Damned if you do, damned if you don't

It seems like everyday a new study comes out regarding the new challenges of modern fertility for American women. If you want too long to have a baby, then you risk having twins, a child with a disability, or just being an old mom. Now new research suggests that women who wait until their 30s to have children fare better economically than women who have their first child in their 20s.

From USA Today:

"Researchers at the University of Maryland in College Park and the University of California at Los Angeles reviewed 35 years of data from some 2,200 women born between 1944 and 1954, and found that women who had kids in the early- to mid-20s or even younger didn't fare as well economically as those who delayed."

One of the authors of the study, Joan Kahn goes on to explain:

"The point, she says, is that women who are younger when they have kids and attempt to get back into the workforce later may not have that up-front investment in education and training, which those who have kids later benefit from. They earned equivalent wages and had higher status occupations just like women who were childless.

"Women get trapped, based on their early decisions," Kahn says."

As I see it, women are trapped either way. Should women challenge their biological clocks and wait to have children, or have children when it biological easier and safer. The biology of child bearing has not evolved with the changing labor force participation of women or even with the fact that women and men are living longer. I hope the take away message from this study is not that women should wait until their mid-30s to have children, but we as a nation need comprehensive work and family policies to support workers and their families.