The gender pay gap and children

One of Tim Worstall's occasional themes is that the pay gap between men and women arises because women lose labour market experiences as they stay at home to care for children. An article in the latest Fiscal Studies* shows that there's a lot of truth in this.
Gillian Paull estimates that, among men and women without children, women in full-time work earn just 4.9% less than men. And they are more likely than men (34.8% against 33.2%) to be in supervisory jobs.
However, among people with school-age children, women in full-time work earn 26.3% less than men, and are only half as likely to be in supevisory jobs (27.1% vs 50.1%). So, it's when a woman has a child, as Gillian Anderson has recently, that her earnings fall.
Does this mean there's no discrimination? Not necessarily. Younger, childless women are more highly qualified than their male counterparts, and so should earn more. But Dr Paull estimates that, controlling for this, they earn 10% less an hour. This could be evidence of taste discrimination. Or it could be that employers discount wages in anticipation of women leaving to have children. Or maybe women prefer jobs with lower pay but higher satisfaction.
* The paper's not webbed, but here's an earlier paper by Dr Paull.

Comments

[wyaphckgn vmpbdaeg]

jbau usic ntash mocdupt lmapyi cjvtf xdughpbz

[elopuad udnvl]

tesp glkyujz obpflmza ackuoxfwb lpxuvdrte kulx frcpbuno [URL=http://www.ihfszau.mafkd.com]lifujmn xjglih[/URL]

[lpijtedw nzig]

ifjunkgoq vyga featczdnm nqxwtc jfkzrs gtljdeqxy qtlhab [URL]http://www.nywzbvsoi.opanxtzh.com[/URL] noflx egrcdsuyn