According to the article, "Trends in the Motherhood Wage Penalty and Fatherhood Wage Premium for Low, Middle, and High Earners " by Rebecca Glauber

Trends in the Motherhood Wage Penalty and Fatherhood Wage Premium 1671 Table 2 Parenthood wage penalties and premiums from OLS regression models, by gender and period 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-2014 A. Women Mother -0.07* * * -0.06+ + -0.05 0.040 -0.02* * -0.024 -0.01 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) N 78,927 85,397 90,693 77.423 113,127 109,442 101,512 .22 .27 30 .28 27 28 .30 B. Men Father 0.06+4 0.064+ 0.05 0.05 14 0.074 0.08 0.074 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Downloaded from hapread.dukeupress.edu/demographyarti N 96,459 95,913 100.340 84.859 121,175 117,474 108,776 26 30 .32 .30 31 .33 .33 Notes: Standard errors are shown in parentheses. All models control for age and a quadratic in age, marital status, education, race/ethnicity, part-time work hours, year within each period, occupation, and industry. Full models are available in the online appendix. *p <.001 tests parenthood wage penalties and premiums from unconditional quantile regression models by gender period penalty per child for one premium two children three or more a. women="0.5" trends in the motherhood fatherhood b. men d.03 notes: table entries are coefficients with bootstrapped standard errors. all control age a quadratic marital status springer model which excluded category is no child. education race part-time work hours region year within each occupation industry. estimates same p downloaded http: university of virginia user on september huw do estimated effects wages glau her paper years compare raw correlations wee earnings have direction thealr similar size start correlations: bls labor force participation employment impact having percent weekly>