Well SAHMS are priceless so there is no point in paying them. They do it out of the goodness of their hearts, it's a service.

So I'd pay them nothin'. let's just hug them and tell them they are special!

Eff that noise. Unpaid labor falls unequally on the backs of women.

Maybe your comment is satire?

Please.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/16/2019 11:44PM by Dorothy.

Tell us what an AL-gorithhm is.

But the logical flaw in the story is that it fails to take into account the difference between performing all those services for one's self, one's own children and one's own family members in general versus doing it for strangers and unrelated persons in circumstances where there would be no reason for you to do such work other than in exchange for money.

If Meghan Markle hires nannies, drivers, cooks, cleaning staff, laundry workers, tutors, hairdressers, entertainers, etc. to provide such services for herself, her husband and her child, she's doing it because she has enough money to pay other people to do such work for herself and her family. Would she do all those things herself, if only she could receive the wages that she pays to those service providers? Of course not.

It's no more logical than saying that a husband as sole wage earner for his family is essentially charitably donating 90% of his wages to needy people and should be able to claim tax deductions for all of those "charitable donations." You get credit for charitable donations when you gift money to people in need with regard to whom you have no familial or legal support obligations.

It's on par logically with claiming that a single person, if paid for all of the unpaid work that they do as a single person, should be paid for all of the following: (i) chauffeur wages for any instances where he/she drives somewhere; (ii) chef wages for any time that he/she prepares meals; (iii) laundry service wages anytime he/she does a batch of laundry, etc...

Yes. If someone wants to use the relative worth of a housewife's and stay-at-home mother's service to convince a man who relies on such service from a spouse or significant other that he has no right to act as though he should have sole control of all household money because he's the one who brings in the money, that would be great; the jerk should be handed a bill. Obviously society or the government cannot compensate SAHMs to the tune of one-hundred-sixty grand per year.

is intended to produce an argument based on the odd notion that the SAHM's "services" are all primarily for the benefit of her husband.

In that way of looking at things, they aren't "her" kids that she's caring for. They're "his" kids. She's doing it for "his" kids. She's not living in the house because she wants to be there. It's because she has to be there to provide the services for him and his kids. She doesn't cook for herself. Use family transportation for herself. Do any laundry for herself or for her own benefit, except to the limited extent that it makes it possible to provide services to him and to "his" kids.

Of course, logically, you could flip that distorted point of view 180 degrees. He doesn't spend money on "his" kids. He spends it on "her" kids. Given the time value of money, he should be credited as having loaned money to some lady and "her" kids, so that she doesn't have to pay someone else to take care of "her" kids or find some other place where she and "her" kids can live rent-free.

Both points of view are idiotic.

Statistically, control over household disposable income has been more in the purview of the SAHM than the WSF (wage-slave father).

https://www.businessinsider.com/infographic-women-control-the-money-in-america-2012-2?r=US&IR=T

Of course there are freak-show marriages where the husband is a total control freak and jerk.

There are also freak-show marriages where the husband is a doormat who gets a tiny personal spending allowance returned to him after household budgetary needs, determined solely by the wife, are deducted.

Hopefully, the majority of marriages are partnerships, based on cooperation, mature evaluations of each family member's needs and so on. Fortunately, although I've seen a good number of freak-show marriages that tilt wildly to one side or other of the dominant-submissive spectrum, the majority I've observed are reasonable people working as partners to provide for the needs of THEIR family.

Certainly, I agree that no sole wage earner husband should expect or have sole control over spending decisions and the enormous contributions of a SAHM to a family's welfare give her the right to equal status in decision making concerning the allocation of family resources.

But I don't think that spurious "studies" such as the one cited here really serve any purpose other than to inflame arguments. The study has so many holes in it that it would be better used as a strainer for pasta. 10~20 minutes a day balancing a checkbook doesn't equate to being a professional bookkeeper or accountant (or the wages that such professionals would earn). Driving yourself and/or your kids somewhere does not equate to being a professional chauffeur (anymore than hubby's driving himself to the place where the money comes from to pay for stuff would equate to him being a professional chauffeur).

The "hybrid salary" cited in this "study" includes equating the day-to-day work of a SAHM with the following (among others): academic adviser, CEO, groundskeeper, laundry manager, staff nurse, and day care center teacher. Of course there is no qualitative or reasonable quantitative analysis whatsoever. So why not add in surgeon, actor, athlete, swimming coach, pest extermination technician, health adviser, mechanic, stylist, wardrobe consultant, plumber, price researcher, party caterer, event planner, mattress tester, audio-visual technician, building inspector, IT specialist, veterinarian etc, etc, etc?

At some point in any given week or month some task or activity will in some sense be similar to something that someone engaged in one of those occupations does.

There are plenty of good arguments to support the concern you mention. This study is not one of them.

I agree with your concern. I just hate ridiculous "studies" like this.

I look at it from the point of view that they're both doing things for the common good of the family.

I think such studies are silly as well, although if some troglodyte really believes his wife has no say in how money is spent (legally, in the U.S. anyway, he's wrong), it's OK to throw something like this at him.

I also think not all SAHMs are equal, just as not all fathers, teachers, doctors, or anyone else, really, are necessarily equal, either. What is done by some SAHMs, if translated into marketable services provided to unrelated people for pay, would conceivably be worth more than the quoted value of $160,000. What others do would not even come close to the quoted value..

The label "SAHM" is so simplistic and broad in scope that it can include virtually any type of person imaginable.

A very few may be so good at what they do that they literally could earn 160k or more serving as an elite nanny and household manager/tutor for a billionaire family.

Others may be little more than abusive alcoholics who are more of a threat to the family than a help, notwithstanding any occasional preparation of a meal consisting of eggos and pop-tarts...

...and then there's a whole spectrum in between.

But somehow they all would be lumped in together as having the same "SAHM" occupation.

If the study's "findings" were as universal and valid as implied, then in any situation where a SAHM's husband earns significantly less than 160k at his day job, it would make more financial sense for the couple to switch roles. The SAHM should be out there in the market earning 160k and the hubby should be at home as a SAHF. But if the hubby then turns out to be as good as the SAHM was at doing the same stay-at-home work, then the whole point of switching roles would turn out to have made no sense because now the SAHF is failing to receive proper compensation for his work. Maybe in such a situation they would then realize that they should both work outside of their home doing SAHM work FOR OTHER PEOPLE for a combined income of 320k and hire a slightly-above-minimum-wage nanny to look after their kids.

Ridiculous of course. But that's where the economic "logic" of the study ultimately leads. In reality, it's nearly impossible to find any actual examples of someone earning 160k doing SAHM work for other people.

If you hired a full-time housekeeper to perform those tasks during working hours, you would not be paying that housekeeper 160K a year. And adults are generally expected to take care of their own needs on their own time. I don't pay myself to do my own laundry, cleaning, and grocery shopping.

How much should working dads make ?

Hmmmm... well... I actually think the work a SAHM/SAHF does IS worth 160K a year - and it's possible for a SAHM/SAHF to compensate themselves 160K a year for that work!

This can be accomplished through a combination of savings, investing, and income production which incorporates all of the "stay at home" skills and duties.

As a SAHM, a major part of my "duties" is to manage the income my DH brings in. This includes budgeting (ie, savings), tax planning and mitigation, and investing.

A "home" is an investment and should be managed as such, I have always felt that my "home" property should produce enough income to at least sustain/pay for itself. However, it is possible to make so much more (depending on the conditions and potential of the property), so, choose your "home" investment wisely.

Setting up a home based business coupled with a Solo 401K is essential for a stay at home parent to maximize the income potential of their "home" property and stay at home work.

That's assuming everyone is in the same home and financial situation.

I haven't had a so called job for decades. This was a decision that my spouse and I arrived at together.

There are a variety things that play into your finances over the years. Location, job opportunities, dependents, financial markets, etc.

Some people end up with nothing in their older years as a result of the different circumstances and volatility of markets.

I've had nothing, and I've had it all. My observation is that there's often a fair amount of luck involved. I've just seen it too often to ignore. Who you're born to, where you were born, etc. etc. can make or break you.

All the work and the determination on the planet cannot overcome some situations. I'd say health situations can play a HUGE part in this, but not always. Inheritance can also take you places you'd never go otherwise. Marriage and divorce can turn everything upside down from where you thought you were headed.

There are ZERO guarantees. All you can do is your best and with some luck, hard work and hope you'll end up where you wanted to be. Or, maybe you started out with a silver spoon. It does happen.

I knew a guy who quit working when he was 29. Decided it was a waste of his life. He worked very hard to not have a job. He said he was going to die at 59. He did. Sat down in his recliner and had a heart attack. The end.

Life is unpredictable at best. Fascinating for sure.

What percentage of the working man’s budget goes for sexual services? Does it include tips?

I thought the quality of the man's performance was the tip.

$ 160 k / year = $16 k for ChurchCo!

Kimball: Let's Do It!

Perhaps a mundane consideration, but calculating the value of SAHM/F work would enable statisticians to get a much better sense of economic activity and even GDP.

Governments and individuals allocate resources based on the value of services and the rates of return that investments in those services will produce. Getting the underlying values right renders economies more efficient.

So if we can strip the politics out of the discussion and focus on getting the analysis right, the effort will yield significant positive results.

What is the real cost of products produced from our world ecosystem?

We never calculate real numbers.

We calculate real numbers from a subset of important data in part because that is all people have been intelligent enough to calculate and, with increasing importance as scientists and economists become better equipped, and because it is in the interests of many actors to stay with the narrow system of valuation. You are right to indicate that that means things are mispriced and lots of damage is done to the environment and lots of other people and things.

My point here is that this is an area in which more precise measurements are feasible and would help make economies work better and living standards rise. I view that as a subset of the improvements that need to be made, some of which you are pointing out.

The second to the last paragraph in the article emphasizes that its purpose is not to promote a new fiscal policy, but to point out how much hard work parenting is.

This sounds like a very mormony article.

Since when does a few hours per week doing each of a bunch of minimum wage jobs add up to $162k per year, even if half the hours worked pay at time and a half?

Agreed. The numbers seem wrong. But there is a lot of value in what SAHM/F do and it should be counted. I don't know if that number is $40,000 or 80,000 or more, but trying to get a handle on that fact is worthwhile.

...and, by inference, how serious their data are.

Yes, LW, the issue is worth serious data collection and analysis. For one thing, a person's financial value is worth (pun intended) establishing for purposes such as insurance and legal settlements. And if a SAHM/F's "earning" value can be established, well, you have something that can be declared and taxed. (We don't have politicians reading these threads, do we?)

Over the years, I have come across various articles (some with figures, some without) that have argued that after computing taxes (ulp!), commuting, child care, wardrobe, and an increase in food budget (dining out, lunches,take-out, convenience foods), the average working mother's financial gain is often much less than she realizes.

Yes.

Regarding taxes, however, it's a good bet that the forces that prevent tax hikes now would prevent a net increase in household payments in any case.

Meanwhile, knowing how much value there is in childcare, for instance, would help policy makers and corporations decide whether subsidies are worthwhile as a way of freeing homekeepers (male and female) to rejoin the workforce. The answer could be positive or negative or, more likely, both depending on the earning power of the person in question.

I'd ask also if China's and Japan's GDP is measured accurately vis-a-vis the United States. For if a country has a low fertility rate, the understatement of economic activity would be smaller than for a country like the US in which there are more children and hence more value in household services. Adding in homekeepers' output, more specifically, might raise Sweden's or Japan's GDP by 25% but that of the US or another country with a lot of children by 50 or 60%.

It makes no sense to act as if work done in the home has no worth.

My sense is that much of the data and, more importantly, ideology and culture that promote women-in-the-workforce is generated in the context of the affluent career woman. If she's grossing in the six figures, then everything "works:" the finances, the support system of childcare, the larger food budget, etc. Even the taxes, as she probably has a tax professional. Hence, the $160K figure.

I wonder if they factored in the time needed to drop off and pick up children.

It's another story for the woman in the mid-five-figures, much more so if she's single. All those items and services that "empower" her to have a "career" (i.e., a job) probably put her in the paycheck-to-paycheck group.

Let's not overlook that you're turning much of the childrearing over to other people. Great if you have an extended family to pick that up, but finding childcare that is socially, culturally, not to mention financially suitable...I'm glad we never had to do that!

Oh, there are all sorts of complications--as there are in lots of economic calculations. My point is simply that getting closer to the truth would be a big advantage in many senses.

It does not make sense, in my view, to steer clear of such a significant mismeasurement simply because it is inevtably sensitive.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It does not make sense, in my view, to steer clear
> of such a significant mismeasurement simply
> because it is inevitably sensitive.

No argument. Speaking of "sensitive," I think you focus more on the objective, data especially, while I am more concerned about the subjective, especially its effect on child development and family and societal ties.

I would hope that getting the numbers right, or more likely right-er, would improve the way society functions. It would, for instance, make people pay more attention to what women do and its importance.

It is generally a mistake to treat the work of huge numbers of people as if it is useless.

You're on the odd-numbered side.
I'm the even-numbered.
Or vice-versa.
Hoping to hear from you.

As long as the man and woman are raising kids together, their combined income should belong to both of them equally and all decisions shared equally. You can't put a financial value on a parent's love for their kids and what they do for them out of that love. So if the breadwinner brings-in $100K per year, each of their services are worth only $50K per year each. I doubt that there are any General Authorities anywhere who get a 'stipend' that small. Parents get tax deductions for their kids. That is fair because from a business perspective, they are growing future tax-payers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2019 10:48AM by azsteve.

That is a moral statement, of the sort that persuaded the Spanish world and its progeny in several states and elsewhere. As such, what you describe makes sense.

But economic analysis is different. It depends on actual, measurable output. The woman whose husband is bed-ridden due to injury does work with greater value than his just as is true of the man whose wife is incapacitated for whatever reason. One can recognize that economic fact, or any of the myriad permutations, and still accept your moral proposition.

being a SAHM was hell. It was all I ever wanted and then I got it. My daughter is taking a job that will pay her a lot more than her husband can earn and they plan on him being the SAHD and I believe he will have a lot more patience with the kid(s) and be happier in that role than my daughter ever would.

My therapist and I actually talked about this the last time I was in. It was all I dreamed about. I've said it before. My husband used to tell me that he had made all my dreams come true and I told him I had been dreaming the wrong dreams.

There is NOT a value you can place on being a stay at home parent, but like others have said, everyone contributes (or they should).

I am sorry but, a stay at home mom does not have the same expertise in any of the fields they mentioned as an actual professional. It seems patronizing that they would even suggest it.

excerpt:

Some of the jobs that it used for its “hybrid salary” included academic adviser, CEO, groundskeeper, laundry manager, staff nurse, and day care center teacher.

The resulting salary: $162,581.

Agreed. That part of the article is silly.

But there is real economic value in what SAHP do and it should be measured both so that work is recognized as "real" and because it can help direct social policy. For example, what sort of parental leave, medical support, childcare support, and educational support add or subtract value from the parenting experience. Ideally government policy would change marginally in line with where the real value lies.

All I know for sure is that the childcare and housework chores are rarely split equitably. One TEDtalker says women work 23 more minutes a day. It sounds like a small amount, but it adds up to five full time weeks per year. Money aside, time matters.

Yes, time has economic value--as well as many other sorts of value.

Acting as if a woman's work has no economic worth is wrong on many levels.

You are absolutely right. chores and childcare duties are not evenly distributed. I work and do the bulk of chores at home. I can't stand for things to get messy and disorganized. He couldn't care less. His idea of cleaning a room is shutting the door.

The article is just silly. You don't add value to SAHMs by blowing smoke up their butts. Keeping a house running is nothing like being a CEO, and taking care of your lawn and flowerbeds is nothing like what is expected of most groundskeepers.

Its also insulting to those of use that worked for our credentials in a given field and have years of experience specializing in a certain industry, to have some amateur generalist listed as being worth just as much... monetarily.

I am a degreed professional and my significant other has only a highschool diploma. But that doesn't make her less intelligent or less worthy of being treated as an equal. When you're in a personal relationship with someone, it has to be a relationship of equals. If either person can't handle the differences, they need to get out of the relationship early, rather than lording their superior credentials over the other person. Love is supposed to be about caring for the other person and things are not always equal.

For fiscal and public policy creation purposes, let the market work out the details. If someone chooses to be alone and lonely but wealthy, they have the right to live that way. Those who teach their kids the right things and lead by example, are more likely to create larger families, consisting more of individuals who do the same.