Comments on: A Mother’s Love is Worth $117,000 Per Year

By: KrisUnderwood

KrisUnderwood — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:01:59 +0000

Hazard pay…labor pay….that’s great!

They come out with this thing every year and it never says anything new. It’s quite silly and ridiculous. I had to write something on it myself.

Linked to your post, BTW.

By: Mrs. Micah

Mrs. Micah — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:36:18 +0000

What gets me is when in a divorce, the husband and SAHW assume that he deserves more of the money because he “earned” it all. They may not come out and say it, but it clouds both their judgments.

Damn wrong, however. He might not be able to afford that $117k worth of care a year, but he’d sure as hell have to spend a lot more money if he didn’t have a live in housekeeper and someone to care for any children (a SAHW/M is much more than a housekeeper and babysitter but she fills those needs as well). The money they have as a couple is dependent in part on how much money her presence there saves them.

So while a mom’s love and care whether she’s at home or work are really priceless, I hope that this sort of thing will help women in particular feel their own value.

By: pSerendipity

pSerendipity — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:49:09 +0000

I’m probably in the minority here, but what was the problem with the article? It simply stated what the value is for a mom’s duties and how much a working mom is paid on her job. What was so deep about it?

As an aside — remember when Pilar did the exact same thing on Prime Time Love? LOL

By: JT

JT — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:21:35 +0000

I am currently a SAHM and I agree that this amount is ridiculous. However, the idea of attaching a monetary value to “my job” is not necessarily bad, especially if someone is trying to decide whether or not to keep working or stay at home. BUT, in my analysis, I am only considering direct savings by not working, such as:
1. The avoidance of paying for quality daycare: (in my area, this runs roughly $45/kid/day, or about $25k over a yr for 2 children).
2. Savings from always cooking at home/not eating out, taking careful advantage of grocery sales instead of grabbing whatever, and spending a lot less $ on clothes/dry cleaning/etc. Also less gas/transportation costs. I’m going to ballpark this one at $8k, higher than some maybe but I previously had a long commute.
3. Savings from not paying taxes on salary $ earned, and also savings from my husband’s income being taxed in a lower bracket than if I were working. For us, this is around $12k.

So for us for now, I would need to earn more than $45k to come out ahead. Which is right about what I was making when I left after having child #2…. Obviously, no one is handing me $45k for the responsibilities I have, but I AM saving our family about that amount by doing what I do.

By: Donna

Donna — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:34:19 +0000

In total agreement with the hazard pay, and mine are all under 9. heh.

By: JD Mac

JD Mac — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:33:42 +0000

Jane’s comment is absolutely true; as a single mother your homelife responsibiliteis are not disolved or from my expereince even reduce by any ammount when you go to work outside of the home. I put in my 45-50 hours at the office and then come home and do everything that needs done at home from dinner to laundry to house cleaning to supervising homework, and mowing the lawn all in the few hours left in the day and all of which my stay-at-home mom friends have had all day to do. Single working mothers do more in less time; we have to; it’s the nature of being a single working mother. There’s just lees time to stop and smell the flowers.

By: Jane

Jane — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:12:26 +0000

Did working mothers conduct this survey? I think the results undervalue working mothers’ responsibilities. For example, last night I came home and made dinner, played with my daughter and then cleaned our bathroom while my daughter was in the tub. Working outside the home doesn’t absolve you from working inside the home. Sheesh.

By: Ladybug

Ladybug — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:40:06 +0000

Why would I pay someone to do something that they have thus far been willing to do for free?

Now, I’m not saying that what SAHM’s do is not valuable… but people who have jobs outside the home are essentially getting paid to do something that the employer is unwilling or unable to do on their own & which the employer believes is beneficial to them. Raising your own children cannot be classified as a “job” under that definition, and so monetary compensation is not a factor.

Hazard pay… that’s funny.

By: John

John — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:41:43 +0000

I have full support for your claims. I strongly believe that stay-at-home moms deliver the maximum over endless hours each day without a single day’s break and deserve compensation.

By: BK

BK — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:16:08 +0000

Yeah when I read this you know it was a QUICK forward to you and DH!!! I said OH HELL TO DA NAW.. I mean seriously I don’t knock SAHM’s at all.. they have just as hard a job as anyone else.. but this “survey” just made me wanna say whatdafuggineva!