during university, in many countries I also have student loans. When I'm 30, I might want to have children, but if I take a year off of work, that's gonna lose me 60.000 - 100.000$ per year, depending on my job. I would have to want children REALLY REALLY bad to accept that.


Obviously, the state can't pay a freshly minted academic mother 60.000$ per year. But maybe a third of her previous income, something like that ... it's a very difficult question, but I think in the long run society might benefit from the results.

Who should the money be collected from?

[vareck]

Well, as a society we need kids to replace the dying old farts. I don't see anything wrong with giving these women some kind of compensation to pay for their child rearing. It's something that benefits the nation as a whole.

At that point you are paying for work not received. Why would a company not hire a man who won't be taking extended time off for childbirth/etc. if they have to give some kind of compensation to women for having children?

[Dextroden]

Does that mean that we can hold mothers financially viable when their children turn into net liabilities?


Because the majority of those that need help from others are the ones without cohesive family structures. Statistically, they're raising tomorrow's carjackers.

I have no problem with compensation, just as long as we get to compensate them for the quality they produce.

This is a good point. Don't want to reward people for mass producing a failure brood. Far too many of those already.

[Awbee]

Does that mean that we can hold mothers financially viable when their children turn into net liabilities?


Because the majority of those that need help from others are the ones without cohesive family structures. Statistically, they're raising tomorrow's carjackers.

I have no problem with compensation, just as long as we get to compensate them for the quality they produce.

You say this jokingly, but this actually is an interesting ethical question.

I've often thought how direly unfair it is that some of the older women in my country spend their lives raising their children into good, productive citizens, sacrificed their own personal whims and goals in order to do this, and then they get the lowest of minimal pensions as a reward. Because they "never worked a day in their lives".

- - - Updated - - -

One thing that I think would help is a cultural shift to move motherhood back to being a central, positive role for women that choose it rather than something that's looked at condescendingly by serious professionals. I'm inclined to think that cultural shifts are more important than policies, but they're a hell of a lot harder to pull off.

Both are important. Even if you like the cultural role of a mother, it's still gonna be very hard for a lot of women to give up on 100.000$ per year in order to have a child.

Who should the money be collected from?

Taxes. Seems extremely fair to me, considering that the academic in question is likely in one of the highest tax brackets and has already paid a big amount (and will again if they resume working). Even more so considering that their children will likely become future taxpayers.

[THE Bigzoman]

You say this jokingly, but this actually is an interesting ethical question.

I've often thought how direly unfair it is that some of the older women in my country spend their lives raising their children into good, productive citizens, sacrificed their own personal whims and goals in order to do this, and then they get the lowest of minimal pensions as a reward. Because they "never worked a day in their lives".

I'm not joking. I'm serious. Though I admit it comes off as kind of jerkish.


But if we're going to go the wage route with parenting, then it becomes similar to having a job.

If society pays a wage to parent workers, will we have the right to address and correct shitty job performances like our employers do? Will we finally get past the "Don't tell me how to raise my kids" jargon?

[Spectral]

Taxes. Seems extremely fair to me, considering that the academic in question is likely in one of the highest tax brackets and has already paid a big amount (and will again if they resume working). Even more so considering that their children will likely become future taxpayers.

As mentioned upthread, I can see the logic in such a policy.

Does it strike you as a bit unseemly for a pair of professors (or other academic-types) to ask for handouts from other taxpayers to subsidize their lifestyles?

[Awbee]

As mentioned upthread, I can see the logic in such a policy.

Does it strike you as a bit unseemly for a pair of professors (or other academic-types) to ask for handouts from other taxpayers to subsidize their lifestyles?

No, considering the huge amounts they do pay in taxes, it seems very right to me to give them some of their own tax money back in order to incentivise them reproducing. Seems better than spending their tax money on people who've never worked and thus incentivising them to have children.

[Independent voter]

As mentioned upthread, I can see the logic in such a policy.

Does it strike you as a bit unseemly for a pair of professors (or other academic-types) to ask for handouts from other taxpayers to subsidize their lifestyles?

You know if us Patriarchs were the ones to get pregnant and have kids, we'd make sure having kids and raising them made you more money, higher pension, w/e.

[Spectral]

You know if us Patriarchs were the ones to get pregnant and have kids, we'd make sure having kids and raising made you more money, higher pension, w/e.

Something, something, aunts and balls. Let's just work with the world we actually live in.

- - - Updated - - -

No, considering the huge amounts they do pay in taxes, it seems very right to me to give them some of their own tax money back in order to incentivise them reproducing. Seems better than spending their tax money on people who've never worked and thus incentivising them to have children.

If this is really what's expected to occur, why not just cut tax rates instead of extracting and giving back?

I agree wholeheartedly regarding the inefficiency of subsidizing the underclass.

[Kasterix]

One thing that I think would help is a cultural shift to move motherhood back to being a central, positive role for women that choose it rather than something that's looked at condescendingly by serious professionals. I'm inclined to think that cultural shifts are more important than policies, but they're a hell of a lot harder to pull off.

Interestingly enough I think the major reason for the shift away from motherhood being a positive role has been feminism, of all things. What with all the "We can do anything!" war chanting and looking down on other females who genuinely WANT to do the stereotypical 'girly' things (like stay at home raising children) for themselves and not because it's expected of them.

Not surprised. Anyone want to explain how "The typical woman working full time as a medical doctor earns $135,169 a year. The typical man? $209,596, or 55 percent less"? And no different specialties doesn't explain the gap. "Nor do other factors such as hours worked or employment structure, according Anthony Sasso, a health-policy professor who told the Journal he was “befuddled” by the gap."

Salary negotiations is one possibility I can think of.

It has been pointed out in the past that women are much less likely than men to negotiate for higher salary packages. For the most part the reasons given are along the lines of they don't want to be seen as pushy, or don't see themselves as being worth more, etc. Whereas men in general are simply expected to negotiate and push things like that.

Now THAT I'd say is a problem that needs fixing, but it's still absolutely not some sort of ridiculous conspiracy to simply pay women less. Companies want to pay EVERYONE as little as possible, not just women, and they'll negotiate everyone as low as possible if the option is there. That's nothing more than logical business practice.

And you'll probably find there are a number of females in that top earning bracket right beside the males, while there will also be some men down in the lower earning 'female' bracket. There are outliers in basically every situation you can come up with, which is what makes a lot of these 'expert' studies pointless... Because they actually ignore things like that in favour of controversy.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

It means if you were born female you either have to have no kids and make money or you have kids and lose money. Meanwhile men can have kids and not lose out on the money side of things.

That doesn't sound fair.

My kids often complain about things not being fair. Would you like to hear what I tell them? Snark aside, you are still not comparing apples to apples. If one of these career women were to find a husband willing to play the role of primary caregiver, and allow her to be the primary provider, chances are she'd be able to put in the hours and focus required to earn compensation on par with the married men in her field.

It is admittedly far more difficult for a woman to find a man willing to do this than the reverse, but hey, that's your problem, not ours. You make your choices in life and deal with the consequences. As for my own anecdotal experience, the few women I've known, one of them being my sister, that did find a man willing to play the support role, soon lost respect and interest in him. They kicked their supportive husbands to the curb and went out and got men they actually respected. These men were more ambitious, more successful and more driven than they were. Women like the idea of a nice man who will follow them, but they generally don't want to have sex with them for very long.

[Dextroden]

Something, something, aunts and balls. Let's just work with the world we actually live in.

- - - Updated - - -


If this is really what's expected to occur, why not just cut tax rates instead of extracting and giving back?

I agree wholeheartedly regarding the inefficiency of subsidizing the underclass.

Because tax cuts aren't exciting enough. Gotta get cash out of the exchange, so charging other people for someone else spawning looks awesome.

[Fencers]

Huh. I almost actually majored in Chemistry. I thought organic chem was fascinating and seriously considered going into the field. Engineering was boring as all hell.

Personally speaking, I think men work more and focus on career longer and more intensely than women. At least in my experience in the professional working world.

[Awbee]

If this is really what's expected to occur, why not just cut tax rates instead of extracting and giving back?

I agree wholeheartedly regarding the inefficiency of subsidizing the underclass.

Because some academic couples don't want to have children. Even subsidized, having children is always gonna be a financial net loss. Also a loss of personal freedom, and some people just don't like children, changing diapers etc.
These people shouldn't get the same tax cuts (or benefits) as academic couples who raise 3 kids.

Taxes are fine, in my opinion, if they're used to benefit the wellbeing of society as a whole. Public infrastructure, long term investments for the good of society.