Motherhood Penalty

21 Responses to Motherhood Penalty

1. C.L. says:

   25 October, 2022 at 11:43 am

   Most mothers don’t want to work longer and harder, thanks.

   I was reminded of that old joke. A heart transplant patient is given the choice between two donors, one a triathlete, the other a much older Treasury official: “I’ll take the Treasury official. I know that heart would not have been used.”

   It takes only three sentences in the recently released Treasury paper entitled Children and the Gender Earnings Gap to use the term “motherhood penalty”. That’s right: Treasury thinks that being a mother is a penalty.

   I hate to let them in on a secret – OK, it’s not a secret – but most mothers do not regard having and caring for children as a penalty. Children provide happiness and joy, meaning and purpose. There are challenges, but ask any mother (or father) whether they regret having their children and I know what the answer will be.

   The trade-offs that must be made to combine motherhood and workforce participation are not unexpected. Many parents – yes, it’s generally a joint decision – opt for arrangements that serve the best interests of their children while meeting family income needs and career aspirations.

   Unsurprisingly, most parents conclude the Soviet model of full-time institutional childcare from an early age is not one that suits their children or them.

   Education Minister Jason Clare recently bemoaned the fact most mothers with a child under the age of six works part time. It didn’t occur to him those mothers prefer the flexibility of part-time work in combination with caring for their children.

   The fact is that the Australian labour market is one of the best in the world in providing part-time jobs, many permanent ones, which contrasts with some other countries. (In the US, it tends to be full time or not at all.)

   So let me go back to that paper by the heartless Treasury officials. Evidently, “women’s earnings are reduced by an average of 55 per cent in the first five years of parenthood”. This is mainly because of lower participation rates and reduced working hours – gosh, that’s a finding – and, to a lesser extent, a reduced hourly wage. We can’t be sure why there is a reduced hourly wage although it can involve a new mother opting for a less responsible job than previously held.

   The Treasury officials have an answer for all this. “Addressing Australia’s persistent motherhood penalty and boosting women’s labour force participation after having children could help support improved productivity growth.” At this point, heartlessness is morphing into economic illiteracy.

   Higher labour force participation is not the same thing as higher productivity growth. If the women who are encouraged to spend less time with their children and more time at work are those in low-paid jobs, the impact on productivity could be perverse. There may be some argument around skill atrophy and the associated loss of productivity but the impact of this is unclear.

   The reality is that highly paid female workers with children, who have undertaken many years of training, are very inclined to remain full time in the workforce at the moment – think here partners of law firms, medical specialists. They are also in a position to fund childcare arrangements that suit them – such as full-time nannies or even a stay-at-home partner.

   The broader point is that the federal government is placing a lot of emphasis on improving women’s lot in the labour market – higher childcare subsidies, longer paid parental leave, reducing the gender pay gap – without paying heed to the extensive research that has been conducted on the issues. Bear in mind that interventions that favour women in general, and women with children in particular, are not costless and are paid for by other taxpayers, including those without children.

   Consider the gender pay gap. The research is clear that the principal reason for women earning less than men, having taken into account qualifications, occupation and work experience, is the reluctance by women to take jobs with long and unpredictable hours, including those that involve travel. Studies from Scandinavia, which has extremely generous arrangements for female workers, underline this point. A gender wage gap persists in these countries.

   Research by Deborah Cobb-Clark of the University of Sydney has demonstrated that Australian women actually do better in terms of wages than men in the lower part of the wage distribution. All the pay gap action is among the higher earners.

   When it comes to extending the government paid parental leave scheme to 26 weeks, as recently mentioned by Anthony Albanese, the effects are unlikely to promote greater labour force participation. Handing over more taxpayer dollars to new parents to stay out of the workforce longer, by definition, reduces workforce participation. As for the impact of government paid parental leave on the gender pay gap, this is quite a mystery, but there is doubtless some political appeal in mentioning the two in the same sentence.

   It is worth noting that there is no intention by the government to remove the clear double-dipping that occurs in relation to paid parental leave. For lucky public servants and some private sector workers (generally the better paid) whose employers provide paid parental leave, they can simply add the government entitlement to these arrangements. But this has nothing to do with economics – it’s just a lottery. The taxpayer could save several hundred million dollars if this loophole were removed.

   And here’s another strange anomaly – the income cut-off point for government-provided paid parental leave is $157,000 for an individual, although there is an expectation this figure will be lifted to $350,000 a couple. However, the new income cut-off point for centre-based childcare fee subsidies to apply from next year will be $530,000 a couple. Go figure.

   The bottom line is that it may well be good politics to go after female voters and to use taxpayer funds for that end. But it is always wise to work on the basis of what women and couples prefer given the many factors at play. In particular, encouraging women to work longer and harder because it’s good for the economy is unlikely to hold much appeal.

   In any case, women’s participation is at a historic high, having risen strongly during the past several years.

   Telling women that motherhood is a penalty will go down like a lead balloon. Treasury officials may be wise to grow a brain as well as a heart.
2. Not Trampis says:

   25 October, 2022 at 12:13 pm

   I wonder if Judith realises that part-time jobs are not high paying jobs but mothers take them because of the working times involved.
   If given the chance they might take higher paying full time jobs. I am struggling to understand why anyone would stay in a low paid -part-time job rather than a better paid full-time job if given the chance.

   mothers could well ignore the child care altogether and continue to do what they are doing now.

   At this stage we do not know
3. Terry says:

   25 October, 2022 at 12:18 pm

   ‘I am struggling to understand…’

   So true.
4. Boambee John says:

   25 October, 2022 at 12:19 pm

   I hope (and trust, given the line pushed) that there are no mothers working for the Treasury. They might feel unwanted and rejected.
5. Boambee John says:

   25 October, 2022 at 12:21 pm

   Non Mentis again proves his lack of reading comprehension. He should have tried harder in pre-school.

   At this stage we do not know

   At every stage Non Mentis does not know.
6. Buccaneer says:

   25 October, 2022 at 12:46 pm

   Job sharing was a concept introduced specifically to enable parents (not only mothers) the choice to continue career and balance parenthood. This has been pushed aside to fulfil the confirmation bias of gender warriors with a view to wresting control rather than actually providing workplace choice and outcomes that work for people who don’t want a rigid outcome.

   No surprises that the hardened gender warriors in the alp and greens are often deliberately barren or absent parents.
7. Nos_Pullum says:

   25 October, 2022 at 1:00 pm

   It’s all a bit sick really.

   How about they cash out all the money put into the childcare industry (incl. bureaucrat back office salaries) and divvy it up between all parents, who can choose whether it is best for their family to put that money towards childcare/early education or helping them afford for a (either) parent to stay at home and raise their children themselves.

   Power to the parents!
8. Lee says:

   25 October, 2022 at 1:11 pm

   Labor seems to have an animus against mothers staying at home to care for the children or only working part time.
9. Boambee John says:

   25 October, 2022 at 1:18 pm

   Lee

   Labor (and the Slime) seem to have an animus against anyone, male or female, who prefers a traditional lifestyle to being culture warriors.
10. Pommy Al says:

    25 October, 2022 at 2:09 pm

    How about they all bugger off and stop going out of their way to make a woman feel guilty about being a mother.
11. twostix says:

    25 October, 2022 at 2:13 pm

    I am struggling to understand why anyone would stay in a low paid -part-time job rather than a better paid full-time job if given the chance.

    Because most people aren’t souless bugmen and actually like their children and don’t want to palm them off to the fake ‘care’ of low skilled lower class girls from the outer suburbs for minimum wage who then do things like this.
12. C.L. says:

    25 October, 2022 at 2:14 pm

    I am struggling to understand why anyone would stay in a low paid -part-time job rather than a better paid full-time job if given the chance.

    Because they want to do their duty as mothers; because they don’t want their babies ‘cared’ for full-time by angry underpaid strangers.

    mothers could well ignore the child care altogether and continue to do what they are doing now.

    At this stage we do not know

    ?
13. C.L. says:

    25 October, 2022 at 2:14 pm

    SNAP.
14. twostix says:

    25 October, 2022 at 2:28 pm

    The entire “national productivity”, “100% workforce participation”, model of the state taking over the raising of babies in order to ‘liberate’ mothers was and is lifted word for word from Bolshevik policy papers.

    It’s a handy coincidence that the “nurseries” as they called them were also used to start the indoctrination of and creation of the New Man.

    children and childhood were ideologically important to those involved in the Bolshevik Revolution. Children had the potential to grow into ideal communists, and communal early childhood education was seen as a good way of getting all members of the rising generation to hold consistent views.
    …
    By 1930, when these images were produced, the government-supported day care (or “crèche”) was doubly politically important, since young mothers were encouraged to work.
    …
    governmental officials considered peasant parents to be uneducated and given to antiquated habits.

    So to now.
15. C.L. says:

    25 October, 2022 at 2:34 pm

    That last link:

    Susie O’Brien in the Herald Sun:

    Toddlers to be taught non-binary gender identities under proposed early learning curriculum.

    Toddlers and preschoolers will learn about non-binary gender identity and become champions of reconciliation and sustainability under a proposed new curriculum for early learning.

    Children should explore “aspects of identity formation that encompass gender identity and gender expression (with a non-binary dichotomy)”, according to a discussion paper produced as part of a review of childcare centres, preschools and outside school hours care.

    The existing approach to early childhood education draws strongly on identity, which includes gender, but does not mention non-binary identities.

    The review’s discussion paper also suggests early learners should have a role in “advancing reconciliation” and that “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges and perspectives” should be prominent.

    “There is an opportunity to recognise the role of Early Childhood Education and Care and Outside School Hours Care in supporting educators and children to understand and advance Reconciliation,” the discussion paper states.

    Children are also encouraged to “recognise the three dimensions of sustainability; environmental, social and economic sustainability”.

    The changes have been proposed as part of the national review of the Early Years Learning and School Aged Care Frameworks started by the federal government in 2020.

    The review, commissioned by Australia’s nine education ministers, will update the curriculum documents which guide educators in childcare, preschools and outside school hours care.

    Curriculum expert and educational consultant Kevin Donnelly has labelled the review’s suggestions as “gobbledygook and jargon”.

    “Why can’t children learn finger-painting and play?” he said.

    “There is a big emphasis on multiple and changing identities and non-binary ideas — we thought children should be children.

    “It’s a checklist approach which is overly bureaucratic. We should just focus on kids enjoying being children.”

    Dr Donnelly, a senior fellow at Australian Catholic University, said it was “imposing a very adult view of quite complex issues” on young children.

    “Children should not be beholden to politically correct ideas,” he said.

    Associate Professor Fay Hadley from the Macquarie School of Education said the purpose of this update was to ensure the learning approaches “continue to reflect contemporary developments in practice and knowledge, while supporting service providers and educators to promote the wellbeing, learning and development of each child”.

    The project commenced in April 2021 and is being delivered over three stages.

    Professor Hadley said the stakeholder feedback identified 20 potential areas for update including strengthening Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives throughout the frameworks and the inclusion of a new sustainability principle.

    The group overseeing the review, which includes Macquarie University, Queensland University of Technology and Edith Cowan University, will recommend their changes to the education ministers later this year.

    A Victorian Department of Education spokesperson said: “We welcome the review of the Approved National Learning Frameworks and look forward to receiving further advice once the final phase of the update is completed.”
16. Boambee John says:

    25 October, 2022 at 2:44 pm

    twostix
    
    It’s a handy coincidence that the “nurseries” as they called them were also used to start the indoctrination of and creation of the New Man.

    And the creation of “Soviet Man” went so well. Gulags, drunkenness, poor productivity, and it finally died with a whimper, not a bang. But it seems that fools like Non Mentis are not yet convinced, and want to try it all again. What is that saying about those who do not learn from history?
17. C.L. says:

    25 October, 2022 at 2:51 pm

    I don’t call it the Goo-ga Archipelago for nothing.
18. Wally Dali says:

    25 October, 2022 at 2:59 pm

    Go figure.
    Figure they want your kids out of the home and in to Early Indoctrination, rich or poor.
19. Lee says:

    25 October, 2022 at 3:03 pm

    Labor gotta recruit future voters while they’re still toddlers.
20. Old Lefty says:

    25 October, 2022 at 3:14 pm

    A minor addition to Sloan’s excellent piece. When she says ‘Bear in mind that interventions that favour women in general, and women with children in particular, are not costless and are paid for by other taxpayers, including those without children,’ she omits to say that the breadwinner in a single-income family is taxed as if he/she were single and with no other demands on his/her income except buying a new set of sequins for the Mardi Gras.

    Nos Pullum has exactly the right approach. Give the money to the parents in recognition of their work in raising the next generation, not to the providers, and let parents make whatever arrangements they wish.
21. Tel says:

    25 October, 2022 at 7:01 pm

    … the breadwinner in a single-income family is taxed as if he/she were single and with no other demands on his/her income except buying a new set of sequins for the Mardi Gras.

    These days I just trust the tax agent and hope they get it right … but I remember something about a bunch of claims you can make for dependent family members of various ages … and perhaps beg for a little bit of your money back.

    It keeps changing to ensure everyone is confused most of the time … so seek advise before ticking random boxes.