Does It Pay to Have Kids? Not for Working Moms

KIRSTIN RALSTON-COLEY

Much of the research about gender inequality in the workplace focuses on discrimination faced by women, but little focuses on the experiences of working women with children. The “motherhood penalty," or the fact that women with children earn less than child-free men and women as well as working fathers, is a major obstacle that working mothers face. Ralston-Coley discusses the factors that contribute to the existence of this penalty, including the gendered division of labor within families and the role of discrimination and bias against mothers in the workplace. Ralston-Coley argues that until attitudes about gendered expectations for mothers and fathers change and until there are more supportive workplace policies for parents, the motherhood penalty will likely persist.
Since the turn of the past century, women have made great strides in labor force participation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the percentage of women working in the paid labor force, full time, year round, has increased from just over 40 percent in 1970 to 58 percent in 2011. Although these statistics show a dramatic increase in the labor force participation of women in the past four decades, the numbers are even more impressive for working mothers. In 1975, just over 47 percent of mothers with children under eighteen years of age were working at least part-time. In 2011, this number had jumped to almost 71 percent (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Additionally, according to the Pew Research Center (2013), in 1960 just percent of married women with children earned more than their husbands, and by 2011, this number jumped to 23 percent. You've come a long way, Mom! Well, not quite.
Unfortunately, although mothers are increasing their labor force participation and their contribution to the family income, the wages for working mothers continue to be significantly less than the wages of child-free working women, child-free working men, and working fathers. In 2001, researchers Budig and England estimated full-time working mothers earned between 5 and 7 percent less per child than women without children. For a mother of two. this works out to roughly 10 to 14 percent less per paycheck than working women without children. When this wage gap is coupled with the significant gender wage gap (78 cents earned by a full-time, year-round working woman for every dollar earned by a man in 2013), it is no surprise that mothers, in particular, are disproportionately represented at the bottom of the earnings distribution of workers. In fact, Glass (2004) argues the low wages earned by mothers are what account for the majority of the gender wage gap as a whole.
What's the reason for this significant wage gap for working mothers? The short answer: the motherhood penalty. The motherhood penalty is the negative impact on wages that is experienced by working women who are also mothers. It has been well documented in the United States and even, to a much smaller extent, in the family-friendly country of Sweden, with its sixteen months of paid parental leave that is shared between mothers and fathers (Budig and England, 2001; Harkness and Waldfogel, 2003; SCB, 2012). The motherhood penalty seems to persist across all earning levels but appears most significant for low-wage workers and workers toward the bottom of the earnings distribution (Budig and Hodges, 2010). Unfortunately, it seems the women who "can least afford it pay the largest proportionate penalty for motherhood” (Budig and Hodges, 2010:725). This motherhood penalty is explained, in large part, by two perspectives on parenting and work: (1) research that focuses on the gendered division of labor and how it negatively impacts a working mother's wages and (2) research that focuses on actual discrimination experienced by the working mother for simply being a mother.

Gendered Division of Labor Perspective

The body of research on the gendered division of labor and its negative impact on working mothers wages examines the effect of society's (and the workplace's) traditional notions of gender where mothers and fathers were believed to be experts in separate "spheres." This is an extension of gender roles expected of men and women (and boys and girls) in general. A mother's sphere of expertise was believed to be within a family's private life, such as with childcare and the management of the home. A father's sphere of expertise was within public life, such as the workforce or politics. This belief in separate spheres starts with how children are socialized to fit into these roles and how their parents reinforce them. In 2007, a study from the University of Michigan's Institute of Social Research asked children to keep track of their time using time diaries and found that school-age girls do two more hours of chores at home per week than boys their own age, and boys spend even less time doing chores when they have a sister in the home. Yet, although school-age girls are doing more chores inside the home, they are actually being paid less allowance, on average, than boys for said chores, according to the same study. Thus, the gender wage gap starts early and continues, albeit in more complicated ways, in the sphere of paid work. Approaching the issue of the wage gap for working mothers from the division of labor perspective largely focuses on the work decisions of mothers and fathers when dealing with childcare.
Some researchers who focus on the gendered division of labor perspective have found that a portion of the motherhood penalty is explained by the actual loss of employment time resulting from pregnancy, childbirth, and childcare later in the home (Cohen and Bianchi, 1999). As a result, working mothers, especially hourly workers who may not be eligible for paid maternity leave, lose wages because they are not actually working for some length of time because of things like labor and recovery. Only 13 percent of full-time employees are eligible for paid leave and these employees are more likely to be highly educated, higher-earning males (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). Over time, this loss of wages impacts lifetime earnings for mothers. Although it affects low-wage earners more significantly, research suggests that even high wage-earning mothers experience a loss in opportunities and seniority because of missed work (Budig and England, 2001; Budig and Hodges, 2010). It seems easy to say, "You miss work, therefore you miss opportunities. Unfortunately, the reality is far more unfair when we consider that historically women have been considered the go-to parent for child- care. According to researchers at the Kaiser family Foundation (Ranji and Salganicoff, 2014), only 3 percent of fathers report being the parent who usually leaves work to take care of a sick child.
Other division-of-labor research focuses on the types of jobs working mothers take to maintain their primary caretaker status. For example, Budig and England (2001) found that working mothers may choose more flexible occupations or leave full-time work altogether, opting for part-time work, so their time away from home is minimized or is adaptable to the needs of the family. Unfortunately, most part-time or flexible jobs are more unstable, offer fewer work-related benefits (like retirement or health insurance), and pay less per hour than full-time jobs. As a result, working mothers in these types of jobs will have lower earnings over time as well. Some might argue this is a choice mothers make, but with skyrocketing childcare costs it might not be much of a choice. In most of the United States, monthly childcare for two children can be more expensive than a mortgage or rent (Child Care Aware, 2013). If a mother is the lower wage earner in a married household (often making less than the cost of childcare per month), many will choose to maximize the higher wage earner's income and opt out of working altogether. Of course, having a "choice” to take a part-time job or leave work altogether means there is most likely another paycheck coming into the house- hold. For the nearly 29 percent of mothers in the full-time workforce who are also single, there is no choice, and reduced paychecks resulting from labor, delivery, parenting, and childcare are a stinging fact of life.

Discrimination in the Workplace

Research into the role of the gendered division of labor explains some portion of the motherhood penalty, especially as it relates to some of the decisions mothers and fathers make when it comes to having and taking care of their children. However, it doesn't account for the reality that women also experience outright discrimination for simply being mothers. One study suggests working mothers might face significant discrimination even in the job application process. Correll et al., 2007 conducted an experimental study and asked participants to evaluate two potential applicants who were equally qualified in education and experience for a mid-level marketing position. The only difference between the applicants was the inclusion of outside activities that might be relevant. The fictitious mother was listed as being a “Parent-Teacher Association Coordinator," whereas the other applicant was listed as being involved in “fundraising” for her neighborhood association. In this particular study, the mother was significantly less likely to be recommended for the position. In addition, if recommended for the position, the suggested starting salary for the mothers was $11,000 less than the starting salary for the applicants without children. In a similar follow-up study with actual employers, Correll et al. (2007) found employers, when presented with a fictional pair of equally qualified candidates, never chose to contact the mother for an interview over the applicant without children. Although directly asking about marital status in an interview is potentially illegal, employers can get around this by asking questions like "Can you travel?" or “Do you have other responsibilities that might prevent you from working overtime, if needed?”
Why would employers devalue working mothers? Since mothers are assumed to be experts in the family's private sphere, it is most likely presumed they will either be bad workers (because they will always be families) or they will be bad mothers (by not prioritizing their families). Thus, employers may be assuming that a working mother is going to fail somewhere and it will most likely be her in given traditional gender expectations.
In addition, mothers who prioritize their family often lose a portion of their w cause of a lack of family-friendly work policies. As mentioned previously, the Kaiser Family Foundation (2013) found that only 3 percent of working fathers are usually the parent who takes off work when a child is sick, compared to 39 percent of working mothers. When mothers do not have backup childcare options and/or when mothers are paid by the hour, this can have significant economic ramifications. According to data cited by Ranji and Salganicoff (2013), as many as one-fifth of school-age children miss a week or more of school during the school year for which mothers might be required to miss work. These most likely unpaid, missed days of work directly translate to lower paychecks.
Unfortunately, even working mothers who prioritize their careers over family cannot escape discrimination. Benard and Correll (2010) found that on the job, women with children face additional discrimination through lower performance evaluations and are viewed as less likeable or selfish compared to other workers. In terms of career advancement, these qualities impacted mothers negatively because they were less likely to be offered promotions. This type of discrimination is not based on job performance, but on the woman's violation of gender expectations, much like the violations of separate spheres discussed previously. The expectation is that mothers should prioritize family over work. Thus, even when a mother is seen as a competent and committed employee, she is still penalized for violating the gendered division of labor that necessitates putting family first.

What about Fathers?

It might be easy to assume this is merely a parenthood penalty and perhaps fathers, too, experience similar discrimination in the workplace. In April 2014, Daniel Murphy, second baseman for the New York Mets, was eviscerated by talk radio hosts for missing two games to be with his wife during and after the birth of their first child. Although this instance probably did not result in lost wages for Mr. Murphy, some research does suggest fathers who violate gender norms by taking employer-approved paternity leave experience negative evaluations. In an experimental study, Allen and Russell (1999) found that men who took employer-approved paternity leave were less likely to be considered for promotions than men who did not take paternity leave. Later, Wayne and Cordeiro (2003) asked undergraduate students to read a fictitious personnel file and rate the employees on compliance to work expectations. They found that fathers who took leave were rated lower in competence than mothers who took leave, especially by male students in the study.
Although these two studies suggest fathers might experience a fatherhood penalty, the bulk of research (and more recent research) on parental wage penalties suggests that most fathers actually experience “fatherhood benefits” in terms of positive evaluations and higher salaries. Correll et al. (2007) found that unlike mothers, who are seen as less committed employees than women without children, fathers were actually perceived as more committed than men without children. As a result, fathers were recommended for higher starting salaries than the men without children. Using data collected from 1979 to 2014, Budig (2014) found that women's earnings decreased 4 percent for each child and men's earnings increased by more than 6 percent for each child. The gap was consistent when controlling for education, income earned by a spouse, and number of hours worked. Some evidence suggests that even in academia, a seemingly egalitarian and progressive landscape, a father is far more likely to achieve the status of full professor than a mother with similar experience, work output, marital status, and background (Garmendia, 2011). One notable exception is sociology departments, where women with children are just as likely to have "ideal” careers (defined as being in a tenured position with high scholarly productivity) as the fathers and men without children (Spalter-Roth and Van Vooren, 2012). However, fathers, for the most part, have an advantage that mothers do not. The expectation of fathers to be the breadwinner is confirmed and rewarded in the workplace, whereas the expectation of mothers to be the primary caretaker is confirmed and penalized.

Future of the Motherhood Penalty

August 2014, Ipshita Pal and Jane Waldfogel leased a paper for Columbia University that suggests the motherhood penalty has remained consistent since at least 1977. Despite the significant gains working mothers have made in labor force participation in the past thirty-seven years, they continue to experience the most significant penalty for being in the labor force- more than three decades of persistent wage penalties for mothers compared to child-free women, child-free men, and fathers.
Not all the news is bad. Some recent research suggests attitudes are changing toward gender expectations of mothers (and fathers) in the workforce and other research suggests discrimination toward mothers in the workforce might become less prevalent in the future. In 2011, Coleman and Franuik found that undergraduates rated parents (both mothers and fathers) who took some form of parental leave more favorably in competence and overall impression than parents who stayed at home permanently or parents who took no leave. Although this study focused on attitudes toward parents and not just mothers or fathers, the results are in direct contrast to the previously mentioned findings of Wayne and Cordeiro from 2003. Although this may be a cohort effect, given that younger generations are more likely to hold more gender egalitarian attitudes, it is a sign of potential progress. This generation's attitudes have empirical support. A study from
that working mothers (and fathers) with two or more children are actually slightly more productive than their peers with fewer or no children (Krapf et al., 2014). The authors speculate this may be because parents use their time more efficiently than their childless coworkers. Although this may not translate into less discrimination for working mothers at the moment, there may come a time when working mothers are seen as less of ability simply because they are mothers.
Changing perceptions of gender roles in the workforce combined with decreasing discrimination toward working mothers may be the key to weakening (or even ending) the moment penalty. The evidence for this argument way ready be seen in countries like Sweden, with its public policy push toward more eguna views and family-friendly policies. Swedes, seems, have realized that mothers leaving the workforce (or even switching to part-time work) has not been beneficial to the country as a whole. In fact, Swedish fathers are encouraged to take some portion of parental leave and parents, combined, can take up to sixteen months of paid leave. Yes, paid leave, earning 90 percent of their wages! Additionally, tax breaks are in place to help with the cost of childcare for all working parents, regardless of marital status (SCB, 2012). Perhaps the recent Swedish baby boom is a testament to how well these policies are working for the Swedes! Research in the United States suggests these policies are actually beneficial to the economy and the businesses that choose to offer paid leave. California, for example, saved employers more than $85 million a year by implementing paid leave programs. Employees took the paid leave and ultimately returned to work. This saved their employers from the time consuming and costly hiring and training process involved with finding replacements (Appelbaum and Milkman, 2011).
The evidence reported here suggests maintaining the status quo in the United States will continue to perpetuate the motherhood penalty as it has for approximately four decades. Changing gender attitudes alone are not enough, especially given that gender attitudes have already changed during those same Changing gender attitudes coupled with workplace policies that truly give all place policies that truly give all parents an alternative to opting out of work or settling for lower-wage jobs might be a good place to start. In February 2015, the Council of Economic Advisers at the Federal Reserve Bank reported that although women's labor force participation in the United States had been on track with that of women in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Japan for decades, it was now falling behind (Federal Reserve Bank, 2015). What is different about these other countries? They recognize the benefit of working mothers and have made it easier for them to continue working by offering workplace benefits like childcare and paid leave. In the United States, until we significantly change the way we see mothers and acknowledge the value (and growing necessity) of their careers, the motherhood penalty will most likely persist. President Barack Obama called for such action in his January 2015 State of the Union Address by stressing the necessity of women working in our economy today and arguing that programs like affordable childcare are not only a woman's issue, but also a “national economic priority for us all.