David Leonhardt in the New York Times today writes about how well women (without children) are doing in the workforce. We have had three women (without children) nominated to the Supreme Court in recent years. The feminist movement was very successful in getting women (without children) to achieve equal pay as men (until they have children) and in breaking barriers to have them reach top positions in business and politics (until they have children).
The problem is in the parenthesis, of course. Women find it hard to work full time and balance a family life. If they take time off, they never catch up to the men. There are few opportunities to work part time or flexibility, so women are increasingly dropping out of the workforce entirely after they have children.
Leonhardt discusses a recent study of business school graduates from the University of Chicago.
A recent study of business school graduates from the University of Chicago
found that in the early years after graduating, men and women had
“nearly identical labor incomes and weekly hours worked.” Men and women
also paid a similar career price for taking off or working part time.
Women, however, were vastly more likely to do so.As a result, 15 years after graduation, the men were making about 75
percent more than the women. The study — done by Marianne Bertrand,
Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz — did find one subgroup of women whose
careers resembled those of men: women who had no children and never
took time off.
This is hardly an original column. We've been talking about this problem for ages on this blog. Leonhardt should have interviewed other experts and referred to some key books. Whatever. Just glad it's being discussed.
Apt. 11d 
Clearly, we’re fatigued with this particular discussion. But, Goldin has some interesting papers at her site. Particularly, I had heard of, but never read the paper about the effect of blind auditions on women’s advancement in orchestra auditions. Fascinating, and dramatic. It’s a solid paper, and a whopping effect.
It’s a concrete example of sexist barriers to advancement in tournament models (important, because small biases get exaggerated in tournament models, so bias that can be attributed to factors irrelevant to performance are going to have more of an effect on final outcomes).
The study really makes me wonder how similar effects play out in situations where performance evaluation is difficult to blind.
“Orchestrating Impartiality: The Effect of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female Musicians”
Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse (September 1999)
published in American Economic Review (September 2000)
LikeLike
re: topic fatigue. Yeah, I know. I almost didn’t post it, but there a lot of new people showing up here lately, so I posted it for them. Have to balance the needs of the regulars with the first timers.
Glad you checked out Goldin’s other publications, bj. I will, too.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s “topic fatigue” so much as a dead end thought-wise. We continue to identify the problem, and then . . . no one really has any concrete policy suggestions for dealing with it.
“Better child care options” is broadly appealing, but lots of people (women) don’t want more child care, and want to take time off from work, or work part-time. It seems almost necessary that people who take time off from work, they will be less experienced and therefore move up the system more slowly.
If anything, I think this is less a place for anti-sexism laws and more a place for changing cultural norms. When dads are making 50% of the childcare sacrifice, the problems will be easier to address.
LikeLike
But we could shift cultural norms by mandating leave ( I.e the swedish system). Oh, and by mandating “vacation” time. But then everyone would have to make the same trade offs.
LikeLike
I would tend to agree that there don’t seem to be “solutions” to this “problem.
Men and women also paid a similar career price for taking off or working part time. Women, however, were vastly more likely to do so.
There are many of us who do not want the government to step in and try to “shirt cultural norms.” Not now and not in the near future.
LikeLike
“But we could shift cultural norms by mandating leave ( I.e the swedish system).”
I’m not sure how that would work for white color workers in the age of the Blackberry. In particular, could you stop an academic father from reading and writing and emailing during paternity leave? Not likely.
LikeLike
When the revolution comes, I’m crushing all of the Blackberries and every phone with a keyboard.
LikeLike
And bluetooth headsets. Those get tossed also.
LikeLike
ah, but do you’ll also think we should be able to sell kidneys?
and , no, I can’t see a way for the state to keep the men off their blackberries. That’s the job of the wives (and, I guess, MH, who appears to be willing to take more aggressive action).
LikeLike
In particular, could you stop an academic father from reading and writing and emailing during paternity leave?
I’m pretty sure that the average infant should be able to accomplish that, unless said father is seriously not pulling his weight and has a spouse or nanny aiding and abbetting him.
LikeLike
“But we could shift cultural norms by mandating leave”
If that means expanding FMLA options, then I’m for it. If it means telling parents that they have to stay home for six months, then I am both against it on “libertarian” grounds, and also because it would seem to just punish both parents of children equally. On the other hand:
“There are many of us who do not want the government to step in and try to “shirt cultural norms.””
Cultural norms are always set — in part — by government actions or inactions. Asking “should” or “shouldn’t” is a false dichotomy. It’s just a question of “how.” The “norm” of 12 weeks off for child care was set by the FMLA. The norm could be easily changed to 10 weeks or 14 weeks just by changing the law. You could repeal the law and make the norm “women get fired while on maternity leave.” I’d be against that, but it would still be a case of government affecting cultural norms.
LikeLike
Men and women also paid a similar career price for taking off or working part time. Women, however, were vastly more likely to do so.
This suggests that any mechanism of injustice is occurring right there in the spousal relationship. We’ll be hearing a lot more on this topic for that reason alone — it’s much easier for educated women who want to think highly of their own decision making process to argue that the government should “do something” than to reflect on the mistakes they made in choosing a (supposed) partner.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of truth to what Siobhan says.
I think it’s a combination of policy problems and the spousal relationship. At least for middle-class families with two parents.
With most FMLA leave given through the STD plan, the childbearer is the only one eligible for any paid leave. I got 8 weeks at 2/3 pay. My husband took FMLA with both kids. The first time it was 14 weeks part-time unpaid and the second 7 weeks full-time paid (from his sick bank). In both cases, his bosses were unaware that he even eligible for the leave.
I think the second time he lost a little capital at work, same as I did.
LikeLike
it’s much easier for educated women who want to think highly of their own decision making process to argue that the government should “do something” than to reflect on the mistakes they made in choosing a (supposed) partner.
And this comment is a perfect illustration that it’s much easier to blame Some Woman for “choosing the wrong partner” than it is to blame the male partner who is shirking his responsbility as a parent. Probably because it’s easier than questioning the gender norms of male breadwinner/female house servant.
With that said, the inertia around this issue is all about class division. Middle class women are comfortable with the status quo. Working class women like myself aren’t. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel—making unemployment insurance available for parental leave would help a bunch, and expanding already-existing programs like Head Start and Early Start (making them available to all who want them, and starting at an earlier age) would help a bunch.
Screw part time work—that’s the path to poverty.
LikeLike
“it’s much easier for educated women who want to think highly of their own decision making process to argue that the government should “do something” than to reflect on the mistakes they made in choosing a (supposed) partner.”
La Lubu points out the “shirking” of responsibility by the male parent. But, there, once again, the norms of the workplace intervene. If we have two tracks of jobs (the ones that require an ideal worker, and the ones that don’t), families are forced to pick an either or that creates downstream consequences. The kinds of jobs that are available in the workplace has an effect (in addition to the individual decision making within the couple).
Now, I’m pretty sure that there’s no government/state based solution to this problem (and I had to refrain from putting both words into curly quotes). But, I think there are government/legal tweaks that could make a differences — one big one that I think would have an impact is making benefits costs proportional to hours worked. There will still be benefits to ideal worker models for the workplace (i.e. reducing the cost of hiring when workplace demands fluctuate, expertise, etc.) but the purely financial model, where if you work 21 hours you cost way more than if you work 19 could and should be fixed. I think health insurance not tied to work should be a big part of this.
LikeLike
families are forced to pick an either or that creates downstream consequences.
Not in my world. In my world, no one voluntarily chooses unemployment. Both parents in a two-parent household work full time. That’s what it takes to pay the bills and have breathing room (and retirement savings).
It’s a moot point for me—I’m a single parent. It just makes the hairs on my neck stand up when I hear “part time” work mentioned, because it’s primarily women who would be shunted off into the part-time (poverty) track…and as a single parent, I can’t afford that. (and most married mothers can’t afford it either). Those of us who are women in predominantly male professions have a hard enough time as it is.
I dunno. The discussions fall so neatly along class lines, just like education reform. Mothers in my neighborhood are thrilled at the idea of longer school hours and/or year-round school because it would be a huge help for their childrens’ achievement and a tremendous cost savings (in Illinois, a “latchkey” kid arrangement is illegal—children under 14 are required to be under adult supervision; before and after school care costs a bundle). But mention those things in the tonier neighborhoods and it’s treated like blasphemy.
LikeLike
Look, there’s no one-size-fit-all solution to getting more women in the workforce. (Assuming that this is really a problem that needs solving.)
For the 60 percent of women with children under 3 who aren’t in the workforce, simply extending maternity leave by an extra month or pressuring the dads to take paternity leave isn’t going to help. Some of those 60 percent don’t have a great education and aren’t going to make enough to cover the costs of childcare. Many of them want to take care of their kids themselves; they can get by on one income, some on a tighter budget than others.
Those 60 percent need PT work to keep their skills strong until they can return back to work full time. They need jobs that are flexible. They need employers that hire 40 year old women for entry level jobs. They need other women to not be judgy or defensive.
re: pressuring the men to do more at home. I’m smiling at this. Most people I know are holding onto their jobs with white knuckles right now. NOBODY is leaving work early these days.
LikeLike
NOBODY is leaving work early these days.
I’m coming in late and leaving at the old time.
LikeLike
La Lubu:”in Illinois, a “latchkey” kid arrangement is illegal—children under 14 are required to be under adult supervision”
Really? Wow. I’ve left my 11 year old at home for an hour or two. I’ve let him babysit Ian for 15 minutes or so. I know lots of middle school kids who come home on their own, because both parents are working.
That law, without major subsidies for after-care, really sucks.
LikeLike
No, I’m not making that up about the latchkey business. Officially, it’s illegal to leave a child under 14 without supervision. Unofficially, I haven’t heard of it being enforced for 13 year olds, but it does get enforced for 11-12 year olds.
I know people who’ve run afoul of this law in a really bad way, for what used to be considered normal stuff (leaving kids at home to make a run to the store). It’s bizarre. I walked home from school by myself at age 6. Now, someone has to be at school to pick the kids up if they aren’t in the afterschool program. It’s like living in a parallel world.
It’s not like no one does the latchkey thing here—-it’s just that it tends to be selectively enforced, and you have to be mindful of what will happen if you get caught.
With that said, where did you get the 60% of mothers with children under 3 not being in the workforce? Anything I look up shows the opposite—that over 60% of women with young children are in the workforce. That statistic is much higher for single mothers.
Here’s something fairly recent from the National Women’s Law Center.
I didn’t immediately see any stats broken down by income, but suspect that it’s largely a myth that lower-income (two-parent) families are more likely to have a stay-at-home mother, especially once the kids qualify for Head Start or Early Start.
They need other women to not be judgy or defensive.
Yeah, but where the rubber meets the road is what you’re willing to tell your own daughter. I’m not judgy or defensive, I’m practical. The objective reality is that we have a pre-existing workforce culture and pre-existing sexism that relegates women to a lower position than men, especially if they follow the “mommy track”. I’m not willing to tell my daughter that she can get an “entry level position” at age 40 and then move up. That isn’t the reality. Women who do that, remain stuck in those low-paid, no benefit positions and are never able to move up. They won’t have an adequate safety net for retirement when their body gives out on them due to age, injury or disability.
I don’t know anyone, in any socioeconomic group, that is telling their kids that they can get by with just a high school diploma. Those days are long gone. So it is with leaving the workforce for an extended period—if you do that, you take a permanent, lifelong, devastating financial hit. A hit that women (who tend to live longer than men) especially can’t afford.
I’m telling my daughter to always be practical—-always earn your own money, and always set back for retirement.
LikeLike
“I didn’t immediately see any stats broken down by income, but suspect that it’s largely a myth that lower-income (two-parent) families are more likely to have a stay-at-home mother, especially once the kids qualify for Head Start or Early Start.”
Well, if you think about it, your gross household income is automatically lower if you have only one income (all things being equal), and automatically higher if you have two incomes (all things being equal), so it’s pretty much bound to be true that single income families have lower gross income than their double income counterparts.
I’ve known at least a couple of women in our part of Texas who are married to graduate students and are stay-at-home mothers, at least for a few years. Stay-at-home and watch a few extra kids is another very popular model.
LikeLike
“Stay-at-home and watch a few extra kids is another very popular model.”
Sorry, that wasn’t clear. I meant that generally, rather than just among wives of graduate students or just in Texas.
“I’m not willing to tell my daughter that she can get an “entry level position” at age 40 and then move up. That isn’t the reality. Women who do that, remain stuck in those low-paid, no benefit positions and are never able to move up. They won’t have an adequate safety net for retirement when their body gives out on them due to age, injury or disability.”
In my family, I’ve seen a number people make startling economic turn-arounds in their 40s or 50s. My mom was a blue collar/farm housewife into her early 40s, when my family started a store, and for the past twenty years, she’s been queen of the store, selling t-shirts and jewelry and $300 Indian baskets like nobody’s business. My aunt quit her job (just a few years away from pension) at her husband’s request. He left not too long after that when she was around 50. There were some rough times after that, but she’s now 60ish and doing very, very well doing something completely different than her previous career. In fact, I strongly suspect that her financial affairs are in better shape than her high-earning ex-husband, who never earned a dollar he couldn’t spend twice. Lastly, my dad has done many things over the years, but only in the past 10 or so has he really found his calling. He’s 60ish, but the stuff he’s doing now bears little resemblance to what he was doing 25 years ago, but you could say that of all three of them. They all three came up from blue collar/farming families and got graduate degrees 35 years ago that didn’t immediately lead them to fame and fortune. For my parents in particular, there was a lot of struggle and a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and they were empty nesters before they really found their feet.
So while I’d agree with La Lubu that telling her daughter that she can start entry-level at 40 isn’t ideal, it’s not so terribly bad if you get a good education first, keep learning, have a good work ethic, and are quick on your feet. Now that I’ve been home for a while, I’m thinking that I’d eventually like to be a CPA or do something with taxes. I will be 40 before I can get anywhere near that, but the thing is, for the first 30 or so years of my life, I wouldn’t have even considered it, and would have thought it deeply boring, but now that I’m a bit older, I think that it would be exactly the right thing for me.
LikeLike
Sorry about the numbers. Here’s the right ones.
From the NYTs article: “Last year, 40.2 percent of married women with children under 3 years old were outside the labor force, up from a low of 38.6 percent in 1998.” So, there’s been a slight increase of SAHMs.
Yes, 60% of married women with children under 3 are working, but not all of them are working full time. 1/4-1/2 are working PT. Not sure on the exact number for that demographic.
SAHM tend to have less education and have less income than working mothers. Stats here.
My advice to my nieces and every young girl is exactly the same as yours. Pick a viable career that can support you and 2 children with no help from a man, because you never know. Work at the job for ten years, before you have kids. Work in a field where there are lots of women. If I were to get even more specific, I would tell her exactly which professions enable someone to take off years to raise kids and return back to work. I would tell her to get a MA, but stop there. I would tell her that there’s more to life than one’s job. And, most of all, I would tell her to marry a good guy.
LikeLike
I’m not willing to tell my daughter that she can get an “entry level position” at age 40 and then move up. That isn’t the reality.
The reality is becoming so that you shouldn’t expect to get an entry level position at 23 and move steadily forward regardless of your gender or education level.
LikeLike
“The reality is becoming so that you shouldn’t expect to get an entry level position at 23 and move steadily forward regardless of your gender or education level.”
Yes, I think this is becoming more and more true. This is a thread I’ve been wanting to have — what advice we want to give to our children about their futures.
I am perfectly willing to get more specific, but I think that being specific is dangerous, because I think the world is rapidly changing.
I would also be specific about skills, in particular, I think I would try to encourage comfort with careful entrepreneurial risk.
LikeLike
“The reality is becoming so that you shouldn’t expect to get an entry level position at 23 and move steadily forward regardless of your gender or education level.”
Right. If you look around the country, over the past 20-40 years, whole segments of the economy have gone or are going through massive restructuring. Here’s a short list: aerospace engineers, petroleum engineers, computer programmers, farmers, miners, auto makers, textile workers, loggers, construction workers, real estate agents, mortgage brokers, travel agents and investment bankers. I have a lot of concerns about careers in health, too.
As to bj’s question, here are some preliminary ideas:
1. Don’t invest too much in the education needed for any particular field, since it won’t be the last time you need to go to school.
2. Don’t get geographically tied down by a house you would have a hard time getting away from.
3. Be cautious about “hot” fields.
4. Avoid debt.
5. Build an emergency fund.
6. Maintain close ties to family and friends.
7. Don’t tap your retirement early, unless it’s a question of not eating.
LikeLike