Вход на сайт

Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

Raise a family, then pursue a career? The math doesn't work

Дата публикации: 08-10-2026 10:00:00

More than 70% of mothers become the chief household breadwinner before their first child reaches 18. Families can't afford to go without women's earning power.

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Voices

Jennifer Glass

A person pushes a stroller along an office corridor

More than half of American mothers become the family breadwinner by the time their first child turns 8. Florida state Rep. Fiona McFarland brings her daughter to the Capitol in Tallahassee.

(Colin Hackley / Associated Press)

By Jennifer GlassGuest contributor 

Oct. 8, 2026 3 AM PT

  • Click here to listen to this article

See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred

Social conservatives now assure American women they can still “have it all” if they just do it in sequence, starting with early motherhood and later taking on a job. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 Report claims it’s a mistake for women to postpone childbearing to pursue higher education and begin their careers. Heritage spokeswoman Emma Waters advises women: “Use your twenties and early thirties for babies and brainstorming. … Then, in your forties and fifties, accelerate professionally as your children grow older if you want to.”

Yet analysis of recent Census Bureau data suggests one huge problem with following this cheerful advice. More than half of American mothers become the family breadwinner, responsible for more than 60% of household earnings, by the time their first child turns 8. More than 70% of mothers become the chief household breadwinner before their first child reaches 18. The average time a mother spends as the primary wage earner for her family is more than six years. A further 20% of women start motherhood as the family breadwinner. If families planned around the Heritage Foundation’s advice and forwent mothers’ earnings, far more children would grow up in desperate poverty.

The growing phenomenon of moms becoming their children’s primary provider can’t be blamed on more nonmarital births or divorce. Nor is it confined to racial-ethnic minorities or low-income populations. There is no group of mothers — married or not, college educated or not, African American, white, Latino or Asian-origin — whose probability of becoming their family’s breadwinner for at least a year is now less than 50%. Most of the rapid growth in mothers’ breadwinning has come from partnered moms, the vast majority of whom are married.

Even in families in which a mother is not the primary breadwinner, women’s earnings have become increasingly essential to income security during the early years of child-rearing. Yet children’s growing reliance on their mothers’ wages is occurring when the gender wage gap has stagnated at about 80 cents for every dollar earned by men. Mothers without higher education or significant previous job experience are especially disadvantaged as breadwinners — as are their children. “Home health aide” and “cashier” are among the top 10 jobs held by breadwinning mothers, hardly secure jobs that allow women to support families with children, let alone “accelerate professionally” as they get older.

Whether they choose to work or are compelled to work, mothers deserve better workplace protections and social support systems. For that matter, so do fathers. Instead, government has made it even harder for women to control the timing of childbearing, diverted money from child-care support, and opposed restrictions on employers’ arbitrary schedule changes and mandatory overtime. All these things hurt mothers and the children they must financially support, and lower U.S. fertility in the long run.

Children are not a luxury good or a personal indulgence for parents. They are a public good. They are the ones who will fund Social Security for the next generation and fuel new innovations in our economy. Yet we continually privatize the costs of raising our future workers and consumers. No wonder the U.S. has one of the largest gaps between the number of children women say they desire and the smaller number they actually end up bearing.

There’s no easy answer to the dilemmas posed by falling fertility. But government policies encouraging women to give birth early and often and “worry about career later” will most likely be ineffective, while leaving those who do bear children early in life more vulnerable to poverty and distress. The real mystery may not be why American women are having fewer children, given their growing economic responsibility for supporting them; it’s why policymakers continue to pretend mothers are just ancillary workers who can financially depend on the men in their lives, rather than the essential family breadwinners most turn out to be.

Jennifer Glass is a professor at the Population Research Center of the University of Texas, Austin, a senior researcher at the Council on Contemporary Families and past president of the Population Assn. of America.

More to Read
Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint

This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis

Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece
  • The article argues that advice to have children first and build a career later ignores how often mothers’ earnings become essential to family finances. It says that postponing paid work or career development could leave many mothers and children more economically vulnerable.
  • It contends that early motherhood does not guarantee a later career rebound: women with limited education or work experience may be concentrated in low-wage, insecure jobs, while the wage gap and caregiving demands constrain their options. Research finds that the effects of childbirth timing on wages vary by occupation, and that workplace and family policies may matter more than timing alone.[2]
  • The piece argues that mothers’ economic role is too widespread to treat them as financially dependent on male partners. It calls for stronger workplace protections and social supports, framing children as a public good whose costs should not fall mainly on individual families.
  • It also cautions that policies urging women to have children earlier are unlikely to resolve falling fertility if they make it harder to manage work and caregiving. Pew Research has found that postponing motherhood has not necessarily meant lower lifetime childbearing among women who have completed their childbearing years.[4]
Different views on the topic
  • The Heritage Foundation’s pronatalist case gives greater weight to fertility and family formation: it argues that women entering their thirties without children may be running out of time, and links earlier marriage with having more children.[5][7] That perspective favors earlier family formation, even if the article disputes the idea that career ambitions can simply be deferred without economic consequences.
  • Another perspective is that postponing a first birth can improve some women’s employment and wage outcomes by allowing more time for education and career experience, though research finds effects vary and postponement may reduce overall fertility, particularly without supportive family policies.[6]
  • Critics of expanding family benefits argue that such policies can be expensive and may have limited effects on fertility; the Cato Institute, for example, warns against policies that penalize parents who choose at-home caregiving or discourage paid work.[3]
  • The debate over policy design is not settled: a review of family-policy research finds mixed evidence on parental leave’s effects on women’s careers, while subsidized childcare more consistently appears to support women’s employment.[1]
A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Podcasts

Схожие новости

#Наименование новостиТональностьИнформативностьДата публикации
1Women who earn more than their partners still pay the price at work, landmark study finds05.9902-10-2026
2Skysmart: почти половина школьников не хочет выбирать профессию родителей014.3528-09-2026
3How affordable is it to be a stay-at-home parent in Florida: Data09.1109-09-2026
4Shock Budget twist reveals women are working harder than ever - but they're still being paid less than men07.7625-03-2025
5Ces anciennes « tradwives » ont des choses à dire aux adolescentes qui rêvent de le devenir07.1131-08-2026
6Взрослые дети помогают родителям решать финансовые вопросы01005-10-2026
7Не много, а в самый раз!: как живет семья с 15 детьми в Подмосковье09.1404-10-2026
8How the bank of Mum and Dad is supporting adult children – and ways to reduce the cost09.3521-09-2026
9Stimmt's, dass Frauen mehr Kinder haben als Männer?01005-05-2026

Классификация: . Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 9. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 14.17. Источник: www.latimes.com.