, Volume 55, Issue 5, pp 1663–1680 | Cite as

Trends in the Motherhood Wage Penalty and Fatherhood Wage Premium for Low, Middle, and High Earners

  • Rebecca GlauberEmail author


Many studies have shown that women pay a wage penalty for motherhood, whereas men earn a wage premium for fatherhood. A few recent studies have used quantile regression to explore differences in the penalties across the wage distribution. The current study builds on this research and explores trends in the parenthood penalties and premiums from 1980 to 2014 for those at the bottom, middle, and top of the wage distribution. Analyses of data from the Current Population Survey show that the motherhood wage penalty decreased, whereas the fatherhood wage premium increased. Unconditional quantile regression models reveal that low-, middle-, and high-earning women paid similar motherhood wage penalties in the 1980s. The motherhood wage penalty began to decrease in the 1990s, but more so for high-earning women than for low-earning women. By the early 2010s, the motherhood wage penalty for high-earning women was eliminated, whereas low-earning women continued to pay a penalty. The fatherhood wage premium began to increase in the late 1990s, although again, more so for high-earning men than for low-earning men. By the early 2010s, high-earning men received a much larger fatherhood wage premium than low- or middle-earning men.


Earnings Family Fatherhood Motherhood Wages 



I am grateful to several anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. A version of this article was presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the Population Association of America, San Diego, CA.

Supplementary material

13524_2018_712_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (299 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 299 kb)


  1. Aisenbrey, S., Evertsson, M., & Grunow, D. (2009). Is there a career penalty for mothers’ time out? A comparison of Germany, Sweden and the United States. Social Forces, 88, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, D. J., Binder, M., & Krause, K. (2002). The motherhood wage penalty: Which mothers pay it and why? American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 92, 354–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, D. J., Binder, M., & Krause, K. (2003). The motherhood wage penalty revisited: Experience, heterogeneity, work effort, and work-schedule flexibility. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56, 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., & Kearney, M. S. (2008). Trends in U.S. wage inequality: Revisioning the revisionists. Review of Economics and Statistics, 90, 300–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Avellar, S., & Smock, P. J. (2003). Has the price of motherhood declined over time? A cross-cohort comparison of the motherhood wage penalty. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 597–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azmat, G., & Ferrer, R. (2017). Gender gaps in performance: Evidence from young lawyers. Journal of Political Economy, 125, 1306–1355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey, M. J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2016). Five decades of remarkable but slowing change in U.S. women’s economic and social status and political participation. Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(4), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benard, S., & Correll, S. J. (2010). Normative discrimination and the motherhood wage penalty. Gender & Society, 24, 616–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blau, F. D. (1998). Trends in the well-being of American women, 1970–1995. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 112–165.Google Scholar
  10. Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2016). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations (NBER Working Paper No. 21913). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  11. Boushey, H. (2008). “Opting out?” The effect of children on women's employment in the United States. Feminist Economics, 14(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buchmann, C., & McDaniel, A. (2016). Motherhood and the wages of women in professional occupations. Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(4), 128–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66, 204–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Budig, M. J., & Hodges, M. J. (2010). Differences in disadvantage: Variation in the motherhood wage penalty across white women’s earnings distribution. American Sociological Review, 75, 705–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Budig, M. J., & Hodges, M. J. (2014). Statistical models and empirical evidence for differences in the motherhood penalty across the earnings distribution. American Sociological Review, 79, 358–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Budig, M. J., Misra, J., & Boeckmann, I. (2012). The motherhood penalty in cross-national perspective: The importance of work–family policies and cultural attitudes. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 19, 163–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Card, D., & DiNardo, J. E. (2002). Skill-biased technological change and rising wage inequality: Some problems and puzzles. Journal of Labor Economics, 20, 733–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coltrane, S. (2004). Elite careers and family commitment: It’s (still) about gender. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596, 214–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooke, L. P. (2014). Gendered parenthood penalties and premiums across the earnings distribution in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. European Sociological Review, 30, 360–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. England, P., Bearak, J., Budig, M. J., & Hodges, M. J. (2016). Do highly paid, highly skilled women experience the largest motherhood penalty? American Sociological Review, 81, 1161–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Firpo, S., Fortin, N. M., & Lemieux, T. (2009). Unconditional quantile regressions. Econometrica, 77, 953–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gangl, M., & Ziefle, A. (2009). Motherhood, labor force behavior, and women’s careers: An empirical assessment of the wage penalty for motherhood in Britain, Germany, and the United States. Demography, 46, 341–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glauber, R. (2008). Race and gender in families and at work: The fatherhood wage premium. Gender & Society, 22, 8–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldin, C. (2014). A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American Economic Review, 104, 1091–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics: Public policy, political organization, and the precipitous rise of top incomes in the United States. Politics and Society, 38, 152–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hodges, M. J., & Budig, M. J. (2010). Who gets the daddy bonus? Organizational hegemonic masculinity and the impact of fatherhood on earnings. Gender & Society, 24, 717–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2009). CEM: Software for coarsened exact matching. Journal of Statistical Software, 30. Retrieved from
  32. Kalleberg, A. L. (2011). Good jobs, bad jobs: The rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s–2000s. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  33. Kalleberg, A. L. (2012). Job quality and precarious work: Controversies, clarifications, and challenges. Work and Occupations, 39, 427–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Killewald, A. (2013). A reconsideration of the fatherhood premium: Marriage, coresidence, biology, and fathers’ wages. American Sociological Review, 78, 96–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Killewald, A., & Bearak, J. (2014). Is the motherhood penalty larger for low-wage women? A comment on quantile regression. American Sociological Review, 79, 350–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Killewald, A., & García-Manglano, J. (2016). Tethered lives: A couple-based perspective on the consequences of parenthood for time use, occupation, and wages. Social Science Research, 60, 266–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Killewald, A., & Gough, M. (2013). Does specialization explain marriage penalties and premiums? American Sociological Review, 78, 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. King, G., Nielsen, R., Coberley, C., Pope, J. E., & Wells, A. (2011). Comparative effectiveness of matching methods for causal inference. Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  39. King, M., Ruggles, S., Alexander, J. T., Flood, S., Genadek, K., Schroeder, M. B., . . . Vick, R. (2010). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 3.0. [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  40. Kmec, J. (2011). Are motherhood penalties and fatherhood bonuses warranted? Comparing pro-work behaviors and conditions of mothers, fathers, and non-parents. Social Science Research, 40, 444–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Korenman, S., & Neumark, D. (1992). Marriage, motherhood, and wages. Journal of Human Resources, 27, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lemieux, T. (2006). Increasing residual wage inequality: Composition effects, noisy data, or rising demand for skill? American Economic Review, 96, 461–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lemieux, T. (2008). The changing nature of wage inequality. Journal of Population Economics, 21, 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCall, L., & Percheski, C. (2010). Income inequality: New trends and research directions. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mouw, T., & Kalleberg, A. L. (2010). Occupations and the structure of wage inequality in the United States, 1980s to 2000s. American Sociological Review, 75, 402–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pal, I., & Waldfogel, J. (2016). The family gap in pay: New evidence for 1967 to 2013. Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(4), 104–127.Google Scholar
  47. Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2003). Income inequality in the United States, 1913–1998. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sanchez, L., & Thomson, E. (1997). Becoming mothers and fathers: Parenthood, gender, and the division of labor. Gender & Society, 11, 747–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Staff, J., & Mortimer, J. T. (2012). Explaining the motherhood wage penalty during the early occupational career. Demography, 49, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2016). Working mothers issue brief (Women’s Bureau issue brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.Google Scholar
  51. Waldfogel, J. (1997). The effect of children on women’s wages. American Sociological Review, 62, 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weeden, K. A., Cha, Y., & Bucca, M. (2016). Long work hours, part-time work, and trends in the gender gap in pay, the motherhood wage penalty, and the fatherhood wage premium. Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(4), 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Western, B., & Rosenfeld, J. (2011). Unions, norms, and the rise in U.S. wage inequality. American Sociological Review, 76, 513–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yu, W., & Kuo, J. C. (2017). The motherhood wage penalty by work conditions: How do occupational characteristics hinder or empower mothers? American Sociological Review, 82, 744–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations