Austern is right. The trend is one of consistent growth until 2000 when for sure the numbers turn down and maybe something significant occurred. Brings to mind Stein’s First Law, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Though in this instance, it may have stopped shy of the male rate.
Notice too that the original NYT piece was mostly about women with more real choices than the rest of the labor force—highly educated and pretty well off.

My analysis of the trends (from about a year ago) is at http://www.halfchangedworld.com/2004/10/whos_opting_out.html.

People don’t want to read quantitative social science research in the morning paper. They want to gossip about stuff. The NY Times article has got us all gossiping, hence it was a good article.

I observe my daughter-in-law who fits the NYTimes description: 40 now, Yale graduate, high-powered career that was dropped partly because of the dot.com bust, partly because of difficulties in finding good reliable childcare; financially successful husband. Most of her friends (and she has a large circle, albeit not any kind of sample) are following the same course. The subjects of the article may not be a large group of women; but perhaps a significant one that deserves a careful, systematic survey to determine what is happening.

My concerns are not for these women now, but for their feelings of self-esteem and satisfaction with their lives when they are in their later forties and fifties, with children who do not require as much physical care. Will we be in another version of the feminine mystique? More importantly, when will we as a society provide appropriate supports and make the kinds of adaptations, especially in the workplace, that will permit highly-educated men AND women to have satisfying family, professional and personal lives.

Kieran’s graphs on labor force participation are interesting. They do seem to show a clear decades-long trend, and a smaller but also clear change some time around 2000. It would be interesting to learn more about what that change means.

This is somewhat bizarre, as earning money is no evidence you’re using your education, and certainly no evidence that you’re contributing to society.

Just another example of that old double standard in action—women’s work isn’t as valued as men’s, so women who raise kids are forced to point out all the OTHER things they also do in order to get respect.

I think that the problem this choice presents is greater for women in ambitious careers because of increased time and emotional sacrifices such careers demand. It is at the same time more difficult to give up such a career and more difficult to raise a family.

I disagree with Kieran that there is no loss of social status for women with high earning spouses who choose to stay home with children. The reason for that is that many women in that stratum do have careers and form a powerful social incentive to be superwoman. Even comments of the last few posts indicate a disdain for women who supposedly choose to live a life of leisure. It’s rarely the case that smart and ambitious women at home do nothing but raise children. Just for example, they play an important role in community, the arts, and support networks that are no less hard work because they are largely uncompensated. (Plus, they run errands and blog on their own time.)

I really don’t see much in this post about “earning trends” in the sense of “trends in what people earn, sc. dollars”. So is there a different sense of “earning” in your discipline in which it means “participation in the labor force”? Or should this post be titled, e.g. “Some data on labor participation trends” or the like?

Many Ivy League women are joining what appears to be a trend: married women chosing to give up their careers to be full-time stay-at-home mothers.

Many Women at Elite Colleges Set Career Path to Motherhood (NYT, Sept. 20)

Many women at the nation…

Whoops—yes, as you say, it’s the participation rate that’s being shown here. It was a bit late at night when I did this: I’ll relabel the graph so the title is right.