My husband and I recently engaged in some long-term financial planning, and as I looked back at my own 30-year career in the nonprofit and Jewish communal sector while raising two children — one with disabilities — I realized how much my own wages have been impacted by the time and care I’ve devoted to family over my career.
When our son was diagnosed at 13 months with developmental delays, it quickly became clear that one of us would need to be available for all of his medical and therapy appointments, meeting case managers, and obtaining and keeping government benefits. Although I never stopped working entirely and always wanted to put my two master’s degrees to good use, I switched from full-time to part-time employment in 1995. At the time of our son’s diagnosis, I was already earning less than my husband, an engineer, so my initial change to working part-time was the clear and logical choice, but, as a result, my income has never held its own in our family.
My situation also compounds a larger issue that plagues working mothers to this day. Back in 2001, two female sociologists, Michelle Budig and Paula England, first used the term “Wage Penalty for Motherhood” to describe why working mothers were earning less than other women. Initially, they had four assumptions: 1) Taking maternity leaves or longer periods of time off after having a child resulted in a loss of job experience and seniority. 2) Working mothers typically were the parent dealing most with childcare issues, making them less productive at work. 3) Working moms tended to trade off higher-paying jobs for more family-friendly employers. 4) There was some level of discrimination against them by employers.
Using data from the 1982-1993 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, the two researchers compared the salaries of mothers who worked to childless women. They found an average “wage penalty for motherhood” of 7 percent per child among young American women. And, yes, this meant that a working mother with two children typically earned 14 percent less in wages compared to working women with no children. This continues to be a worldwide problem, with similar gaps found in many developed countries, including Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Poland and Australia.
What is the basis for this gap, which continues to this day? The researchers attributed one-third of the “mommy penalty” to reduced work experience, less time to get a college/graduate degree/professional development, dropping from full-time to part-time work and maternity employment breaks. But the primary reason for decreased wages is more complicated, and is likely a combination of reduced productivity at work (yes, I can attest that calling a zillion government agencies to be sure my son gets the services he is eligible for does take time!) and also some employer discrimination.
Often without acknowledging any bias, many employers tend to view working mothers as less valuable than other workers. For example, a 2013 study in which participants were given two sets of resumes, with one set including activities that would point to being a parent, the resumes that suggested the woman was a mother generally got a lower competency and commitment rating, as well as a lower recommended salary, than the one for a woman who was not a mother. The resumes that implied a man who was a father, on the other hand, commanded a higher salary than the childless man.
This extra money earned by male-parent workers has been termed the “daddy bonus.” A 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics study found that “women with children under 18 earn less than women without minor children, while men with kids under 18 earn more than men without younger kids. “
Anne-Marie Slaughter’s widely discussed 2012 Atlantic magazine article about this topic, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” provided ample fodder for the cable TV pundits, and due to its huge media buzz, prompted a wider conversation about gender imbalance when it comes to life/work balance. Slaughter’s new book, “Unfinished Business: Women, Men, Work, Family,” published in September, attempts to redefine what it means to be “successful” in America today. She argues that caring for our loved ones should be more widely valued, and our workplaces, marriages and federal policies need to reflect that.
It is past time for outdated workplace practices, reinforced by public policy, to change. About one in four American households with children now have one or more children with some form of special needs at some point. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that today, one in 68 children is believed to have an autism spectrum disorder, compared to 1 in 150 in 2000. The number of kids diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes (formerly known as juvenile diabetes) has also increased, from 24 per 100,000 to 27 per 100,000 between 2002 and 2009. Other special needs can include specific health diseases such as pediatric cancer; a variety of learning disabilities as well as physical, mental or intellectual disabilities; or even some combination of the above. Because most working mothers still earn less than working fathers, it is almost always the mother who assumes the role of primary caregiver, while dads of special needs kids tend to double down at work, trying to earn even more money to cover added costs of care for the child as well as the financial loss incurred by the mother dropping down to part-time work or stopping work altogether.
There’s much that can be changed to help the millions of American families impacted by the “mommy penalty.” For starters, employers might offer more flexibility in the hours needed to be in the office, especially for those white-collar jobs that can easily be done remotely from home, or even on the go, using smartphones or tablets. Government subsidies can help working families access affordable, quality child care, located at or near their workplace, with staff who have been trained in handling some of these health issues. In return for a supportive work environment, mothers can and likely will go the extra mile to get their work done, even if it means taking conference calls in a corner of the physical therapy gym while being slowly sucked down to the bottom of a colorful ball pit (been there, done that).
Most of all, there needs to be a change in attitude among employers. They need to value working mothers as employees who bring to the workplace the same positive characteristics that make them good mothers, including creativity, resilience and a sense of humor. After all, if mothers can earn more, get promotions, and are granted the time and flexibility to meet their children’s needs, the whole family, and by extension, our larger society, will reap many benefits.
Michelle K. Wolf writes the Jews and Special Needs blog for the Jewish Journal. Find it at jewishjournal.com.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.