Maternity leave: Is it really necessary?

[Farm Boy]

You are jumping topic of discussion a little bit I think JR. The willingness of the woman to work and/or the excitement of the male regarding her employment is not really the issue. The issue was more the male's self-image in being able to create a scenario where she could dedicate more time to parenting if she so desired. One hopes both genders can share that sentiment without either being accused of prejudice. But, alas, it probably is more amusing to further the caveman hick stereotype.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Good find.

I mention this to my younger female counterparts who are fresh out of university and have been taught by Baby Boomer professors - they usually flat out refuse to believe me.

Only it clearly has nothing to do with the incredible gap which still exists between female and male salaries while performing the same jobs. It is actually due to just the opposite:

Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.

The figures come from James Chung of Reach Advisors, who has spent more than a year analyzing data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do. This is almost the exact opposite of the graduation ratio that existed when the baby boomers entered college. Studies have consistently shown that a college degree pays off in much higher wages over a lifetime, and even in many cases for entry-level positions. "These women haven't just caught up with the guys," says Chung. "In many cities, they're clocking them."

You are jumping topic of discussion a little bit I think JR. The willingness of the woman to work and/or the excitement of the male regarding her employment is not really the issue. The issue was more the male's self-image in being able to create a scenario where she could dedicate more time to parenting if she so desired. One hopes both genders can share that sentiment without either being accused of prejudice. But, alas, it probably is more amusing to further the caveman hick stereotype.

What about the willingness to overlook prejudice, while even insinuating it is being perpetuated by "Baby Boomer professors". Not to mention disregarding how many "cavemen hicks" there actually are in the US?

 

[Old Hippy]

You are jumping topic of discussion a little bit I think JR. The willingness of the woman to work and/or the excitement of the male regarding her employment is not really the issue. The issue was more the male's self-image in being able to create a scenario where she could dedicate more time to parenting if she so desired. One hopes both genders can share that sentiment without either being accused of prejudice. But, alas, it probably is more amusing to further the caveman hick stereotype.

your jumping the topic here... i think

if you create a scenario where the women can devote more time to to parenting ... thats fine... but are we not talking about women who go back to work, who chose to further their careers or maybe help pay the morgage... hence choose to devote less time to parenting
some one that dedicates MORE time to parenting is commonly referred to as a housewife... so is outside the topic of maternity leave.. but still the husband should be entitled to stay home with the kids and change nappies...for his paternity leave

 

[say1988]

This is the best argument I have heard as to why we have maternity leave. I have been pretty against it generally, as I see my female co-workers get 14 months off for adding to the global population burden, but I cannot take off a few months unpaid to do what I would like to do. However when you look at it like this, as in contributing in a significant way to the well-being of the next generation it does make sense. I am not sure it makes me feel better about it, but I am not sure I can argue against it very well.

In many countries there is an amount of Paternity leave available to a father (either separate or shared with the mother).

I would also note that, even with job proections and 100% pay, parental leave isn't a free ride. It will almost always slow down career advancement as it means that someone who started a job at the same time and did not take parental leave will have more experience.

 

[Farm Boy]

Big fan of paternity leave. Big fan of equal rights here. Also not saying wage disparity doesn't exist. Am saying that wage disparity has been somewhat solved, in the US, for now, for those under 30. In fact, women under 30, more often than not, in the US, earn more than their male counterparts for equal work and are employed at greater rates. You mentioned this too, so I'm not certain where the disagreement is.

Ignoring prejudice, as you stated is not the way to go. Ignoring developing sources of prejudice is also not the way to go. A flat refusal from the educated in my parent's generation to recognize changes in gender equality is very much the same sort of wrong that they have worked so hard to reverse.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Big fan of paternity leave. Big fan of equal rights here. Also not saying wage disparity doesn't exist. Am saying that wage disparity has been somewhat solved, in the US, for now, for those under 30. In fact, women under 30, more often than not, in the US, earn more than their male counterparts for equal work and are employed at greater rates.

Then provide actual evidence of this instead of claiming an article which states just the opposite does so.

Ignoring prejudice, as you stated is not the way to go. Ignoring developing sources of prejudice is also not the way to go. A flat refusal from the educated in my parent's generation to recognize changes in gender equality is very much the same sort of wrong that they have worked so hard to reverse.

Then it shouldn't be difficult to prove at all, instead of still being just the opposite as the article above claims. From the very first paragraph of that article:

The fact that the average American working woman earns only about 8o% of what the average American working man earns has been something of a festering sore for at least half the population for several decades. And despite many programs and analyses and hand-wringing and badges and even some legislation, the figure hasn't budged much in the past five years.

I eagerly await your response.

 

[Farm Boy]

Largely choice. If education is the driving factor for wages and women are stomping men in this regard what would you attribute it to?

Or are the hicks actually forcing their women out of their shoes and into the sammich industry?

 

[Formaldehyde]

There are a number of reasons why women are now getting college educations where they didn't in the past. But it obviously doesn't prove that the wage inequality between males and women performing the same jobs no longer exists when it still clearly does. It is comparing apples and oranges to argue that the blatant wage discrimination has now ended because there are now more female college graduates than men. It merely proves the obvious. That those with college degrees typically more than those who do not have them.

 

[Farm Boy]

And significant college graduation rate differences between genders is less of an issue than they were before?

It also implies that in new employment markets, not rural "legacy" ones, that when you strip away as many non-work social variables as possible - family/work conflicts, etc. that the wage disparity reverses.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only the "wage disparity" obviously hasn't "reversed" at all. Males continue to get far more than females for the same job which the article clearly pointed out.

Women in one demographic now outpacing men in some cities because more are graduating from college doesn't change that.

 

[Farm Boy]

It does change that. It just doesn't change it for everybody right now. I thought I put enough qualifiers in my original point to specify that! You put in a couple more qualifiers and I'm not questioning those either.

I would firmly put this in the category of quite possibly a problem for tomorrow. It seems to be a result of how we educate children and young adults though which means there is quite a lag time between any policy changes which may be undertaken and results.

Education is the largest indicator of future earnings. There was a preponderance of males, that has reversed(good!). It's swung the other way pretty hard(not so good!). This is a legitimate concern.

Older earners with an entrenched employment history retain their old gender biases with respect to earnings(not good!). There is a lot of inertia to try and overcome here. People won't generally willingly take large pay cuts if they can avoid it and employers aren't going to pay any more than they can get away with, thus the iniquities linger for a long time.

Younger earners(per your study) are a different story, somewhat. Young, single, childless women in urban environments earn more than their male counterparts who are young, single, and childless. So when you sample the demographic which is most squarely centered around work, "up and coming" or future female work is valuated more highly than equal male work. What are the variables that make this untrue? Social interactions which both typically interfere with single-minded dedication to career and which tend to fall more heavily on women either due to socialization, choice, or both.

Does this mean that we can turn a blind eye to gender inequality? No, I wouldn't say that. Does this possibly mean our boys may need some forms of legal protections in the future historically granted to our girls? Maybe. Here's the part I'll reassert that you seemed to not like, please clarify if I am wrong - the more senior and entrenched academics I have personally interacted with seem loathe to admit that much of their work on feminist issues is seeming to pay off. It is possible that in the near future it may pay off too well and we should keep an eye on it. Attempting to correct our flawed primary education system that bores and alienates boys would probably be something good to start on doing now.

 

[wolfigor]

wage disparity has been somewhat solved, in the US, for now, for those under 30. In fact, women under 30, more often than not, in the US, earn more than their male counterparts for equal work and are employed at greater rates.

There is a nice article that confirms what Farm boy states:
http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

According to data in the article college-educated women hit their pay glass ceiling at age 39 with an average salary of $60,000, whereas men's pay stops growing at the age of 48 with an average salary of $95,000.

It also says that a lot of this has to do with job choices: "Overall, men and women gravitate toward different careers. The most popular choices for men tend to pay higher than the most popular choices for women."

When we compare men and women salaries in similar jobs and experience the pay gap is not that big: amounting to a mere 4%

There are also very nice charts, here in spoiler due to the dimension:

Spoiler :

In the linked article you also have a large explanation about the methodology used.


More important for this thread (about parental leave) the graph shows that in USA college educated women's pay stop outpacing men's at about 30 years of age: exactly when they start having children.

There is no doubt that having children have very considerable consequences for the women careers, especially in USA where they have limited support for parental leave.

(paid) maternity leave helps to alleviate this problem.
Forcing men to take paternity leave (as in Norway) helps even more to make the odds more fair: in this context also men have to take a pause in their career progression when having children.
I do not have data about Norway (I did not search, sorry) but it looks to me that paternity leave helps considerably to make the "playfield" more fair for both genders.

I would also note that, even with job proections and 100% pay, parental leave isn't a free ride. It will almost always slow down career advancement as it means that someone who started a job at the same time and did not take parental leave will have more experience.

Yes indeed!
Having a leave from your work always have a considerable effect on your career progression especially in comparison to those who decide to don't have children (thus continuing to progress in their work).
A paid parental leave, again, helps to alleviate this gap.


On a side note, we shouldn't evaluate the merits of parental leave only looking at their effect on equality on the work place.
One of the main targets of (paid) parental leave is to make people leave better lives, so that they have the opportunity to enjoy a very important time with their children without having to suffer for it.
It's also a way for the state to don't place people in the difficoult situation of choosing between job and children: the policy is meant to stimulate people in career to have children.

 

[vypernight]

Show of hands. How many women on these boards can or already have children? Let me rephrase that; how many women do we have on these boards? I'll make itsimpler, how many on these boards, men or women, can give birth?

Now ask THEM if the Leave is necessary, especially after having the child.

 

[Crezth]

For what it is worth, in engineering men outearn women by a significant degree the more years of experience they have.

 

[gozpel]

Rightly, your girl should kick your nuts SO hard and you can go out with the pram and pretending they are your twins!

 

[trader/warrior]

When we compare men and women salaries in similar jobs and experience the pay gap is not that big: amounting to a mere 4%

There are also very nice charts, here in spoiler due to the dimension:

Spoiler :

Is comparing only jobs dominated by one gender really honest though? Thats where I would expect the least wage difference.

Also on the wage growth graph it's worth noting that it starts at median wage wich is 30000 for women and 40000 for men, so while there's the same wage growth for the first 10 working years this graph shows that even college educated women under the age of 30 earn a lot less than men.

 

[wolfigor]

Is comparing only jobs dominated by one gender really honest though? Thats where I would expect the least wage difference.

The article is comparing same role in same industry and it's a fair comparison.
You get big gaps in earning when you look broadly at industries without considering roles.

For example if you look at IT (I choose because it is my own area) in general you'll see that in average women earn far much less than men.
However that's not due to discrimination but to different roles.
Very few women work as developers (usually the best earners) and mostly work in HR and administration (the lowest earners).
But if you compare men and women in HR you'll see that the wage gap is really small.
The same applies if you look at software developers: even if the women are a minority the wage gap is minimal (1%).

The same applies to elementary school teachers where the gap is again 1%.

In conclusion, IMHO the analysis made in the article I posted is fair.

One may argue why in some jobs women do not get a good enough presence in some roles, especially high level management, director, etc.
There I could see bias against women... but it could also be connected to the long pauses in their career development due to taking care of children.
That seems indicated by the graph about the pay "ceiling" for women peaking exactly when they are most likely have children.

IMO having male obliged to get paternity leave should help to reduce this gap.

Also on the wage growth graph it's worth noting that it starts at median wage wich is 30000 for women and 40000 for men, so while there's the same wage growth for the first 10 working years this graph shows that even college educated women under the age of 30 earn a lot less than men.

True, but that graph is a combination of all job regardless of roles.
It's clear that, if women are most present in fields that pay less, their median income will be lower.
You cannot compare salaries without comparing roles: different roles have different salaries (e.g. a teacher is paid less than a software developer regardless of the gender).

 

[Zelig]

Show of hands. How many women on these boards can or already have children? Let me rephrase that; how many women do we have on these boards? I'll make itsimpler, how many on these boards, men or women, can give birth?

Now ask THEM if the Leave is necessary, especially after having the child.

How is that useful?

That's like asking people who enjoy yachting if leaves for yachting are necessary.

 

[Farm Boy]

Show of hands. How many women on these boards can or already have children? Let me rephrase that; how many women do we have on these boards? I'll make itsimpler, how many on these boards, men or women, can give birth?

Now ask THEM if the Leave is necessary, especially after having the child.

Not sure why this is being linked only to women but I, as a male, certainly can and have adopted a child. I very much appreciate the leave that both my wife's and my employment made available to us. I took a little time off, paid, out of vacation. My wife took more time off, partially paid, through a mix of PTO benefits and FMLA leave.

 

[civ_king]

There is a nice article that confirms what Farm boy states:
http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

According to data in the article college-educated women hit their pay glass ceiling at age 39 with an average salary of $60,000, whereas men's pay stops growing at the age of 48 with an average salary of $95,000.

It also says that a lot of this has to do with job choices: "Overall, men and women gravitate toward different careers. The most popular choices for men tend to pay higher than the most popular choices for women."

When we compare men and women salaries in similar jobs and experience the pay gap is not that big: amounting to a mere 4%

There are also very nice charts, here in spoiler due to the dimension:

Spoiler :

In the linked article you also have a large explanation about the methodology used.


More important for this thread (about parental leave) the graph shows that in USA college educated women's pay stop outpacing men's at about 30 years of age: exactly when they start having children.

There is no doubt that having children have very considerable consequences for the women careers, especially in USA where they have limited support for parental leave.

(paid) maternity leave helps to alleviate this problem.
Forcing men to take paternity leave (as in Norway) helps even more to make the odds more fair: in this context also men have to take a pause in their career progression when having children.
I do not have data about Norway (I did not search, sorry) but it looks to me that paternity leave helps considerably to make the "playfield" more fair for both genders.



Yes indeed!
Having a leave from your work always have a considerable effect on your career progression especially in comparison to those who decide to don't have children (thus continuing to progress in their work).
A paid parental leave, again, helps to alleviate this gap.


On a side note, we shouldn't evaluate the merits of parental leave only looking at their effect on equality on the work place.
One of the main targets of (paid) parental leave is to make people leave better lives, so that they have the opportunity to enjoy a very important time with their children without having to suffer for it.
It's also a way for the state to don't place people in the difficoult situation of choosing between job and children: the policy is meant to stimulate people in career to have children.

Men do tend to dominate the math heavy professions which tend to pay rather well whereas women tend to the "people skills" professions. Those same math heavy skills tend to scale up with experience as an experienced is worth more to the company whereas HR is easier to replace and less experience dependent.

Taking long breaks (i.e. having kids) from work tends to mess up your pay progression


Men simply don't need as long a parental leave, a month on either side of birth and then the ability to work reduced hours is good. A month before to help out the wife because she is starting to get rather encumbered and then a month after to help her out because that time is extremely exhausting for one person. The family needs a guaranteed income and removing both at the same time is an awful idea. The fact that the woman needs more time off is part of why households with the woman as breadwinner are in a much more precarious set up.

For what it is worth, in engineering men outearn women by a significant degree the more years of experience they have.

source?

Is comparing only jobs dominated by one gender really honest though? Thats where I would expect the least wage difference.

Also on the wage growth graph it's worth noting that it starts at median wage wich is 30000 for women and 40000 for men, so while there's the same wage growth for the first 10 working years this graph shows that even college educated women under the age of 30 earn a lot less than men.

Well it looks like at the beginning women outpace men in growth because they take front loaded jobs.

How is that useful?

That's like asking people who enjoy yachting if leaves for yachting are necessary.

We should ask murderers if murder should be decriminalised.

Show of hands. How many women on these boards can or already have children? Let me rephrase that; how many women do we have on these boards? I'll make itsimpler, how many on these boards, men or women, can give birth?

Now ask THEM if the Leave is necessary, especially after having the child.

Are you saying men should take no part in raising the child?