The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) keeps track of how children affect the economics of their parents. This seems like a relatively normal thing to track. However, as with all things tainted by the Left’s anti-natalist agenda, the rhetoric is highly objectionable.

NBER calls its database the “Child Penalty Atlas” and explains that, based on data collected from 134 countries, gender inequality occurs when a child enters the picture. So when a woman has her first child, her economics are impacted in a negative way. In the words of the NBER researchers:

Most countries display clear and sizable child penalties: men and women follow parallel trends before parenthood, but diverge sharply and persistently after parenthood. While the qualitative patterns tend to be similar across countries, there is enormous variation in the magnitude of the effects in different regions of the world and often between countries in close proximity. At the continent level, Latin America has the largest child penalties in the world, while Africa and Asia have the smallest child penalties.

They go on to explain that not only do children cause gender inequality between men and women, but marriage does as well. Their findings are as follows:

The combined effects of marriage and children on gender gaps — what we label family penalties — are larger than child penalties and increase somewhat less over the course of development. They explain about half of gender inequality in low-income countries and all of gender inequality in high-income countries.

What do they mean by describing children and marriage as “penalties”? Well, they are stating their analysis from a purely materialistic perspective. A child, you see, sets a woman back in her career; it takes her years to recover lost ground, and in many cases, she never fully recovers her pre-family income and employment trajectory.

Labeling a child as a “penalty” demeans the most important work a person can do — raising and nurturing children. Yet the subtext of the Child Penalty Atlas basically says:

• Women take on the physical toll that comes with conceiving and bearing a child, as well as taking on the role of primary caregiver.
  
• Kids are expensive and demanding.
  
• Children are a burden and not worth the sacrifice.
  
• Children make women victims.

It is not surprising, however, because it reflects very starkly what our society values: money and self. Earning money and pursuing a career are the only values that matter. You can tie this back to the Dual Income, No Kids (DINK) culture that is now prevalent amongst younger Americans, who have been convinced that their own selfish interests and pursuit of money and whims are more fulfilling than starting a family.

That’s the ironic thing about marriage and children. NBER’s so-called “penalties” are counterbalanced and even made up for in other more important arenas of life. Children (and marriage) add joy, meaning, maturity, and growth to those who decide to go after these blessings. Material incentives like the best clothes or lavish vacations ultimately mean nothing in the grand scheme of life. The old adage “money doesn’t buy happiness” springs to mind.

Sure, women drop out of the workforce in greater numbers after having their first child. But the rhetoric that motherhood is a “penalty” that’s used against women should be changed. To borrow the phrasing of the Left, they should use more “inclusive language” and “humanize” the children they blithely label as burdens.