Monday, December 12, 2016

Employed Parents

You remember the guy who did the worst Prager U video ever, based on my personal opinion and viewer reactions? It's the video that told men they should get married because they'd earn more money but neglected to mention that 1) if his wife divorced him, most of his money would go to her and lawyers, and 2) even she stay married to him, most of his money would be spent by her? Yeah.

Well a tweet by him caught my attention. It linked to a Bloomberg story carried by Yahoo claiming that having children is a bad career move for women. The text of the tweet was:
As if money is the only thing to live for
Yup. From the guy who wanted men to stop doing the things they enjoyed under the lure of "you'll make more money!"

Rebecca Greenfield reports:


For women, having a kid is a bad career move, and having one as a highly skilled earner is even worse. For each child she has, a woman suffers a  "motherhood penalty" of 4 percent of income. 

According to new research, published today in the American Sociological Review, for high-skilled, high-paid workers that penalty climbs to 10 percent per child.
When you're on the fast track, your wages grow quickly, so taking a break to raise kids carries a greater cost in the long run. Highflying women who take off two years to raise their kids will miss out on projects, raises, and career opportunities that will have a big financial impact down the line.
The same would be true if a man took off two years.
In a 2009 Center for Work-Life Policy survey of women with advanced degrees or with high-honors undergraduate degrees, 69 percent of respondents said they would not have "opted out" to care for their kids if their jobs had been more flexible. 
Translation: "We want everyone else to make up for our lifestyle choices. We'll use the force of federal government to force them to."
A Pew survey from last year found that working parents find it difficult to balance family and work life, with 41 percent of moms saying that parenting makes it harder for them to advance in their careers.
Here's a wacky idea: If you want kids, plan accordingly, including by marrying someone who can either completely support you and the children or who is compatible with you and your skills, which, combined with his, will allow a parent to care for the children while the family earns enough.

For too many people it's like, "Oops!!! We're pregnant! Let's see how this works out!"
As for men, no problem.
I smell dung. If the men were taking two years off, they'd experience the same thing as a woman taking two years off. It is dishonest to compare all employed fathers to all employed mothers. How about, for example, comparing single custodial fathers to single custodial mothers?
They get a fatherhood bonus, an increase of more than 6 percent in earnings for every child they have.
Maybe they're spending more time working because there's no more going out at night with the wife? They're avoiding going home? Six percent usually won't cover the cost of raising a child, by the way.
To employers, being a dad signals stability and commitment.  
Yeah, there are no unstable or non-committal fathers out there, right? What it actually means is that it is more likely that a employee with think of himself as trapped. He won't be as free to look for, and take, better opportunities with other employers.
Even in workplaces that offer flexibility, women have reported penalties for taking advantage of the options, such as loss of responsibility or longer hours than promised. For many, taking time off work or even working part-time to care for kids is the equivalent of checking out or taking a vacation.
An employer needs someone to do the work. It doesn't matter to them whether you're not around to do the work because you're going on a cruise of because you chose to have children.
Once back in the office full-time, working moms face various stereotypes. Research has found that moms get competency ratings 10 percent lower than other women. These perceptions affect earnings.
There are explanations other than employer bias. Distractions, less availability, and increased sick time come along with being a parent. I've seen it with my own eyes, and I know I'm not as good of an employee now that I'm a father.

I strongly support stay-with-kids mothers. I readily agreed for my wife to do that. An employer, however, should be concerned with one thing: Does this employee do what I need them to do? If an employer wants to incentivize job applicants and employee continuity by being flexible with time, that should be the employer's choice. I don't think employees without children should be penalized in the process.

Unfortunately:

1) Employers want more mothers working because they want more labor from which to choose. Supply and demand.

2) Leftist feminists want more mothers working because empowerment, or something.

3) Payroll Tax-reliant governments and organizations want more mothers working because of the added tax revenue.

4) Many businesses/advertisers want more mothers working so that they'll buy more goods and services.

But what it best for children and families? That's for families to consider. Everything in life is a trade-off. Getting married changes everything. Having children changes everything. And those changes aren't all good or pleasant ones.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I have to approve your comment before it appears. I won't reject your comment for disagreement - I actually welcome disagreement. But I will not allow libelous comments (which is my main reason for requiring approval) and please try to avoid profanities. Thanks!