Employers reward fatherhood by paying higher wages to men with children. But if fathers take time away from work for their children, whether for childbirth or pediatrician appointments, employers penalize them.

dungone · 2014-11-14T02:56:58+00:00

So perhaps Claire Cain Miller (who you may know from such articles as "Technology's Man Problem") should reconsider her claim that employers are "rewarding fatherhood", which makes it sound like they're giving fathers a pat on the back and a cigar because patriarchs have to stick together. Clearly employers are not rewarding fatherhood as such. It's a combination of fathers getting a reality check about the difference between a congenial lifestyle job and a job that keeps his children fed, and employers knowing from experience that fathers are more likely to keep their noses to the grindstone.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/if-it-was-a-snake-it-would-have-bitten-them/

CNN Money has a new article up claiming that men with children magically earn more than childless men ... The sad thing is very few can spot the problem with this logic. Men who have families to support have larger expenses than single, childless men. This means they have to work harder to earn more money. They all but tripped over this fact while rushing to their false conclusion...

Even to the extent that managers prefer fathers over childless men, the reason is that they know the father is much more motivated.

Everyone understands this when talking to a young man who wants to someday have a family. Everyone knows the young man had better work hard if he wants to be able to support a family. But once the family man has done what he needs to do, this is suddenly proof not of sacrifice by men, but of unfairness to women. Even most conservatives can’t spot the flawed thinking.

eletheros · 2014-11-14T03:22:42+00:00

If you take their claim that "fathers are judged to be more committed to their jobs" as fact then turning around and penalizing for taking time off is not contradictory.

The original pay raise was stereotypical in nature. A man then proving he doesn't fall under the stereotype, so the reason for the raise disappears.

I'm against pay raises for externialities like having children and would certainly object to them becoming required by law. However, I object to the "required by law" most of all and would also be against them being banned.

dangerousopinions · 2014-11-14T08:24:00+00:00

I don't agree with this at all. Even if they weren't penalizing them, it's discriminatory to childless people. Childless people are already discriminated against in the workplace in a number of ways, and I can live with most of it because there is a price to pay for having a family as well, but this is not okay.

loddfavne · 2014-11-14T10:32:03+00:00

Men who become fathers has reasons for working less, that's why the employers have to pay them more so they won't spend too much time on the family. In business, a reward is the same thing as an incentive to work more.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2014-11-14T14:49:41+00:00

So they're paid more for working more.

jasongadgetguy · 2014-11-14T19:23:40+00:00

Special privledges of pay or any other a discriminatory if not based on ability at the job.

Comments