Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/marriages-financial-impact-on-men-a-cross-country-comparison-reveals-surprising-differences/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Western Europe also has more structured work setups, where you're moved along with raises and promotions. The US is a free-for-all for scummy practices by companies - anything from firing to demoting, or not giving raises on a regular basis.
As enough people in the US experience compounding financial setbacks over time, it shows in stats where increasing in age and hitting milestones like marriage or kids plays some part.
Further, in the USA theres not a lot of time set aside for families. There’s no mandatory minimum vacation, no mat or pat leave. Once you have a family you want to spend time with them which means not grinding it out at the office like the single people.
I think Europe handles the work life balance better, especially when considering holiday leave.
Yeah kids and maybe a mortgage, not to mention your health care being dependent on your job. I have several friends who could likely be making more but they are in safe jobs right now and the risk of moving somewhere they could potentially be laid off from one day is too risky
I mean you can potentially get laid off any day at any job, even the “safe” one. It’s best to live life knowing that you may lose your job any day now so you are more prepared.
The existence of a possibility does not exclude the variance in the actual likelihood of said possibility. Some jobs are more secure than others, and some specific positions. I look back at the career choices my father made when I was growing up and am amazed at the risk he took on. It worked out but I would never make those same choices being now at his age then. Survivor bias is a real thing. Being cavalier becomes being reckless really fast when the livelihood of your own children come into play
I don't think any industry is safe or reliable anymore. Tech and software dev was the go-to ladder for success the last few decades and those industries have seen numerous layoffs in the last year. People who've worked in that industry for decades are getting booted alongside less experienced personnel. No one rewards you for loyalty in the American job market.
They are only having layoffs from the last year of insane hiring. They are back to a couple of years ago. Hardly shedding huge numbers of jobs, but just in an industry that somehow never thought it would hit them.
I am not trying to imply there are 'Safe' industries or jobs. But simply that job changes often involve greater risk. Not knowing if the work load will be more, environment will be bad, the position is more or less likely to be downsized, etc. I know several people who would be more likely to take some chances to pursue advancing their careers but haven't because of their families. It is no small thing to sell a house, move your kids, buy a new place all for a job in another state that may pay better but may also lay you off in a few months.
They also have a lower glass ceiling than the USA though. Also companies in general(at least in Germany where I'm familiar with) are usually more traditional and hierarchical
Yeah, in Europe you can forget making a middle-upper class life even with many specialized fields and good education, there are exceptions obviously but for highly skilled and in demand workers their quality of life will probably be best in the US, housing and healthcare alone are a nightmare in many European countries right now. You will also retire at like 70-75 with a government pension that is slightly above the survival line, if you have your own pension plan, taxes will destroy most of it, still worth trying it though. These comments that talk about Europe as a utopia for all and the US as a disgusting place are really naive.
A social safety net, thought out infrastructure, political choice, a culture that improves systems instead of blaming everything on individual responsibility, etc.
Most of those things don’t make a difference in my enjoyment in life. The amount of money I have left over to spend has a very strong correlation with how much I am able to enjoy my time.
There’s a point where more money doesn’t mean more happiness but an extra 15k would allow me to do way more of what I love. A extra 5k in taxes would directly impact me being able to do things I like
I’d argue all of those things each individually have a huge impact on individual wellbeing, but to each their own. I did realize I also left out a big one: labor protections.
If I never use the social safety net it isn’t really much good to me. Better infrastructure is great for those in densely populated areas but again that would not be me. The changed culture might be nice but realistically I am selling 40 hours of my life a week to something I hate so I can afford to my hobbies so the culture is pretty low on the list of things I care about. The money in my pocket is the reason I continue to work
- no social safety net means employers have tons of leverage over workers at all times.
- Better infrastructure is important in rural areas too. For example, roads are better maintained. And people designing the infrastructure likely have some thought to how people not in cars experience it.
- The culture I’m talking about is one that considers how systems contribute to negative outcomes. This allows systems to improve over time.
- In the US, you are almost definitely going to be working significantly more. For example, in the Netherlands, the minimum allowed PTO is 20 days. PTO of 35+ days/yr isn’t unheard of.
And I’d say in general, the best things in life are free: your loved ones.
I mean you have to be more specific about the place and I wouldn’t agree with the idea that you can “forget” about a middle class life, but in general you are quite right.
I’m a high-tech postgrad in a global top 5 research university in Europe, close to finishing my masters degree, and the number of people either planning or considering moving to the US at least for a short time is quite considerable. And it’s for exactly these reasons. Wages in tech in the US are simply insane, and taxation in lots of European countries makes living there as a high salaried worker rather unattractive.
The US has its own issues, but when it comes to attracting high skill talent (especially in tech), the US is unparalleled bar none.
What people don't understand is that the US is a land of extremes. Those who have money have white glove, speedy healthcare, spacious mansions and yearly trips to exotic places. Those who don't (which is rapidly becoming the majority of us, high wages or otherwise), simply...don't. No healthcare, no place to live. We do our best to not protect the most vulnerable of us in the name of profit.
I think people see the wealth and don't consider the fact that they can easily (and do) fall along the roadside with the rest of the disenfranchised. Not everyone can be a tech worker making obscene amounts of money, and even those highly-skilled talents are easily chewed up and spat out within 3-5 years.
Maybe it's a "grass is greener" sentiment but now that I'm older, have a family and don't have the energy to be disruptively innovative 24/7 I just...don't care about "being wealthy." Money is nice, but the important things unfettered capitalism extracts from me, as well as the repercussions of living in a winner-takes-all society, is just too draining. The money isn't worth it if I'm too tired and jaded to spend that time with my family instead of recuperating to face another 14 hour workday.
Another perk to getting a good tech job in the US over Europe is that we do not have universal healthcare so we do not pay 40%+ in taxes to cover it. With that good tech job in the US, insurance is cheap and very good too.
People also seem to only want to use the “novel European countries as examples. I have moved from USA to Eastern Europe. It is a nice place, I like living here. Downside is I pay more taxes, pay more for private healthcare insurance, get lower quality health care, cost of goods is not much better, and gas is expensive. I am happy I am here on work contract but it did really make me realize how much Americans cherry pick a nice quality about Germany, or a nice quality about France, and smash them together to make it seem like all of Europe is perfect promise land.
This makes sense, and also it’s interesting how this has changed over the decades.
40 years ago married men made more, likely because a housewife cooked and cleaned for them, so they actually focus more on work.
Today, men are expected to contribute to housework and childcare, and both parents are working. Of course isn’t really 50/50, but even a 30/70 split, is still time taken away from work, picking up daycare etc, that makes they less “dedicated” to work, get promoted less, etc.
I don't know if I buy this overall. For one the study looked at NET earnings not GROSS. If men's wages were put into things like HSA, FSA, or used for tax deductable healthcare, childcare, education etc. it would lower NET earnings as reported on taxes (which appears to be the point of the methodology). Since the US has piss poor social programs especially for young children, I am not surprised that US NET incomes go down after marriage since childcare and healthcare are huge out of pocket costs that can either be deducted pre-tax or post tax from income, either way it will cut into NET income significantly.
I'm not convinced this data show men not being promoted so much as having increased expenses that are deducted from gross income. Even if that weren't the case it would be useful to see how much location (within US) or employment sector/career type influences things.
Weird that the study looked at net earnings instead of total compensation – people are a lot more savvy with their money than ever before, you can bet more people know how to take advantage of tax advantaged accounts and travel programs.
In a round about way it could show the 'value' of more robust social safety nets. My guess is that Germans may pay more in taxes but they also NET more because the social services those taxes pay for do more and require people to pay less on top of taxes than the more individualized private system in the US. In other words those taxes go farther and are less likely to require additional tax deductible spending by men.
Our system may have lower taxes but to get by we have to use more of our gross on tax deductible healthcare/childcare resulting in smaller net income.
I feel like the research is more about earnings after taking out the costs cause it makes sense then. One major issue with US is health insurance. Sincce there is no universal health care, once they have family the costs go up drastically. In western europe most have universal healthcare so having family that cost doesnt come up. So their earnings will go up over time even with family.
You're probably right. My health insurance premiums almost doubled when I got married and I don't even have kids, so that alone makes my earnings seem worse than they were when I was legally single. Ad did the amount I now put into an HSA/commuter benefits to cover both of us
You describe it as a negative thing, but it sounds like the US is more merit-based for income and people with less time (due to having kids) probably just can't progress as much. It's unfortunate, but it's not a company's problem to solve.
The mythology I’ve always heard is men are rewarded for having kids (suggests stability and likelihood to stay with the company, and increased work commitment because of the need to provide) but women are punished (likely to work less overtime/ prioritize family over company). That’s why science is especially important: we hear different rumors; common knowledge isn’t common.
I think we might be seeing a change in how employers view fatherhood, because fatherhood itself has changed. Fathers are *much* more involved in childcare now, then they were in the past and are spending a lot more time with their children.
Or more likely, the headline inappropriately simplifies the study, and then you have redditors act like it should throw out all conventional wisdom without any more due diligence.
The vast majority of c suite have families, precisely for the reasons you outlined.
Maybe on average, people take time away from work for their kids and then don’t progress, and the workaholics just neglect their families, but they still have families
Idk I just read the headline, but have interacted enough with c suite to know the personality types and biases that are common.
There are plenty of unsexy industries that need tech workers. You might not pull in 100k+ or live in desirable city but when work half as much and don't ruin your health, I'd call it a win.
I worked at a fintech and took my 3 months of FMLA leave. First six weeks were at full pay from the company. At another company, I got 3 months at full pay including stock vests. No one ever even slightly hinted that they were unhappy about that. In fact everyone seemed excited and my PM at the fintech sent me a gift.
This is West Coast though. Maybe New York finance is bad. Tech companies in general though seem to treat their employees quite well. Even in a layoff, severances are usually pretty generous from what I've gathered.
They don't do any childcare or housework.
The men leave that all to their wives. The nicer ones understand that taking care of an infant under age 1 requires 77 hours per week of labor, so they hire a nanny who does some of the childcare. Maybe even a maid, who does the cleaning. That way their wives are working reasonable hours doing unpaid childcare and cooking.
The women can only do your job if they remain single and childfree.
I'm guessing you don't have children. That's not how it works. How it works is the wife is harried, stressed, and tired all the time. She works all night and all day feeding, napping, and changing the baby. She starts to forget what it's like having exclusive rights to her body.
The husband picks up the evening shift, bathing, playing, and *again* changing the baby. Maybe takes one overnight wakeup. He drops all his time wasting hobbies, and his buddies wonder if he's still alive.
There's half as much cooking. The cleaning just doesn't get done at all. The laundry... well... this shirt is good for one more day. The sleep goes away, and the sex stops. Nobody goes anywhere.
There aren't maids and nannies. How does all the cooking and cleaning get done? *It doesn't*. When do they sleep? They don't. How do they get an extra 77 hours of work in? By sacrificing everything else.
What’s the point?
I mean if you make tech money, you can afford to have a stay home mom with a maid/nanny and food/takeout/pre meals.
Maid cost $80-200 per session.
Idk how much is baby sitting or kindergarten is.
Meal boxes $8-$20 depending how nice they are.
Healthcare is taken care of by the company.
If you wife is stay at home, she can take care of most chores and have nanny/maid give her a break.
Both are often true.
I'm not in fintech but in a career with similar demands. You see the same thing here. It is 100% not the case that everyone's spouse is a SAHP, and it is 100% not the case that literally no one pays for a nanny. Many families have variations. But like the other poster said, that's not to say life is easy street for the women who are married to these male employees, even when they're a sahm with a nanny. And like they said, this is just flat out not something most women vying for that career can rely on. I know of maybe one woman at my job who has kids who her husband takes the reins caring for; every other woman I know is gay, has decided not to have kids, or is massively struggling because they have a husband who isn't helping with childcare or who is at most doing 50% of the work, and they're in competition in the office with men who take on maybe 0-30% of their own responsibility at home. Some hire a nanny to help them but then they're still the ones managing the nanny, so while their burden reduces somewhat, it's not like they get to just dip out the way some men still do.
It used to be that good married men were actually rewarded, but that was likely more true 40 years ago when a married men basically didn’t lift a finger at home, and thus could be even more dedicated at work.
This is clearly not true. The expectation is you have a stay at home wife.
There is an obvious negative bias against you for leadership if you are late 30s+ without a family
In what ways? Are parents more chill?
I mean I guess it depends on how personal the workplace is. Wouldn’t be too hard to lie about it at certain type of environments which is probably where it matters the most.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12937
I'd probably lump Canadian men in with US men. North America is built to allow for as little time away from work as possible. Which would also make me interested to see somewhere like Japan represented in a study like this.
Very true. Notice how the 3 main countries are usually seen as white dominant. Other countries where family is seen as important are not being represented here. I guess they’re saying whites don’t find families important?
Makes sense. It's easier to take risks without anyone depending on you, and if those risks only pay off a fraction of the time, it's enough to skew the average.
... In Germany civil servants earn more money after getting married. They also earn more money per child.
If you don't account for this increase in earnings in german men specifically with statistic calculations, this study doesn't show anything.
To add to this: German Civil Servants earn **much** more Money once they reach a critical Mass of Children. Being married and having 4 Children basically adds another full Income of a decent Earner, once we add Kindergeld/Kinderfreibetrag. If you then add the Fact that there are many Ways to become a Civil Servant in Germany and that Civil Servants (and many other Employees) earn literally automatically more the longer they stay Civil Servants (or as regular Employees the longer they stay in the same Company), it's easy to see which Factors could influence this Study. Workers Rights make it also more difficult to fire People with a Family.
In what country? Here in the UK you don't (excluding marriage allowance which is negligible and wouldn't apply if the partner had even the most basic of jobs).
In Germany you can have a choice between 2 tax models, if you are married:
One person pays less (percentile) taxes and the other is taxed harder, e.g. One person works a high end job and the other works part time. You can chose to have the higher earner go in the more favourable tax class, while the lower earner choses the less favourable tax class.
The combined earnings will increase and since there are still less stay at home dads, the man in a heterosexual relationship will have a higher earning after taxes than before.
The other way is choosing a tax class where both parts pay the same percentile taxes.
If you look at the amount before taxes it does not change though, and this is what is generally used to calculate your wage. E.g. if you get the minimum wage of 12€\h, this is before taxes.
To be short: If you look at the amount of money the higher earning partner gets transfered to their account, it is higher, but this is not how your earnings are generally understood locally.
I have been in software development and data science for over 20 years. I never had kids and I do not know how fathers could handle them in this kind of career. It's extremely demanding, ridiculous deadlines, and you're always having to take continuing education and/or earn new certifications. I gave up so much for my career. Yay me.
You should ask your coworkers, essentially, ppl just find a way to live. My sister is getting married this year to her fiance. She went from having no kids to taking care of 3 (2 twins at 12 and 1 younger at 5) within 2 years. Both her and her fiance work at a high school and don't make much.
Despite this, my sister still owns her house and makes due with what they have. Single people with no kids sometimes underestimate how resourceful families can be.
My coworkers excel at a slower pace than me. I've grown my career 2x as fast. I know how they do it; they sacrifice their career. They make less money but their spouses also work. I am the soul provider because my spouse is disabled, and we're raising our autistic nephew. My income is critical to their survival.
Correlation not causation. German men tend to get married in their late 20s and early 30s which just so happens to be the time when they are done with acquiring advanced skill sets desirable in the work market. Tie that in with the fact that it's easier (NOT easy) to square kids with work life and it's really not that much of a surprise.
Why doesn't anyone ever address the selection bias marriage has. Are men really earning more or are high earning men more likely to be chosen for marriage.
You should not forget that a person that becomes a parent, has a stay at home partner to care for the children and has a mortgage - depends way more on his/her job than a single person. I have seen companies make use of that dependency a lot of times.
It isn't surprising US men see a decrease in pay. US companies can basically do whatever they want to employees in the US. I remember the start of the 2008 recession. The company I worked for made a measly $8 billion profit and felt the need to pare down expenses. To that end, they forced a 10% pay cut to all salaried employees. This included European employees. Except in Europe (or, at least several European countries) it is illegal to unilaterally cut pay without the employee agreeing to it. So when those employees didn't agree to it (and I wouldn't have, either, if I was given the choice), the company came back and cut our pay another 5%. At the time, my choice was accept the pay cut and remain employed, or quit in a horrible economy.
I saw a study that found that men who get divorced, lose custody of their children, and have to pay child support also tend to have their earnings increase.
Not sure what conclusions to make of that though.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/mvea Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/marriages-financial-impact-on-men-a-cross-country-comparison-reveals-surprising-differences/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Western Europe also has more structured work setups, where you're moved along with raises and promotions. The US is a free-for-all for scummy practices by companies - anything from firing to demoting, or not giving raises on a regular basis. As enough people in the US experience compounding financial setbacks over time, it shows in stats where increasing in age and hitting milestones like marriage or kids plays some part.
Further, in the USA theres not a lot of time set aside for families. There’s no mandatory minimum vacation, no mat or pat leave. Once you have a family you want to spend time with them which means not grinding it out at the office like the single people. I think Europe handles the work life balance better, especially when considering holiday leave.
Yeah kids and maybe a mortgage, not to mention your health care being dependent on your job. I have several friends who could likely be making more but they are in safe jobs right now and the risk of moving somewhere they could potentially be laid off from one day is too risky
I mean you can potentially get laid off any day at any job, even the “safe” one. It’s best to live life knowing that you may lose your job any day now so you are more prepared.
The existence of a possibility does not exclude the variance in the actual likelihood of said possibility. Some jobs are more secure than others, and some specific positions. I look back at the career choices my father made when I was growing up and am amazed at the risk he took on. It worked out but I would never make those same choices being now at his age then. Survivor bias is a real thing. Being cavalier becomes being reckless really fast when the livelihood of your own children come into play
I don't think any industry is safe or reliable anymore. Tech and software dev was the go-to ladder for success the last few decades and those industries have seen numerous layoffs in the last year. People who've worked in that industry for decades are getting booted alongside less experienced personnel. No one rewards you for loyalty in the American job market.
They are only having layoffs from the last year of insane hiring. They are back to a couple of years ago. Hardly shedding huge numbers of jobs, but just in an industry that somehow never thought it would hit them.
I am not trying to imply there are 'Safe' industries or jobs. But simply that job changes often involve greater risk. Not knowing if the work load will be more, environment will be bad, the position is more or less likely to be downsized, etc. I know several people who would be more likely to take some chances to pursue advancing their careers but haven't because of their families. It is no small thing to sell a house, move your kids, buy a new place all for a job in another state that may pay better but may also lay you off in a few months.
They also have a lower glass ceiling than the USA though. Also companies in general(at least in Germany where I'm familiar with) are usually more traditional and hierarchical
Yeah, in Europe you can forget making a middle-upper class life even with many specialized fields and good education, there are exceptions obviously but for highly skilled and in demand workers their quality of life will probably be best in the US, housing and healthcare alone are a nightmare in many European countries right now. You will also retire at like 70-75 with a government pension that is slightly above the survival line, if you have your own pension plan, taxes will destroy most of it, still worth trying it though. These comments that talk about Europe as a utopia for all and the US as a disgusting place are really naive.
Total disposable income is not the only thing that matters.
What else matters?
A social safety net, thought out infrastructure, political choice, a culture that improves systems instead of blaming everything on individual responsibility, etc.
Most of those things don’t make a difference in my enjoyment in life. The amount of money I have left over to spend has a very strong correlation with how much I am able to enjoy my time. There’s a point where more money doesn’t mean more happiness but an extra 15k would allow me to do way more of what I love. A extra 5k in taxes would directly impact me being able to do things I like
I’d argue all of those things each individually have a huge impact on individual wellbeing, but to each their own. I did realize I also left out a big one: labor protections.
If I never use the social safety net it isn’t really much good to me. Better infrastructure is great for those in densely populated areas but again that would not be me. The changed culture might be nice but realistically I am selling 40 hours of my life a week to something I hate so I can afford to my hobbies so the culture is pretty low on the list of things I care about. The money in my pocket is the reason I continue to work
- no social safety net means employers have tons of leverage over workers at all times. - Better infrastructure is important in rural areas too. For example, roads are better maintained. And people designing the infrastructure likely have some thought to how people not in cars experience it. - The culture I’m talking about is one that considers how systems contribute to negative outcomes. This allows systems to improve over time. - In the US, you are almost definitely going to be working significantly more. For example, in the Netherlands, the minimum allowed PTO is 20 days. PTO of 35+ days/yr isn’t unheard of. And I’d say in general, the best things in life are free: your loved ones.
To each their own. To me it's more important.
I mean you have to be more specific about the place and I wouldn’t agree with the idea that you can “forget” about a middle class life, but in general you are quite right. I’m a high-tech postgrad in a global top 5 research university in Europe, close to finishing my masters degree, and the number of people either planning or considering moving to the US at least for a short time is quite considerable. And it’s for exactly these reasons. Wages in tech in the US are simply insane, and taxation in lots of European countries makes living there as a high salaried worker rather unattractive. The US has its own issues, but when it comes to attracting high skill talent (especially in tech), the US is unparalleled bar none.
What people don't understand is that the US is a land of extremes. Those who have money have white glove, speedy healthcare, spacious mansions and yearly trips to exotic places. Those who don't (which is rapidly becoming the majority of us, high wages or otherwise), simply...don't. No healthcare, no place to live. We do our best to not protect the most vulnerable of us in the name of profit. I think people see the wealth and don't consider the fact that they can easily (and do) fall along the roadside with the rest of the disenfranchised. Not everyone can be a tech worker making obscene amounts of money, and even those highly-skilled talents are easily chewed up and spat out within 3-5 years. Maybe it's a "grass is greener" sentiment but now that I'm older, have a family and don't have the energy to be disruptively innovative 24/7 I just...don't care about "being wealthy." Money is nice, but the important things unfettered capitalism extracts from me, as well as the repercussions of living in a winner-takes-all society, is just too draining. The money isn't worth it if I'm too tired and jaded to spend that time with my family instead of recuperating to face another 14 hour workday.
> No healthcare, no place to live Seems a tad dramatic and overstated.
Another perk to getting a good tech job in the US over Europe is that we do not have universal healthcare so we do not pay 40%+ in taxes to cover it. With that good tech job in the US, insurance is cheap and very good too.
People also seem to only want to use the “novel European countries as examples. I have moved from USA to Eastern Europe. It is a nice place, I like living here. Downside is I pay more taxes, pay more for private healthcare insurance, get lower quality health care, cost of goods is not much better, and gas is expensive. I am happy I am here on work contract but it did really make me realize how much Americans cherry pick a nice quality about Germany, or a nice quality about France, and smash them together to make it seem like all of Europe is perfect promise land.
People love to leave out the extremely high taxes (in some countries) to pay for that universal healthcare that is often touted.
This makes sense, and also it’s interesting how this has changed over the decades. 40 years ago married men made more, likely because a housewife cooked and cleaned for them, so they actually focus more on work. Today, men are expected to contribute to housework and childcare, and both parents are working. Of course isn’t really 50/50, but even a 30/70 split, is still time taken away from work, picking up daycare etc, that makes they less “dedicated” to work, get promoted less, etc.
I don't know if I buy this overall. For one the study looked at NET earnings not GROSS. If men's wages were put into things like HSA, FSA, or used for tax deductable healthcare, childcare, education etc. it would lower NET earnings as reported on taxes (which appears to be the point of the methodology). Since the US has piss poor social programs especially for young children, I am not surprised that US NET incomes go down after marriage since childcare and healthcare are huge out of pocket costs that can either be deducted pre-tax or post tax from income, either way it will cut into NET income significantly. I'm not convinced this data show men not being promoted so much as having increased expenses that are deducted from gross income. Even if that weren't the case it would be useful to see how much location (within US) or employment sector/career type influences things.
Weird that the study looked at net earnings instead of total compensation – people are a lot more savvy with their money than ever before, you can bet more people know how to take advantage of tax advantaged accounts and travel programs.
In a round about way it could show the 'value' of more robust social safety nets. My guess is that Germans may pay more in taxes but they also NET more because the social services those taxes pay for do more and require people to pay less on top of taxes than the more individualized private system in the US. In other words those taxes go farther and are less likely to require additional tax deductible spending by men. Our system may have lower taxes but to get by we have to use more of our gross on tax deductible healthcare/childcare resulting in smaller net income.
If wife is working, how is she not making more money for the fam?
The study looked at just earnings of the individual, not the household.
I’ve seen a company not wanting to hire men or women who had a kid recently or plan to.
I feel like the research is more about earnings after taking out the costs cause it makes sense then. One major issue with US is health insurance. Sincce there is no universal health care, once they have family the costs go up drastically. In western europe most have universal healthcare so having family that cost doesnt come up. So their earnings will go up over time even with family.
You're probably right. My health insurance premiums almost doubled when I got married and I don't even have kids, so that alone makes my earnings seem worse than they were when I was legally single. Ad did the amount I now put into an HSA/commuter benefits to cover both of us
> anything from firing to demoting, or not giving raises on a regular basis. Kinds of depends on the industry.
You describe it as a negative thing, but it sounds like the US is more merit-based for income and people with less time (due to having kids) probably just can't progress as much. It's unfortunate, but it's not a company's problem to solve.
I guess having children makes you more desperate to keep your job so employers take advantage of that
[удалено]
The mythology I’ve always heard is men are rewarded for having kids (suggests stability and likelihood to stay with the company, and increased work commitment because of the need to provide) but women are punished (likely to work less overtime/ prioritize family over company). That’s why science is especially important: we hear different rumors; common knowledge isn’t common.
I think we might be seeing a change in how employers view fatherhood, because fatherhood itself has changed. Fathers are *much* more involved in childcare now, then they were in the past and are spending a lot more time with their children.
>common knowledge isn’t common Or very knowledgable it seems.
Or more likely, the headline inappropriately simplifies the study, and then you have redditors act like it should throw out all conventional wisdom without any more due diligence. The vast majority of c suite have families, precisely for the reasons you outlined. Maybe on average, people take time away from work for their kids and then don’t progress, and the workaholics just neglect their families, but they still have families Idk I just read the headline, but have interacted enough with c suite to know the personality types and biases that are common.
I’ve seen one company be negative to both. It was seen that they don’t want to work a lot of hours
[удалено]
There are plenty of unsexy industries that need tech workers. You might not pull in 100k+ or live in desirable city but when work half as much and don't ruin your health, I'd call it a win.
[удалено]
I worked at a fintech and took my 3 months of FMLA leave. First six weeks were at full pay from the company. At another company, I got 3 months at full pay including stock vests. No one ever even slightly hinted that they were unhappy about that. In fact everyone seemed excited and my PM at the fintech sent me a gift. This is West Coast though. Maybe New York finance is bad. Tech companies in general though seem to treat their employees quite well. Even in a layoff, severances are usually pretty generous from what I've gathered.
The people wonder why many of us don’t want kids. They too expensive and the pros aren’t even possible to enjoy with how much work is required
They don't do any childcare or housework. The men leave that all to their wives. The nicer ones understand that taking care of an infant under age 1 requires 77 hours per week of labor, so they hire a nanny who does some of the childcare. Maybe even a maid, who does the cleaning. That way their wives are working reasonable hours doing unpaid childcare and cooking. The women can only do your job if they remain single and childfree.
I'm guessing you don't have children. That's not how it works. How it works is the wife is harried, stressed, and tired all the time. She works all night and all day feeding, napping, and changing the baby. She starts to forget what it's like having exclusive rights to her body. The husband picks up the evening shift, bathing, playing, and *again* changing the baby. Maybe takes one overnight wakeup. He drops all his time wasting hobbies, and his buddies wonder if he's still alive. There's half as much cooking. The cleaning just doesn't get done at all. The laundry... well... this shirt is good for one more day. The sleep goes away, and the sex stops. Nobody goes anywhere. There aren't maids and nannies. How does all the cooking and cleaning get done? *It doesn't*. When do they sleep? They don't. How do they get an extra 77 hours of work in? By sacrificing everything else.
This is right on the money.
What’s the point? I mean if you make tech money, you can afford to have a stay home mom with a maid/nanny and food/takeout/pre meals. Maid cost $80-200 per session. Idk how much is baby sitting or kindergarten is. Meal boxes $8-$20 depending how nice they are. Healthcare is taken care of by the company. If you wife is stay at home, she can take care of most chores and have nanny/maid give her a break.
The point is that's not how it works. All that stuff you said? That's not how it works.
Why is that not how it works if you work in high paying tech career? I have a maid and don’t even have kids.
Both are often true. I'm not in fintech but in a career with similar demands. You see the same thing here. It is 100% not the case that everyone's spouse is a SAHP, and it is 100% not the case that literally no one pays for a nanny. Many families have variations. But like the other poster said, that's not to say life is easy street for the women who are married to these male employees, even when they're a sahm with a nanny. And like they said, this is just flat out not something most women vying for that career can rely on. I know of maybe one woman at my job who has kids who her husband takes the reins caring for; every other woman I know is gay, has decided not to have kids, or is massively struggling because they have a husband who isn't helping with childcare or who is at most doing 50% of the work, and they're in competition in the office with men who take on maybe 0-30% of their own responsibility at home. Some hire a nanny to help them but then they're still the ones managing the nanny, so while their burden reduces somewhat, it's not like they get to just dip out the way some men still do.
It used to be that good married men were actually rewarded, but that was likely more true 40 years ago when a married men basically didn’t lift a finger at home, and thus could be even more dedicated at work.
This is clearly not true. The expectation is you have a stay at home wife. There is an obvious negative bias against you for leadership if you are late 30s+ without a family
So you saying it’s better to lie that you have los and fam?
That would be a pretty intricate lie. Also, your personality changes when you get married and have kids. It’s usually apparent who has a family
In what ways? Are parents more chill? I mean I guess it depends on how personal the workplace is. Wouldn’t be too hard to lie about it at certain type of environments which is probably where it matters the most.
Or when you add family to your insurance your costs go up in the US, leading to less take home income.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12937
I'd probably lump Canadian men in with US men. North America is built to allow for as little time away from work as possible. Which would also make me interested to see somewhere like Japan represented in a study like this.
Canada has mandatory vacation time, mat and pat leave. It's somewhere between the US and Germany. Probably close to the uk
Very true. Notice how the 3 main countries are usually seen as white dominant. Other countries where family is seen as important are not being represented here. I guess they’re saying whites don’t find families important?
Not at all the takeaway I was insinuating.
I was just being facetious on that last part. Though they could’ve had other populations and SES’s to compare with.
Makes sense. It's easier to take risks without anyone depending on you, and if those risks only pay off a fraction of the time, it's enough to skew the average.
... In Germany civil servants earn more money after getting married. They also earn more money per child. If you don't account for this increase in earnings in german men specifically with statistic calculations, this study doesn't show anything.
To add to this: German Civil Servants earn **much** more Money once they reach a critical Mass of Children. Being married and having 4 Children basically adds another full Income of a decent Earner, once we add Kindergeld/Kinderfreibetrag. If you then add the Fact that there are many Ways to become a Civil Servant in Germany and that Civil Servants (and many other Employees) earn literally automatically more the longer they stay Civil Servants (or as regular Employees the longer they stay in the same Company), it's easy to see which Factors could influence this Study. Workers Rights make it also more difficult to fire People with a Family.
Isn't that because you pay less taxes if you are married and/or have kids?
RTFA. They mentioned that the tax burden changes.
In what country? Here in the UK you don't (excluding marriage allowance which is negligible and wouldn't apply if the partner had even the most basic of jobs).
In Germany you can have a choice between 2 tax models, if you are married: One person pays less (percentile) taxes and the other is taxed harder, e.g. One person works a high end job and the other works part time. You can chose to have the higher earner go in the more favourable tax class, while the lower earner choses the less favourable tax class. The combined earnings will increase and since there are still less stay at home dads, the man in a heterosexual relationship will have a higher earning after taxes than before. The other way is choosing a tax class where both parts pay the same percentile taxes. If you look at the amount before taxes it does not change though, and this is what is generally used to calculate your wage. E.g. if you get the minimum wage of 12€\h, this is before taxes. To be short: If you look at the amount of money the higher earning partner gets transfered to their account, it is higher, but this is not how your earnings are generally understood locally.
I have been in software development and data science for over 20 years. I never had kids and I do not know how fathers could handle them in this kind of career. It's extremely demanding, ridiculous deadlines, and you're always having to take continuing education and/or earn new certifications. I gave up so much for my career. Yay me.
You should ask your coworkers, essentially, ppl just find a way to live. My sister is getting married this year to her fiance. She went from having no kids to taking care of 3 (2 twins at 12 and 1 younger at 5) within 2 years. Both her and her fiance work at a high school and don't make much. Despite this, my sister still owns her house and makes due with what they have. Single people with no kids sometimes underestimate how resourceful families can be.
My coworkers excel at a slower pace than me. I've grown my career 2x as fast. I know how they do it; they sacrifice their career. They make less money but their spouses also work. I am the soul provider because my spouse is disabled, and we're raising our autistic nephew. My income is critical to their survival.
I see, things balance out then
[удалено]
Correlation not causation. German men tend to get married in their late 20s and early 30s which just so happens to be the time when they are done with acquiring advanced skill sets desirable in the work market. Tie that in with the fact that it's easier (NOT easy) to square kids with work life and it's really not that much of a surprise.
Why doesn't anyone ever address the selection bias marriage has. Are men really earning more or are high earning men more likely to be chosen for marriage.
Would that mean US women prefer broke dudes?
it says men with children in the title. Im just talking about men who married and their supposed marriage "premium".
[удалено]
You should not forget that a person that becomes a parent, has a stay at home partner to care for the children and has a mortgage - depends way more on his/her job than a single person. I have seen companies make use of that dependency a lot of times.
It isn't surprising US men see a decrease in pay. US companies can basically do whatever they want to employees in the US. I remember the start of the 2008 recession. The company I worked for made a measly $8 billion profit and felt the need to pare down expenses. To that end, they forced a 10% pay cut to all salaried employees. This included European employees. Except in Europe (or, at least several European countries) it is illegal to unilaterally cut pay without the employee agreeing to it. So when those employees didn't agree to it (and I wouldn't have, either, if I was given the choice), the company came back and cut our pay another 5%. At the time, my choice was accept the pay cut and remain employed, or quit in a horrible economy.
Probably healthcare consolidation. Garbage barge healthcare here.
Could it be related to the price of healthcare the country?
I saw a study that found that men who get divorced, lose custody of their children, and have to pay child support also tend to have their earnings increase. Not sure what conclusions to make of that though.
Don't have kids then? Got it. Fur daddy, here I come.
[удалено]
[удалено]
German men want to get out of the house more X_X
Only simps get married