Financial Value of SAHM Services

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I left my profession as a geriatrician more than a decade ago to support a household in which my significant other/spouse had a career which demanded many hours, travel, and eventually moves.

Shortly after I left my full-time practice, my SO received a job offer within the company, but in Europe. My spouse hesitated because - though they wanted to pursue the opportunity and the promotion - she or he worried about uprooting the children, finding new schools, selling our house, coordinating the move. I said "don't worry, take the job", and took that on myself.

We have since lived in Europe, Asia, San Francisco, and now New York, and each time my significant other has moved on to bigger and better jobs, and is now a well compensated, very Sr. Person in his or her field. The children, my spouse, and I have lived a life full of adjustments and the rewards of different experiences. And I have been there to help every step of the way.

Every time a friend asks my SO, "how did you know which moves to make?", my spouse offers this, "I didn't know which moves would help my career, or even how they would pan out, but I always knew that I had a supportive partner and family willing to make that move, and take that chance and adventure with me."

In the end, I do not think that you can place a value on the contributions to our family.

I'm not willing to give up my professional identity to further my spouse's career. The fact that you were benefits him/her but not necessarily the kids.

In our particular case, it benefited everyone in the family - me, my working significant other, our children - greatly. None of us would trade the adjustments, adventures, travels, new and old friends, life experiences, and family unity that moving and living around the World for SO's job has brought us over the last fifteen years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much would you have to pay a kind, loving, educated nanny to be on call 24/7, to forgo all sick/vacation days and stay with the job for 18 years? Someone who takes care of your kids with long term consequences in mind? Someone who loves your kids so much that they'd run through a fire to save them? Someone who is willing to nurse your sick kids while they themselves are sick?

What is a SAHP anyway....it is someone who loves their job so much that they are willing to work for free.

Tee hee.

Can you pay someone for love and kindness? I mean, we all hope that we have caregivers who are loving and kind people, but you can't actually pay someone to love your children. That's why being a nanny is a job and being a parent is not--there is the activity involved in child rearing, and then there is the relationship you have with your kids, and those are different things. And whether or not you choose to outsource part of the child care doesn't affect how good you are at the relationship. As someone pointed out earlier, there are kind, loving parents who work like crazy and there are SAHMs who neglect their kids. And to tie back to OPs question, the only thing that can be monetized is the child care aspect. Many people have talked about the intangible benefits for their families, but you can't put a dollar amount on the happiness you have spending more time with your kids, or being less stressed on weekends. The only financial value is related to care taking, and there are plenty of market comps for that activity.

[Anonymous]

The OP asked at what HHI does it make sense to be a SAHM. I think that depends on the individual situation.

My DH makes $155,000, which is technically enough for me to be a SAHM to my 3 kids as I had once hoped. However, there are a couple of reasons why I still work.

First, my mom had a high-powered career and she always really valued her financial independence, even though my parents have a good solid marriage. I currently make a slightly higher salary than my DH ($165,000 plus bonus) and I am able to get a solid 401(k) plus invest. I feel secure financially and know I’m not dependent on anyone, even though I love my husband. When I was a child, I missed my mom a lot when she was working long hours, and so I dreamed of being a SAHM for at least a period of time to be there more fully for my kids. But I realize that I am more at peace when I am earning my own money, just in case anything happened to my marriage (which I don’t anticipate).

Second, my husband has a mild drinking issue (which he disputes), and I worry that he may not be able to hold onto his job for another 20 years (we’re in our early 40’s).

Third, and this is unique to my marriage and may not apply to others, my DH and I seem to get along better when I work too. The marriage seems more balanced. For example, now that I make more than he does (compared to when I worked part-time), he completely understands the need to relieve the nanny at 6pm sharp (rather than assuming I will do it since I was only part-time.)

I think it’s a nice thing for the kids to have a SAHM if the SAHM is at peace with her place and if the marriage is strong. But if that is not 100 percent there, then I think it's best for the mom to WOHM.

[Anonymous]

Great response by previous poster.

[Anonymous]

OP valued SAHM services at about $100,000. I agree with earlier posters that the actual value is much less. I'm a SAHM of 3 school-aged kids and I don't even carry life insurance because the financial cost of having the kids go to after-care is so low.

IMHO, the minimum HHI in which it makes sense for someone to stay at home is about $400k or more in the case where the partner staying home is highly educated. At least, that was my threshold, along with 3 kids.

(It wasn't like my spouse started making that number and I just quit. It was a much slower process where I slowly started cutting back my work hours and taking on more of the household work -- almost without noticing. I had become the "default parent" and a very stressed out one at that.)

[Anonymous]

"I agree with earlier posters that the actual value is much less. I'm a SAHM of 3 school-aged kids and I don't even carry life insurance because the financial cost of having the kids go to after-care is so low. "

Stupid.

[Anonymous]

This is a silly question because it assumes a common denominator where there is none to be had. Let's take our collective heads out of the DCUM upper middle-class lifestyle for a second.

Not every SAHM lives in a 3,000 sqft house (vastly different cost to clean).

Not every SAHM cooks, and when they do, the quality is vastly different (won't pay as much for Burger King as you do for Citronelle).

Not every SAHM tutors, checks homework, takes kids to activities, stages enrichment headquarters at the kitchen table etc. (huge difference in cost)

Some SAHM do childcare like a high-end nanny would, and some do it like a cheapo home daycare would. Can't come up with a single number for those.

So the problem I have with this discussion is that everyone so far assumes that all services SAHM provides are of the personal tutor, Michelin-chef, Mary Poppins quality, and that is simply not the case. You cannot come up with a single rate to describe vastly different packages of services that different SAHM provide. You can come up with the barest lowest minimum and that's about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OP asked at what HHI does it make sense to be a SAHM. I think that depends on the individual situation.

My DH makes $155,000, which is technically enough for me to be a SAHM to my 3 kids as I had once hoped. However, there are a couple of reasons why I still work.

First, my mom had a high-powered career and she always really valued her financial independence, even though my parents have a good solid marriage. I currently make a slightly higher salary than my DH ($165,000 plus bonus) and I am able to get a solid 401(k) plus invest. I feel secure financially and know I’m not dependent on anyone, even though I love my husband. When I was a child, I missed my mom a lot when she was working long hours, and so I dreamed of being a SAHM for at least a period of time to be there more fully for my kids. But I realize that I am more at peace when I am earning my own money, just in case anything happened to my marriage (which I don’t anticipate).

Second, my husband has a mild drinking issue (which he disputes), and I worry that he may not be able to hold onto his job for another 20 years (we’re in our early 40’s).

Third, and this is unique to my marriage and may not apply to others, my DH and I seem to get along better when I work too. The marriage seems more balanced. For example, now that I make more than he does (compared to when I worked part-time), he completely understands the need to relieve the nanny at 6pm sharp (rather than assuming I will do it since I was only part-time.)

I think it’s a nice thing for the kids to have a SAHM if the SAHM is at peace with her place and if the marriage is strong. But if that is not 100 percent there, then I think it's best for the mom to WOHM.

I completely agree. I WOH because I would not be at peace at home and my marriage is not and has never been particularly strong. Just like you, I make a bit more than my H and I have his full support to work late, travel for work, take down time for myself, etc. If I SAH or WOH PT, he would feel I already had enough time for myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a silly question because it assumes a common denominator where there is none to be had. Let's take our collective heads out of the DCUM upper middle-class lifestyle for a second.

Not every SAHM lives in a 3,000 sqft house (vastly different cost to clean).

Not every SAHM cooks, and when they do, the quality is vastly different (won't pay as much for Burger King as you do for Citronelle).

Not every SAHM tutors, checks homework, takes kids to activities, stages enrichment headquarters at the kitchen table etc. (huge difference in cost)

Some SAHM do childcare like a high-end nanny would, and some do it like a cheapo home daycare would. Can't come up with a single number for those.

So the problem I have with this discussion is that everyone so far assumes that all services SAHM provides are of the personal tutor, Michelin-chef, Mary Poppins quality, and that is simply not the case. You cannot come up with a single rate to describe vastly different packages of services that different SAHM provide. You can come up with the barest lowest minimum and that's about it.

Similarly, there's no debate or angst about a mom who's not a high earner SAH. Nothing to discuss. SAH, or WOH if you prefer and your family at least breaks even. In my case, me working raises our HHI from 200K to 400K and makes a huge difference in our ability to get ahead financially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much would you have to pay a kind, loving, educated nanny to be on call 24/7, to forgo all sick/vacation days and stay with the job for 18 years? Someone who takes care of your kids with long term consequences in mind? Someone who loves your kids so much that they'd run through a fire to save them? Someone who is willing to nurse your sick kids while they themselves are sick?
What is a SAHP anyway....it is someone who loves their job so much that they are willing to work for free.

This is ridiculous, and I support women who SAH wholeheartedly. If it makes sense, it works for you, then that is great and wonderful. But this is crap because, guess what -- WOHM also do all of this. And work. And they also don't get paid for all the "overtime" they put in, do they? I work full time and I take off every sick day, I make breakfast, play, do baths before work, I plan activities for the kids, pack their lunches, arrange their schedules and deal with their nanny, who I carefully researched and selected, and I check in several times a day. I meal plan for lunch and dinners at home with the nanny. I come home, I do play, snack, loving, bedtime routine, nighttime wakeups, arrange all doctor's visits, do all their laundry, do all the grocery shopping. And I am the primary breadwinner. This is not an ode to me -- the point is, ALL PARENTS WORK THIS HARD. And not to engage in a pissing contest, but I am quasi part time and the days I spend at home are a BREEZE compared to the days I commute, work, and commute home. Working just means you miss out on the fun, playing hours between 9-5. You still get to do all the crap. So seriously, quit acting as though there is some monetary value or accolades deserved for taking care of your kids. It is something we all do and should do and its not some kind of moral imperative to do it without working. Society does not owe you anything for deciding to stay at home. The only value is what you and your family place upon it. The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much would you have to pay a kind, loving, educated nanny to be on call 24/7, to forgo all sick/vacation days and stay with the job for 18 years? Someone who takes care of your kids with long term consequences in mind? Someone who loves your kids so much that they'd run through a fire to save them? Someone who is willing to nurse your sick kids while they themselves are sick?
What is a SAHP anyway....it is someone who loves their job so much that they are willing to work for free.

This is ridiculous, and I support women who SAH wholeheartedly. If it makes sense, it works for you, then that is great and wonderful. But this is crap because, guess what -- WOHM also do all of this. And work. And they also don't get paid for all the "overtime" they put in, do they? I work full time and I take off every sick day, I make breakfast, play, do baths before work, I plan activities for the kids, pack their lunches, arrange their schedules and deal with their nanny, who I carefully researched and selected, and I check in several times a day. I meal plan for lunch and dinners at home with the nanny. I come home, I do play, snack, loving, bedtime routine, nighttime wakeups, arrange all doctor's visits, do all their laundry, do all the grocery shopping. And I am the primary breadwinner. This is not an ode to me -- the point is, ALL PARENTS WORK THIS HARD. And not to engage in a pissing contest, but I am quasi part time and the days I spend at home are a BREEZE compared to the days I commute, work, and commute home. Working just means you miss out on the fun, playing hours between 9-5. You still get to do all the crap. So seriously, quit acting as though there is some monetary value or accolades deserved for taking care of your kids. It is something we all do and should do and its not some kind of moral imperative to do it without working. Society does not owe you anything for deciding to stay at home. The only value is what you and your family place upon it. The end.

Your nanny drives your children to their rehearsals, and practices, and appointments, and school pickups, not you, because you are at work.

You plan the meals, but the nanny helps make them.

The nanny presumably straightens up the house and picks up around the house for you.

In other words, you admittedly delegate to your nanny a lot of the work that someone who stays home without a nanny does all by themselves. So no, you do not work as hard on the home front as apparent staying home without a nanny.

How do I know this? Because I have done both work full-time, and later work part-time, with the assistance of a nanny, and stay at home without the assistance of a nanny. No comparison in terms of at-home workload. My friends, especially those who work, are honest with themselves, and acknowledge the difference as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much would you have to pay a kind, loving, educated nanny to be on call 24/7, to forgo all sick/vacation days and stay with the job for 18 years? Someone who takes care of your kids with long term consequences in mind? Someone who loves your kids so much that they'd run through a fire to save them? Someone who is willing to nurse your sick kids while they themselves are sick?
What is a SAHP anyway....it is someone who loves their job so much that they are willing to work for free.

This is ridiculous, and I support women who SAH wholeheartedly. If it makes sense, it works for you, then that is great and wonderful. But this is crap because, guess what -- WOHM also do all of this. And work. And they also don't get paid for all the "overtime" they put in, do they? I work full time and I take off every sick day, I make breakfast, play, do baths before work, I plan activities for the kids, pack their lunches, arrange their schedules and deal with their nanny, who I carefully researched and selected, and I check in several times a day. I meal plan for lunch and dinners at home with the nanny. I come home, I do play, snack, loving, bedtime routine, nighttime wakeups, arrange all doctor's visits, do all their laundry, do all the grocery shopping. And I am the primary breadwinner. This is not an ode to me -- the point is, ALL PARENTS WORK THIS HARD. And not to engage in a pissing contest, but I am quasi part time and the days I spend at home are a BREEZE compared to the days I commute, work, and commute home. Working just means you miss out on the fun, playing hours between 9-5. You still get to do all the crap. So seriously, quit acting as though there is some monetary value or accolades deserved for taking care of your kids. It is something we all do and should do and its not some kind of moral imperative to do it without working. Society does not owe you anything for deciding to stay at home. The only value is what you and your family place upon it. The end.

Your nanny drives your children to their rehearsals, and practices, and appointments, and school pickups, not you, because you are at work.

You plan the meals, but the nanny helps make them.

The nanny presumably straightens up the house and picks up around the house for you.

In other words, you admittedly delegate to your nanny a lot of the work that someone who stays home without a nanny does all by themselves. So no, you do not work as hard on the home front as apparent staying home without a nanny.

How do I know this? Because I have done both work full-time, and later work part-time, with the assistance of a nanny, and stay at home without the assistance of a nanny. No comparison in terms of at-home workload. My friends, especially those who work, are honest with themselves, and acknowledge the difference as well.

Obviously my nanny does the driving when I am work, so from 9-5 three days a week. I appreciate that your experience may be different, but on the days I work versus the days I do not, working is about 1000 times harder/more stressful/more work and planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OP asked at what HHI does it make sense to be a SAHM. I think that depends on the individual situation.

My DH makes $155,000, which is technically enough for me to be a SAHM to my 3 kids as I had once hoped. However, there are a couple of reasons why I still work.

First, my mom had a high-powered career and she always really valued her financial independence, even though my parents have a good solid marriage. I currently make a slightly higher salary than my DH ($165,000 plus bonus) and I am able to get a solid 401(k) plus invest. I feel secure financially and know I’m not dependent on anyone, even though I love my husband. When I was a child, I missed my mom a lot when she was working long hours, and so I dreamed of being a SAHM for at least a period of time to be there more fully for my kids. But I realize that I am more at peace when I am earning my own money, just in case anything happened to my marriage (which I don’t anticipate).

Second, my husband has a mild drinking issue (which he disputes), and I worry that he may not be able to hold onto his job for another 20 years (we’re in our early 40’s).

Third, and this is unique to my marriage and may not apply to others, my DH and I seem to get along better when I work too. The marriage seems more balanced. For example, now that I make more than he does (compared to when I worked part-time), he completely understands the need to relieve the nanny at 6pm sharp (rather than assuming I will do it since I was only part-time.)

I think it’s a nice thing for the kids to have a SAHM if the SAHM is at peace with her place and if the marriage is strong. But if that is not 100 percent there, then I think it's best for the mom to WOHM.

In your case staying at home would negatively impact the family's standard of living because you both earn nearly the same. It generally makes a little more sense to have one partner stay at home when the stay-at-home spouse's income does not cover the cost of outside childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much would you have to pay a kind, loving, educated nanny to be on call 24/7, to forgo all sick/vacation days and stay with the job for 18 years? Someone who takes care of your kids with long term consequences in mind? Someone who loves your kids so much that they'd run through a fire to save them? Someone who is willing to nurse your sick kids while they themselves are sick?
What is a SAHP anyway....it is someone who loves their job so much that they are willing to work for free.

This is ridiculous, and I support women who SAH wholeheartedly. If it makes sense, it works for you, then that is great and wonderful. But this is crap because, guess what -- WOHM also do all of this. And work. And they also don't get paid for all the "overtime" they put in, do they? I work full time and I take off every sick day, I make breakfast, play, do baths before work, I plan activities for the kids, pack their lunches, arrange their schedules and deal with their nanny, who I carefully researched and selected, and I check in several times a day. I meal plan for lunch and dinners at home with the nanny. I come home, I do play, snack, loving, bedtime routine, nighttime wakeups, arrange all doctor's visits, do all their laundry, do all the grocery shopping. And I am the primary breadwinner. This is not an ode to me -- the point is, ALL PARENTS WORK THIS HARD. And not to engage in a pissing contest, but I am quasi part time and the days I spend at home are a BREEZE compared to the days I commute, work, and commute home. Working just means you miss out on the fun, playing hours between 9-5. You still get to do all the crap. So seriously, quit acting as though there is some monetary value or accolades deserved for taking care of your kids. It is something we all do and should do and its not some kind of moral imperative to do it without working. Society does not owe you anything for deciding to stay at home. The only value is what you and your family place upon it. The end.

Your nanny drives your children to their rehearsals, and practices, and appointments, and school pickups, not you, because you are at work.

You plan the meals, but the nanny helps make them.

The nanny presumably straightens up the house and picks up around the house for you.

In other words, you admittedly delegate to your nanny a lot of the work that someone who stays home without a nanny does all by themselves. So no, you do not work as hard on the home front as apparent staying home without a nanny.

How do I know this? Because I have done both work full-time, and later work part-time, with the assistance of a nanny, and stay at home without the assistance of a nanny. No comparison in terms of at-home workload. My friends, especially those who work, are honest with themselves, and acknowledge the difference as well.

Obviously my nanny does the driving when I am work, so from 9-5 three days a week. I appreciate that your experience may be different, but on the days I work versus the days I do not, working is about 1000 times harder/more stressful/more work and planning.

That is because you are taking a mental break from your office routine. Also, you know that no matter what happens you will be back at work on Monday with the nanny caring for the children again. A stay-at-home parent without a nanny does not have any such reprieve from their routine, schedule, and childcare duties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a silly question because it assumes a common denominator where there is none to be had. Let's take our collective heads out of the DCUM upper middle-class lifestyle for a second.

Not every SAHM lives in a 3,000 sqft house (vastly different cost to clean).

Not every SAHM cooks, and when they do, the quality is vastly different (won't pay as much for Burger King as you do for Citronelle).

Not every SAHM tutors, checks homework, takes kids to activities, stages enrichment headquarters at the kitchen table etc. (huge difference in cost)

Some SAHM do childcare like a high-end nanny would, and some do it like a cheapo home daycare would. Can't come up with a single number for those.

So the problem I have with this discussion is that everyone so far assumes that all services SAHM provides are of the personal tutor, Michelin-chef, Mary Poppins quality, and that is simply not the case. You cannot come up with a single rate to describe vastly different packages of services that different SAHM provide. You can come up with the barest lowest minimum and that's about it.

Similarly, there's no debate or angst about a mom who's not a high earner SAH. Nothing to discuss. SAH, or WOH if you prefer and your family at least breaks even. In my case, me working raises our HHI from 200K to 400K and makes a huge difference in our ability to get ahead financially.

I was actually a high earner, earning more than you currently earn over a decade ago in the medical field. However, it was only a drop in the bucket compared to what my significant other was earning, so together we made the decision that I would stay home to take care if the children. We have not regretted that decision even once in the past eleven years.