Do they factor in overtime?

Ninety-one point six hours is a hell of a lot of work.

If I were one of these stay-at-home moms I'd be watching my back. They clearly aren't qualified for the job they're doing, and have been promoted way above their ability!

I like this link & this idea. It underscores how much work Mothers do in our society, how much stay at home mothers benefit their families, children & society. It gives a all precious monetary figure (in a capitalist society) to the variety of work they perform & therefore esteems its worth.
It also shows just what an economic impact would be wrought if women suddenly abandon this responsibility they have shouldered. How could society ever afford to replace the work they do?

Screw the esteem, Fitz, I'd rather have the money.
I believe they left out judge, jury and jailer. That's what the job most closely approximates here. Did they include differential pay for nighttime work?

I'm not crazy about these kind of studies. It's like saying that I should be paid extra because I clean my own apartment and wash my clothes. It's a choice to have kids. Now, it's also the father's choice, so this kind of thing should definitely be figured into alimony and that sort of thing, but otherwise, who exactly is supposed to be paying the stay-at-home moms (the article doesn't mention anything about dads)?

Part of me has always thought its really important to recognise the role of mothers this way ... but I'm uncomfortable with differentiating between 'stay at home' mothers and mothers who also work outside the home - or even those of us who don't have children but who are in paid employment.

Most of us do housework, laundry, teach our children if we have any (or help out with our neice and nephew when we can, talk to/support our family/friends, household repairs, manage our finances, and fix our flimmin' laptops when the keys are sticking - even if we are in paid employment, even if we live alone. Life would very quickly grind to a fairly smelly and lonely halt if we didn't.

Does the calculation take into account the unpaid work that at lot of people in employment do - in the UK our Trades Unions calculate that employees work for free until mid-April each year due to the unpaid overtime we all do even in fairly ordinary jobs.

Mind you I will never win any Martha Stewart awards for my devotion to the housework - a necessary evil though.

Hiring a full-time nanny, maid, and, um, "escort" would run you about $130k in Massachusetts. You could probably do it for $25k in Alabama.

"Hiring a full-time nanny, maid, and, um, "escort" would run you about $130k in Massachusetts. You could probably do it for $25k in Alabama." - David Thompson

Exactly. No full time nanny/housekeeper makes anywhere near $130k. Unless they are including compensation for sexual favors, this does not add up.

Here’s one they didn’t factor!
Forget all the housework, and childcare labor.
What about actual labor.
You know… having your child (they don’t call it labor for nothing)

What would be the price for that!

Here is a recent article from a female history professor on the subject, - any thinking feminist will enjoy.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0603/opinion/howard.html

Right and I am sure you can find me hundreds of “credible� studies and articles showing all men don’t chip in.

It ignores this fact completely and puts daddy further into the shadows.

It is the 50's still?

Who pays? And if I am working full time do I get paid part time for being a dad? Oh no wait mothers are more important because they are women.

hujo, what the hell are you doing on this blog?

He's whining.

Hujo, you sputter that feminism makes men obsolete (well, I guess except for their sweet, sweet sperm), yet oddly, it is the rightists who reduce men and women to the simple sum of their parts, testes and uterii, or, in patriarchese, a wallet and an incubator.

I'd ask you what exactly it is you're bitching about, but I'm sure you'd just fire back that I'm oppressing you, you poor white man you.

Any.Way.

Men get paid to go into the Army and some even make it a life time career and defending your country is kind of like mothering, in the sense that it's for society's 'benefit'Following that ligic it would be natural that women also get paid for mothering. With the same tax dollars that the soldiers get. And mothering is as much a choice as choosing a career in the Armed Forces. It is a social calling. But women are still illegitimate in the sense that the contributions we make to society are socially apreciated but financially ruinous for us. The bias in favor of men is almost as strong as ever in this country.

That's complete nonsense.

No-one, well virtually no-one, would join the army if they weren't paid to do so. It's a decision motived by pecuniary reasons.

Mothering isn't. People do it because they think it's fun. Has anyone ever become a mother because they wanted to do society a favour? No, nor should they, they do it because they like having kids. Good for them! But given that the do it for nothing because they enjoy it, there's no reason why we should compensate them for it. Doing is a reward in itself, and if you think otherwise then why haven't you given your kids up for adoption?

If people were up for going to Iraq for nothing more than the simple pleasures of fighting a war, then there'd be no reasons to pay people for being soliders either.

Nela's post inspired me to dig up this quote:

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Nik, I have to disagree that people only choose to be stay-at-home parents because it is fun.

I am a stay-at-home mom, and will be until I return to school, but I didn't do so simply because I enjoy spending the extra time with my kids. First, daycare is expensive. Before and after school care for my 6 year old would be $60 a week and $200 a week for my baby. Without my M.Ed., I would not be able to make enough to cover these expenses and the additional cost of working outside the home. Second, my husband's schedule is so unstable that our children would not have adequate attention if both of us worked outside the home. So while I love having more quality time with my children, the decision to stay home was also a practical one.

And Nela, until last year my husband was in the military, and I can assure you that he (and most of his male and female co-workers) would not have joined were it not for the job training, GI Bill, and paycheck. A social calling it was not.

I think studies like this have a place, but I have to agree with hujo to a certain extent (God help me). While I recognize that in many families, fathers are not present or do not help out, that is not always the case. My biological father never lifted a finger to help my mother with anything - and she worked just as much as he did. I do most of the jobs listed in the article, but so does my husband. In addition to sharing the psychologist and computer operator duties, he's the family chauffeur, landscaper, electrician, personal softball coach, and general contractor. All through our marriage, he has contributed a lot based on how much time each of us spent in school or work.

Hard working moms deserve their due, but I don't think we should exclude the hard working dads either.

They used to do these studies earlier, too, and they always end up giving a stay-at-home mom an enormous salary. But the basis on which it is calculated is off. For example, a person without the training of a psychologist (which could be a doctoral degree) doesn't earn psychologist's salaries, so it's incorrect to apply such salaries to SAHMs or SAHDs. The same goes for the other jobs mentioned which require a lot of education. Part of the reason for the higher pay in those jobs is to pay back the educational investment.

From a different angle this is also a little pointless. Nobody is going to pay these people anything. So it's all empty waffling.

Echidne--totally agree. Not to mention, it seems like more of a way to make underappreciated stay at home moms feel good about themselves without actually giving them $. A fake paycheck print out? That reminds me of getting a fake "honorary firefighter" certificate or something when you were kid. We can do better by moms.

I calculated my worth as my own housekeeper, chauffeur and laundrymaid. I deserve an additional $40,533. I did cheat as I currently have no small children in the house but added one school-aged one to get the meter to work. I'm thinking of it as my inner child.

My point is not to be sarcastic, just to point out that the study should really distinguish between general housekeeping and childcare and such, and that only the latter (and those parts of general housekeeping that are caused by children) should be valued in this index.

This study, and your commentary on it, are so painfully stupid that it's actually physically unpleasant to read. Think, ladies. Do a lttle math, or find someone who can do it for you. If you are a full-time housewife, you enjoy an enormous number of financial and lifestyle benefits that are conveniently ignored in this kind of idiotic analysis. You have no housing costs. You have no healthcare costs. You have no retirement expenses. You have no entertainment or clothing or food expenses. Your children have no education costs. In fact, you have no expenses at all. It's all on the house, so to speak. If you were making this fictitious $134,000, you'd have to pay for all this stuff on the open market. Furthermore, since you're not paid for the work you do as a housewife, you pay no tax on the pretend income you would otherwise receive. Assuming you pay 30% in income taxes, you're saving around $40K in taxes right there. You also have legal ownership of 50% of your husband's assets, which can amount to quite a lot if you marry well. Even if you buy into this bogus $134K number, there's a limit to the amount of income you're allegedly foregoing by working for free. However, there is really no limit to the amount of assets your husband can acquire, and you can get to own. Bill Gates's wife presumably is saving him the same $134K in costs, and she has legal title to hundreds of millions of dollars in his assets. You also receive an enormous number of domestic services above and beyond having all your expenses covered -- security guard, handyman, financial advisor, childcare and so on. If you look at all this, you're financially way better off working for free as a housewife than you would if you tried to sell these services on the free market, even assuming one existed. This is beyond stupid.

This study, and your commentary on it, are so painfully stupid that it's actually physically unpleasant to read. Think, ladies. Do a lttle math, or find someone who can do it for you.

Tyler, we don't tolerate personal attacks on the site. If you want to be a nasty-ass, go somewhere else.

I am a nasty-ass because I'm pissed. This entire study has a logical hole in it the size of a garage door, yet it's published, commented on and taken seriously. It makes no sense. It's ridiculous. It's propoganda. It's on a level with 9-11 conspiracy theorists, and either every single person who's commented on it totally missed my point, which is astounding, or is content to paper over this fiction and treat it as if it's meaningful. Financially, being a housewife is a GREAT DEAL. Correct, or am I missing something?

"you poor white man you"

At least I am not a sexist racist.

The whole point of the site and "paycheck" are to show you/us/world that stay at home moms are worth something. In the financial world you aren't considered working on credit applications as a "homemaker". That sucks. Although we don't bring in "income" from taking care of our flesh and blood we are still working and should be considered something more. Although the study is for stay at home mothers its done that way cause, HELLO, most of the stay at home parents are WOMEN. yes there are men. If you are a stay at home dad then you get paid the same as this study "says". Does it really matter to get upset over this? For goodness sakes its FAKE!!! You'll NEVER get a check this or any other amount!! Its just wishful thinking and putting a monetary value on something that everyone sees as "unpaid" "work". Get over it.

dhindy, I don't know if you were responding to me, but maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that I found the paycheck upsetting because I don't think the work women do at home is valuable--in fact I think quite the opposite. I just thought that valuing the work women do could take a better form than a fake paycheck. To me, that seems somewhat condescending. I think that the fact that they study was done is a great thing, but couldn't we use this information towards a better end?

Check out this for more info.

YOU get over it. Overlooking all the huge holes in the argument, you're also valuing this work at about the 95th percentile of everyone in the country. Or, let me put it another way. The "argument" of all this crap is that your average housewife, if properly compensated, would make more than 19 out of 20 people in the country today. Purely because of the amount of effort she puts in, she's worth $28 per hour for relatively unskilled labor. Plus health coverage, free housing, etc. This is insane. Also, another little fact that nobody mentions is that you can't sell something if there isn't a market. Nobody's going to pay anywhere near that for these services even if they wanted to buy them. The entire thing is a joke. And nobody seems to be saying "Hey, wait a minute." And nobody seems bothered by the idea of dressing up a complete tissue of lies as a "study" and then spreading those lies. Except, of course, me.

Actually, Tyler, I think you are confused. You seem to be making a lot of comparisons and assumptions that make no sense.

"You have no expenses at all"

How do you figure? If I work or not, I still have expenses. These expenses, however, are covered solely by my husband's income rather than by joint income.

"If you were making this fictitious $134,000, you'd have to pay for all this stuff on the open market."

That is the point. While some of the titles are, in my opinion, exaggerated the jobs done by (mostly) stay at home moms save a family a considerable amount of money. If I drop dead tomorrow, then my husband would have to pay for the services I provide for our family, and those services would be quite expensive.

"Assuming you pay 30% in income taxes, you're saving around $40K in taxes right there."

Can you really count tax savings on non-existent income? What is your point here?

"You also have legal ownership of 50% of your husband's assets, which can amount to quite a lot if you marry well."

I don't live in a community property state, so no dice. I married well, indeed, but this has nothing to do with my husband's earning potential.

"You also receive an enormous number of domestic services above and beyond having all your expenses covered - security guard, handyman, financial advisor, childcare and so on."

I have to say that I am the exception since my husband does a lot for our family beyond his work outside the house, but most of the SAHM's I know don't have all these things provided for them. In my house, I provide the childcare, act as the C.F.O., and do a lot of the handiwork myself. And who do you think acts as security guard when my husband is at work?

"If you look at all this, you're financially way better off working for free as a housewife than you would if you tried to sell these services on the free market, even assuming one existed."

Sorry, I just don't think you convinced me.

I'm not suggesting that people choose to be stay-at-home parents because it is fun. They choose to have kids because they want them for their own happiness. And you're right that many of them then find themselves with no other real option but to be stay-at-home parents, even if it's not what they want.

But really, it's just tough. They made the decision to have kids, and should have thought it out properly. If they're unhappy with their lives they only have themselves to blame.

The $134 K figure is a little ridiculous unless the housewife is going to do that work on the free market. In my circle, mothers and fathers pretty much share childcare and household work equally.

But this is hilarious - someone has calculated what their dog should make based on its unpaid work.

http://workingmotherbacktalk.blogspot.com/2006/05/housewife-worth-134-k-dog-worth-125-k.html#links

Husbands salary should be = $1,428,580

Security guard - $91,980 per year
Therapist - $22,100 per year
Personal sports trainer - $71,700 per year
Transporter – $35,000 per year
Referee/coach/cheerleader - $45,000 per year
Sexual services (9 to 17 times per week) - $724,000 per year
Accountant/Money manager - $89,000 per year
Mechanic – $125,000 per year
Yard service - $2,800 per year
Home repair - $245,000 per year
Home doctor - $78,000 per year.

Husbands = 1,428,580