First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Is the average stay at home mom's work really worth $138,095 a year?
Posted 5/3/07

kyonkichi wrote:

[...] I still think that it is a ridiculous show of the small-mindedness of our nation and world when we analyze a life choice based on how much money it is worth. Yes, it is a lot of work to maintain a household and provide care for children. But monetary compensation for motherhood? Is ridiculous. There are some rewards in life that are NOT money. People--generally speaking--don't have children to get paid for it--quite the other way around, children suck up a lot of money. (I should know, because I know that I sure do.)

I agree with SeraphAlford in that this article seems a way to screech out indignity about some "situation" regarding stay-at-home mothers, but the comparison is completely unfounded in reality. And think about it--every time we compensate a mother for bandaging a scraped knee, would we have to compensate the father as a sports coach for playing catch with his kid?



I agree with that post. The study seems to be pushing the notion that any work you do requires compensation.

Stay-at-home mothers certainly have a large job which is not to be undervalued, but to suggest that what they are doing is so unfulfilling that they should have monetary compensation seems insulting. Raising children and taking care of a family is hard, and hectic, but it's also rewarding in a much more significant way than money could ever be. Well, I'm sure many stay-at-home parents might argue that idealistic view, heck, who turns down money for something you have to do anyway, but in my experience, most would agree with the general idea.

I realize no one is actually offering anyone money here, but the study is certainly bringing up that idea.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/3/07

kyonkichi wrote:

There is a lot of negative association with the term "stay-at-home mom" just because of the atmosphere of the last few decades regarding opportunities for women. With this in mind, I still think that it is a ridiculous show of the small-mindedness of our nation and world when we analyze a life choice based on how much money it is worth. Yes, it is a lot of work to maintain a household and provide care for children. But monetary compensation for motherhood? Is ridiculous. There are some rewards in life that are NOT money. People--generally speaking--don't have children to get paid for it--quite the other way around, children suck up a lot of money. (I should know, because I know that I sure do.)

I agree with SeraphAlford in that this article seems a way to screech out indignity about some "situation" regarding stay-at-home mothers, but the comparison is completely unfounded in reality. And think about it--every time we compensate a mother for bandaging a scraped knee, would we have to compensate the father as a sports coach for playing catch with his kid?





That’s a very good point. The pay offs of parenthood are very valuable, but not in money. Yes, the “Stay at home mom” gets torn up in our modern society as people begin to attach negative connotations to the word. This is certainly a result the past few decades feministic battles. (I’m not saying for people to develop their opinions from stuff like this, but Family Guy actually had an episode that addressed this issue in a brief argument between two women.)


For me, it’s an admirable thing. Stay-at-home parents, or at least the few -good- ones, have to sacrifice a great portion of their life. They are rewarded by the fruits of their labor. A good parent breeds a good kid except under rare and star-crossed conditions. (I refuse to believe that people are “born bad.” Surely genetics heredity has a heavy impact on every individual, but not so much as surroundings. My biological father is a drug-dealing criminal. The man who raised me is a knowledge seeking philosopher, scientist, and historian who is soon to become a History professor. As a result, I’ve gained his interests as my own. As for my biological father? I look like him…) So, they don’t get paid in money, but rather in the joy that comes with parenting. Cordivine put it better than I can, but that's my feeling on the matter.

Also, the article treats it like everything somebody does is worth money. Next they will start saying, "the average pedestrian is worth this much money" Because they walk. Also, I diffidently think that’s true. If a mother gets props for the knee, a father should get props for tossing the pig skin or something cliché like that.




ollie_p wrote:

Just a quick thought before I, the stay at home mother, do some landscaping. The average nanny in this state, and many others, ranges from $11-$20 an hour. That is just taking care of children. It does not include any other house hold chore.

Not only do I take care of my entire household, pay bills, and watch two children who are not my own, I work for my father running a real estate business and also manage several properties in a city adjacent to my own. If I was actually paid for what I do I would be making an insane amount of money.

So yes, being a stay at home parent requires lots of hours of input. In essence this would require a big fat pay check. Since that is not the case the only pay off that I am looking forward to is my son being relatively adjusted and able to take care of himself without relying on me.


Well, just so you know, I didn’t mean to direct anything to you or any other individual on a personal level. However, in my life most women who are mothers are so because they got knocked up by some guy when they were a teenager and got stuck with a bunch of brats that they mostly ignore.

Still, you’re not the average stay at home mother. You do more than most mothers do. I looked it up and the various duties that stay at home parents are typically credited for do not involve: Paying the bills, maintenance or repairs for the house or appliances, dealing with paper work (or finances), or anything of the likes.

However, because you are above the norm, I praise you! Stay at home mothers like you, giving you the benefit of the doubt I feel against anyone proclaiming anything on the internet, are what -real- parents are made of. At least from what you’ve presented to me.


6347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / SDF-1
Offline
Posted 5/3/07
MMmmm I can almost taste the smug in the air.
12887 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Through the looki...
Offline
Posted 5/3/07

SeraphAlford wrote:


sheighton wrote:

I think that the most amazing thing is when you consider the amount of work that is involved with being a full-time parent...According to that same study, a stay-at-home mom/dad is likely working around 92 hours a week caring for the home and family (if not also being heavily involved in the community). Now, if you think about it, working 90 hours a week is pretty rough. If you were to put a value at say around $10 an hour, that comes out to around $50000 a year...$27/hour and you get $38000 a year. Neither of those hourly wage rates are that high if you compare them to professionals who work 40-60 hour weeks, so in fact I do not find such a figure outrageous. It is purely a simple cost benefit analysis; it merely describes how much money that person would be bringing into the household if indeed they were putting the same time and effort into the workforce (or at least that is how an economist would put it; media tends to word things to their own liking ---> sells more copies / gets more viewers).


If stay-at-home-mothers were all perfect, this would be true. Like I said, I’m not contradicting the figure given (though I do think it’s exaggerated, and $27 an hour is a very high wage rate. Then, that may be perception. You’re probably more financially blessed than most people…) What I am contradicting is the word “average.” Most stay at home moms, from my personal (though limited as a result of age) experience, don’t do near as much work as they get credit for.


According to the economists of the World Bank, the average American earns $43740 a year working 40 hours a week (this statistic includes the ENTIRE workforce)...That comes out to $21.03 an hour ---> $27/hour is not all that much higher.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/3/07
A clash of opinion. Seven dollars an hour is, to me, a big a raise. It's similar to that whole, "In the eye of the beholder" things.
12887 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Through the looki...
Offline
Posted 5/3/07

SeraphAlford wrote:

A clash of opinion. Seven dollars an hour is, to me, a big a raise. It's similar to that whole, "In the eye of the beholder" things.


It really is only significant as the hours accumulate in large numbers, this being exacerbated drastically by something like a 92 hour work week.
Posted 5/3/07
I think that the article is highly exaggerated. However, I think that a mother staying at home w/ her child for the first few formative years of their childhood is very important.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/3/07
I feel the significance of 7 dollars an hour is not quickly mitigated by the decline of hours. You’d be surprised what you can do with 7 dollars alone. One way or another, its not something worth debating cuz it’s a simple matter of opinion and perception. I’m sure there are people in, oh say, Africa who think that our hobos are rich… *Shrug*

Though, Xidiya brought something up that might be worth looking into. I agree with him, that it’s important for a mother to be with her child up to a certain point in their life. If you ask me, for younger children the better parenting program is also the classical one. Mom's stays at home and handles empathy, father works and handles discipline. (If for no other reason, fathers are usually scarier than mothers. And, if the working party is the disciplinarian then when a child acts out he/she gets to wait all day for his/her punishment until said parent arrives. Plus, I think that’s how we’re naturally equipped.)

In other words, I support stay-at-home-mothers and am not one who thinks women should all go off to work. (Though I certainly think they should have just as much choice in the matter as men. I just think the classic American parenting style is the one with the most benefits. Typically.) At least up to a certain age. My mothers gone from work to home, work to home, all my childhood. I can tell you I was happier when she stayed at home… That’s my personal experience with the matter.
2039 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Atlantis
Offline
Posted 5/3/07
I think that it depends on what kind of and how many children they have. GO MOMS!!!!
15924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/3/07
... Money is everything to you people... Screw it! Get over it guys, because screaming and ranting here won't make a difference. If you want to see a change, go out there and do it! Is statistics and money all that valuable if your childhood was nothing more than living out in the streets? I mean, then you would have nothing called intelligence, because there was no one to take care of you...

In short of my ranting, get out there and do something about it.
4109 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / find me
Offline
Posted 5/3/07
lol, i saw this on MSN home page, but it's pretty intersting. to bad being a stay at home mom doesn't pay........ lol
2909 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/3/07
a house wife...seems like the tv show "desperate house wife"
17206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/3/07
Yeah, like Eros said its based on extreme overtime, haha.

My moms worth way more than 138,000 I LOVE YOU MOMMY
6347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / SDF-1
Offline
Posted 5/3/07
Lucky me I make $70 an hour. My dad who is also my senior in the area of expertise makes a staggering $180 an hour. And we still have to keep a tight budget over everything. I don't see how anyone can get by with slave wages of $7 an hour.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/3/07

Latagore wrote:

... Money is everything to you people... Screw it! Get over it guys, because screaming and ranting here won't make a difference. If you want to see a change, go out there and do it! Is statistics and money all that valuable if your childhood was nothing more than living out in the streets? I mean, then you would have nothing called intelligence, because there was no one to take care of you...

In short of my ranting, get out there and do something about it.


Well, first off, the only people who don’t care about money are the people who have money… Those of us who are really poor, (or have been at one point, as in my case) know what it is like to go without it. However, you kind of forget some of it once you actually gain financial security. I’ll tell you though, money may not make the world go round, but it’s the oil on the wheel. Makes things much smoother, and with less screeching and grinding….

Well, we’re not here to complain. I started this thread to share my opinion and get the opinion of other people. Anyway, what makes the difference between intelligent conversation and debate as compared to childish fighting and arguments, is that there is an air of maturity to it. Ignoring petty insults when they arrive, sharing views in honest but tactful ways, and accepting other peoples ideas.

Before somebody acts on something they should first be informed about it. If you must, consider this thread a way to get informed about this matter.

But why in the world do you think living in the streets makes you dumb? Intellectual prowess has nothing to do with education, thus poverty doesn’t make somebody stupid. It may make them ignorant, but I’ve met some very smart people who are ignorant.

Also, what do you want us to change exactly?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.