Financial Value of SAHM Services

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, cool. But this isn't the pain Olympics (you get the Gold, yay!), but about the financial value of staying at home. Again, it depends on what it is worth to you and your family. But I find it silly to argue that financially it is worth more than a nanny, and that is the point. Just because I work doesn't mean I have someone else to do allt he stuff after "work hours" listed in the post -- I do all that stuff but for the 35 hours a week I am gone and so do all working parents. Again, it doesn't deserve gold merit badges, its what you do when you have kids.

Also, the financial decision HUGELY depends on what you can earn while still being able to contribute. I make $180K working part time so giving that up to stay at home on those three days would probably not make financial sense for us.

[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.

Did someone say that society "owes" SAHPs something? Do you think that society "owes" you something more because you work? If so, what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, cool. But this isn't the pain Olympics (you get the Gold, yay!), but about the financial value of staying at home. Again, it depends on what it is worth to you and your family. But I find it silly to argue that financially it is worth more than a nanny, and that is the point. Just because I work doesn't mean I have someone else to do allt he stuff after "work hours" listed in the post -- I do all that stuff but for the 35 hours a week I am gone and so do all working parents. Again, it doesn't deserve gold merit badges, its what you do when you have kids.

Also, the financial decision HUGELY depends on what you can earn while still being able to contribute. I make $180K working part time so giving that up to stay at home on those three days would probably not make financial sense for us.

Most people will never, ever be able to make 180K working part time. I don't know know what you are doing to command such a salary but suffice it to say - most people wouldn't give up a gig like that. Absolutely hang on to that!

[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.

Did someone say that society "owes" SAHPs something? Do you think that society "owes" you something more because you work? If so, what?

No, society does not. But my job owes me a paycheck. The question is -- what is the financial value of SAHM services. Answering that it is better for society or has the moral imperative implies that society owes SAH parents something for that decision. That is my point. No, it doesn't. The decision to stay at home and take care of your kids does not financially benefit anyone other than you, your spouse, and perhaps your kids, so the value is whatever you place on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, cool. But this isn't the pain Olympics (you get the Gold, yay!), but about the financial value of staying at home. Again, it depends on what it is worth to you and your family. But I find it silly to argue that financially it is worth more than a nanny, and that is the point. Just because I work doesn't mean I have someone else to do allt he stuff after "work hours" listed in the post -- I do all that stuff but for the 35 hours a week I am gone and so do all working parents. Again, it doesn't deserve gold merit badges, its what you do when you have kids.

Also, the financial decision HUGELY depends on what you can earn while still being able to contribute. I make $180K working part time so giving that up to stay at home on those three days would probably not make financial sense for us.

Most people will never, ever be able to make 180K working part time. I don't know know what you are doing to command such a salary but suffice it to say - most people wouldn't give up a gig like that. Absolutely hang on to that!

+1. What the heck are you doing that allows you to get $180K part time???? I'm wondering if your job is overvalued....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, cool. But this isn't the pain Olympics (you get the Gold, yay!), but about the financial value of staying at home. Again, it depends on what it is worth to you and your family. But I find it silly to argue that financially it is worth more than a nanny, and that is the point. Just because I work doesn't mean I have someone else to do allt he stuff after "work hours" listed in the post -- I do all that stuff but for the 35 hours a week I am gone and so do all working parents. Again, it doesn't deserve gold merit badges, its what you do when you have kids.

Also, the financial decision HUGELY depends on what you can earn while still being able to contribute. I make $180K working part time so giving that up to stay at home on those three days would probably not make financial sense for us.

Most people will never, ever be able to make 180K working part time. I don't know know what you are doing to command such a salary but suffice it to say - most people wouldn't give up a gig like that. Absolutely hang on to that!

+1. What the heck are you doing that allows you to get $180K part time???? I'm wondering if your job is overvalued....

+1. The amount of money people make around here for a few hours of work is criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, cool. But this isn't the pain Olympics (you get the Gold, yay!), but about the financial value of staying at home. Again, it depends on what it is worth to you and your family. But I find it silly to argue that financially it is worth more than a nanny, and that is the point. Just because I work doesn't mean I have someone else to do allt he stuff after "work hours" listed in the post -- I do all that stuff but for the 35 hours a week I am gone and so do all working parents. Again, it doesn't deserve gold merit badges, its what you do when you have kids.

Also, the financial decision HUGELY depends on what you can earn while still being able to contribute. I make $180K working part time so giving that up to stay at home on those three days would probably not make financial sense for us.

Most people will never, ever be able to make 180K working part time. I don't know know what you are doing to command such a salary but suffice it to say - most people wouldn't give up a gig like that. Absolutely hang on to that!

+1. What the heck are you doing that allows you to get $180K part time???? I'm wondering if your job is overvalued....

I am just a lawyer like so many people on DCUM -- but here, again, is the issue -- I would say that my job is not "overvalued" because the value is set by those purchasing my services. It is much like the value for anything, including the value of staying at home. Its worth what someone is willing to pay/sacrifice to do it. Right?

[Anonymous]

Please, be nice to the previous poster earning $180,000/year for working 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. three days a week.

I am certain that the previous poster works just as hard as the immigrant mother with three children, working two "part-time" jobs for minimum wage.

[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.

Except PP wasn't talking about planning meals and driving kids around, s/he was talking about "being around for 18 years" and "taking care of your kids when they are sick even if you are sick yourself," and for those things there's no difference between SAHMs and WOHMs. WOHMs may outsource the mechanics of child care for 8 hours a day on weekdays but they don't stop being parents. If someone wants to put a dollar value on the child care, go ahead, but you can't put a dollar value on being a parent, or say that because you are available 100% of the time and WOHMs are available 75% of the time somehow WOHMs are 75% of a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, cool. But this isn't the pain Olympics (you get the Gold, yay!), but about the financial value of staying at home. Again, it depends on what it is worth to you and your family. But I find it silly to argue that financially it is worth more than a nanny, and that is the point. Just because I work doesn't mean I have someone else to do allt he stuff after "work hours" listed in the post -- I do all that stuff but for the 35 hours a week I am gone and so do all working parents. Again, it doesn't deserve gold merit badges, its what you do when you have kids.

Also, the financial decision HUGELY depends on what you can earn while still being able to contribute. I make $180K working part time so giving that up to stay at home on those three days would probably not make financial sense for us.

Most people will never, ever be able to make 180K working part time. I don't know know what you are doing to command such a salary but suffice it to say - most people wouldn't give up a gig like that. Absolutely hang on to that!

+1. What the heck are you doing that allows you to get $180K part time???? I'm wondering if your job is overvalued....

I am just a lawyer like so many people on DCUM -- but here, again, is the issue -- I would say that my job is not "overvalued" because the value is set by those purchasing my services. It is much like the value for anything, including the value of staying at home. Its worth what someone is willing to pay/sacrifice to do it. Right?

So then you say that the value of my being a stay-at-home parent is "what [I] was willing to . . . /sacrifice to do it. Right?" In that case, since I left a field earning more than $240,000/year more than a decade back, I suppose under your analysis, the value of my SAHP services over the last decade has been a minimum of $240,000/year. Thanks for the support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please, be nice to the previous poster earning $180,000/year for working 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. three days a week.

I am certain that the previous poster works just as hard as the immigrant mother with three children, working two "part-time" jobs for minimum wage.

This is the real reason people around here say that they can't imagine living anywhere else. Because in fact no other place would pay you so much for so few hours. Unless the previous poster is now going to tell us that the days at home with his or her children are actually spent working their job instead.

[Anonymous]

WOHM parents are, if course, just as much a parent. No one would argue that they are any less a parent.

Some WOHM parents, as you yourself say, "outsource" much of the household and family work that a stay-at-home parent, or a working parent without a nanny or the resources for outside help, takes on themself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, cool. But this isn't the pain Olympics (you get the Gold, yay!), but about the financial value of staying at home. Again, it depends on what it is worth to you and your family. But I find it silly to argue that financially it is worth more than a nanny, and that is the point. Just because I work doesn't mean I have someone else to do allt he stuff after "work hours" listed in the post -- I do all that stuff but for the 35 hours a week I am gone and so do all working parents. Again, it doesn't deserve gold merit badges, its what you do when you have kids.

Also, the financial decision HUGELY depends on what you can earn while still being able to contribute. I make $180K working part time so giving that up to stay at home on those three days would probably not make financial sense for us.

Most people will never, ever be able to make 180K working part time. I don't know know what you are doing to command such a salary but suffice it to say - most people wouldn't give up a gig like that. Absolutely hang on to that!

+1. What the heck are you doing that allows you to get $180K part time???? I'm wondering if your job is overvalued....

I am just a lawyer like so many people on DCUM -- but here, again, is the issue -- I would say that my job is not "overvalued" because the value is set by those purchasing my services. It is much like the value for anything, including the value of staying at home. Its worth what someone is willing to pay/sacrifice to do it. Right?

So then you say that the value of my being a stay-at-home parent is "what [I] was willing to . . . /sacrifice to do it. Right?" In that case, since I left a field earning more than $240,000/year more than a decade back, I suppose under your analysis, the value of my SAHP services over the last decade has been a minimum of $240,000/year. Thanks for the support.

That's a lost value to YOU. Not the market value of your services, which is -- what is someone else going to pay you for your SAHM services, not the sacrifice of your salary. The market sets the value. And there is no value for those services. Its obviously not a financial decision in your case, right? So what is the point of getting all bent out of shape on this? Its a silly question and arguing that its worth some huge amount of money is specious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, be nice to the previous poster earning $180,000/year for working 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. three days a week.

I am certain that the previous poster works just as hard as the immigrant mother with three children, working two "part-time" jobs for minimum wage.

This is the real reason people around here say that they can't imagine living anywhere else. Because in fact no other place would pay you so much for so few hours. Unless the previous poster is now going to tell us that the days at home with his or her children are actually spent working their job instead.

NO, I get paid 3/4 of my previous salary to work 3/4 of the time, and I am by no means alone. I know many other women with similar schedules and salaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok, cool. But this isn't the pain Olympics (you get the Gold, yay!), but about the financial value of staying at home. Again, it depends on what it is worth to you and your family. But I find it silly to argue that financially it is worth more than a nanny, and that is the point. Just because I work doesn't mean I have someone else to do allt he stuff after "work hours" listed in the post -- I do all that stuff but for the 35 hours a week I am gone and so do all working parents. Again, it doesn't deserve gold merit badges, its what you do when you have kids.

Also, the financial decision HUGELY depends on what you can earn while still being able to contribute. I make $180K working part time so giving that up to stay at home on those three days would probably not make financial sense for us.

Most people will never, ever be able to make 180K working part time. I don't know know what you are doing to command such a salary but suffice it to say - most people wouldn't give up a gig like that. Absolutely hang on to that!

+1. What the heck are you doing that allows you to get $180K part time???? I'm wondering if your job is overvalued....

I am just a lawyer like so many people on DCUM -- but here, again, is the issue -- I would say that my job is not "overvalued" because the value is set by those purchasing my services. It is much like the value for anything, including the value of staying at home. Its worth what someone is willing to pay/sacrifice to do it. Right?

So then you say that the value of my being a stay-at-home parent is "what [I] was willing to . . . /sacrifice to do it. Right?" In that case, since I left a field earning more than $240,000/year more than a decade back, I suppose under your analysis, the value of my SAHP services over the last decade has been a minimum of $240,000/year. Thanks for the support.

That's a lost value to YOU. Not the market value of your services, which is -- what is someone else going to pay you for your SAHM services, not the sacrifice of your salary. The market sets the value. And there is no value for those services. Its obviously not a financial decision in your case, right? So what is the point of getting all bent out of shape on this? Its a silly question and arguing that its worth some huge amount of money is specious.

Actually, that is just how a previous poster suggested that the services should be valued, by "what someone is willing to /sacrifice to do it." It appears that they were willing to sacrifice that amount of $240K, so there you have the pp's valuation using the other poster's formula. Follow?