One obvious reason is that Millennial women (especially professionals) have not had babies yet.
The effect of taking time of work for children is not immediate, it creates a pay gap for the rest of somebody's career.
If we imagine somebody's pay over their career as an upward sloping line eg.
year 1 40k
year 2 42k
year 3 44k
etc...
When a woman takes 6-24 months of work to have a kid or two then that pauses their pay increases for that time and they are 1-4k worse off than somebody who didn't take time off at all when they get back. Add to that that women do more of the school runs and other caring when they DO return to work...
Yea, that's the major factor. Staying home to take care of babies not only holds up your pay scale, but takes you off the track for more competitive positions very quickly. Women find it very difficult to jump back in on their previous career trajectory when they do return. It's to be avoided at all costs if you're an ambitious women.
Ideally, people having kids wouldn't cause the wage gap to grow. But the push for women to downshift is really brutal, and most of it comes from other women (mother in laws and sanctimommies).
Wage gap, not total pay gap. The article is talking about what women make per hour versus men. This means that a woman starting off in her 20s, without a child, would (on average) earn 93 cents for every dollar a man makes.
Remember this next time you hear the "77 cents to the dollar" lament by young feminists in college with a degree in "women's studies". They are not likely to be disadvantaged, just more likely than men to want to have babies and/or a more flexible job when they turn 30+.
Also, interestingly enough, white women have been typically been better off than black or Hispanic men as regards wage gap with respect to white men (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html) -- something that is often conveniently swept under the carpet by white feminists.
While women's wages have dropped slightly in recent years, men's wages have dropped much more. The OP article is misleading, or uninteresting at best -- both men and women are worse off in terms of wages.
Well, I came to this article half expecting to read that the pay gap had narrowed because both sexes were equally unemployed, and I guess I wasn't too far off.
The employment picture for millennials is supposedly bleak, from what I've heard. If a lot of men in this age bracket are now taking sub-optimal jobs as an alternative to being completely unemployed, that could also explain a narrowing in the gap. There's a lot more wage parity in hourly service-sector jobs.
Other than the note that has already been made about the difference in the age women first have children, I don't think this is a huge surprise to most "millennials." In most circles, as well as in most pop culture, an ideal expectation of equality is the well-accepted default.
Now an expectation of equality and the practice thereof are two very different things, but it seems like we're making progress, and I can only hope we continue to do so.
[+] [-] discodave|12 years ago|reply
The effect of taking time of work for children is not immediate, it creates a pay gap for the rest of somebody's career.
If we imagine somebody's pay over their career as an upward sloping line eg.
year 1 40k
year 2 42k
year 3 44k
etc...
When a woman takes 6-24 months of work to have a kid or two then that pauses their pay increases for that time and they are 1-4k worse off than somebody who didn't take time off at all when they get back. Add to that that women do more of the school runs and other caring when they DO return to work...
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
Ideally, people having kids wouldn't cause the wage gap to grow. But the push for women to downshift is really brutal, and most of it comes from other women (mother in laws and sanctimommies).
[+] [-] nightski|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceol|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelle|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] excelsiores|12 years ago|reply
Also, interestingly enough, white women have been typically been better off than black or Hispanic men as regards wage gap with respect to white men (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882775.html) -- something that is often conveniently swept under the carpet by white feminists.
[+] [-] normloman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NoahTheDuke|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eecsninja|12 years ago|reply
While women's wages have dropped slightly in recent years, men's wages have dropped much more. The OP article is misleading, or uninteresting at best -- both men and women are worse off in terms of wages.
[+] [-] rcthompson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hayksaakian|12 years ago|reply
The question remains: are men uniquely worse off?
[+] [-] ams6110|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calinet6|12 years ago|reply
Now an expectation of equality and the practice thereof are two very different things, but it seems like we're making progress, and I can only hope we continue to do so.
[+] [-] khuey|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vasilipupkin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mikeb85|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsotha|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brokenparser|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mikeb85|12 years ago|reply
"There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends. Commentators use beginning birth years from the early 1980s to the early 2000s"
Millenials are basically those 30 years old and under at the moment.