Financial Value of SAHM Services

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

OK, then it is worth that to you. What does it matter, seriously?

[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.

Why would an immigrant making minimum wage have 3 kids? That is poor family planning, not something we should turn her into a martyr for.

At the end of the day, there are only 24 hours in a day. Your value is whatever you choose to do during those 24 hours. Also, keep in mind that once children are school-aged, they are gone from the house generally at least 40 hours per week. So if you want to do a purely mathmatical calculation of the value of a SAHM, I would have to say the value is much less once your kids are in school.

Most parents who work full time also do grocery shopping, laundry, house cleaning etc. If you outsource then your value is your salary minus what you pay to outsource. If you SAH and do those things, then you are worth the value of a cleaning service and someone to run errands. I think that is a stupid way to look at it though because most parents add much more than financial value to their families regardless of whether they do it in the home or by earning a paycheck. Stop with the pissing contest ladies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would an immigrant making minimum wage have 3 kids? That is poor family planning[i], not something we should turn her into a martyr for.

At the end of the day, there are only 24 hours in a day. Your value is whatever you choose to do during those 24 hours. Also, keep in mind that once children are school-aged, they are gone from the house generally at least 40 hours per week. So if you want to do a purely mathmatical calculation of the value of a SAHM, I would have to say the value is much less once your kids are in school.

Most parents who work full time also do grocery shopping, laundry, house cleaning etc. If you outsource then your value is your salary minus what you pay to outsource. If you SAH and do those things, then you are worth the value of a cleaning service and someone to run errands. I think that is a stupid way to look at it though because most parents add much more than financial value to their families regardless of whether they do it in the home or by earning a paycheck. Stop with the pissing contest ladies.

Previous poster, I am sure that you did not intend to be condescending, but your post comes across that way. Perhaps, living in this privileged area, people sometimes forget about the everyday trials of so many people living and laboring in most of the rest of the world.

An immigrant mother might have started out her family years in the relative safety of her own town, surrounded and supported by extended family and lifelong friends. But then disease, or famine, or extreme poverty, or war, or political turmoil, or criminal violence made it impossible to continue to live safely there, just as her children were old enough to be recruited by gangs, or used to fight wars. And so she left to find a better life for her family.

To criticize people in these circumstances for "poor family planning" reflects your own privileged and sheltered, even provincial world view. If the economy caused your job to be eliminated, or your spouse's salary to be cut, such that you could no longer afford everything you currently provide for your family -- would you appreciate someone telling you that you planned your family poorly by having more children than you could, under the new circumstances, afford? No, you would not. Try walking in someone else's shoes before you criticize their "family planning".

In any case, this is just to say that there is always someone who works just as hard as you, but who has it so much harder. The SAHMs say they have it so hard, and the WOHMs say they have it even harder. But the WOHM parent, without the means to "outsource" the help for their children, who is working two or more jobs for minimum pay, probably has everyone beat in this contest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no monetary equivalent for raising your own children. The pay is not in dollars.

Agree. The other posters have no idea how valuable it is. The highest calling and job a woman can have is wife and mother. Obviously many here dishonor that.

Luckily, I can be a wife and mother AND have paid employment too.

More power to you. When I quit my job, there were many women at my office who said that they would do it too, if their pay was not required. Anytime you choose to do what you do then you are lucky. Not everyone can have everything. It is true that WOHM have a source of income that they earn, it is also true that SAHMs get to spend more time with their kids. Both are true and both are not comparable.

I only wish for all women that when they do what they do (SAHM or WOHM) it is because they have really made the choice for their own happiness and not because they had no option.

To be able to SAHM, for those women, who want to spend time with their kids, and they are financially secure - it is a great thing.
To be able WOHM , for those women, who love their job and have the support system in place for their home and kids - it is a great thing too.

To not be financially secure - whether WOHM or SAHM - and not have support systems in place - they are bad in any situation.

I spend as much time with my kids as the SAHMs do. Our kids are all gone 40 hours a week, between school and the bus rides, not counting various activities. Not a big difference in the time when the kids are school aged.

Then you are clearly the winner. Right? And by the same token, if my single income HHI trumps your dual income HHI - then I am the winner!

If you WOHM and can spend the same quantity and quality of time a SAHM can on her household and children then it is amazing. If you SAHM and your HHI is higher than dual income HHI and you are financially secure and have your own money then it is equally amazing!

[Anonymous]

So, if the financial worth of a SAHM is a paltry 100K, then any WOHM not making at least 100K is an abject failure?

What about the men? less than 100 K makes you a beta male or an omega?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, if the financial worth of a SAHM is a paltry 100K, then any WOHM not making at least 100K is an abject failure?

What about the men? less than 100 K makes you a beta male or an omega?

Well that's it. I'm quitting my 90k job tomorrow and am telling my husband I'm going to SAH because my value to the family by not working is 100k. We will actually be 10k richer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you weren't, troll. Not as a geriatrician. Try again, troll!

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No you weren't, troll. Not as a geriatrician. Try again troll!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.)

You and your DH are making a big mistake in not having life insurance on you. Imagine that you drop dead of a brain aneurysm tomorrow. Who would take your place and do everything you do and for how much? How would your DH and children cope emotionally with your loss? My SIL died suddenly last year leaving two young children. That has necessitated hiring a full-time live-in nanny plus evening, weekend and childcare to cover all the hours SIL used to be available. The children are in therapy and that is another extra cost they didn't have before. How many years would DH be able to keep this up without additional financial help?

[Anonymous]

I am the PP without life insurance. I hope I am a good wife and mother and I don't think that there is any doubt that the fallout from the loss of a parent would be horrible. However, from a financial standpoint I don't need life insurance. (My husband is well insured because he is the breadwinner).

I have two high schoolers & a 10 year old. DH could hire a nanny and any cover any other expenses easily for as long as it took. Also, I am a very expensive SAHP -- I sit on boards (so that takes money), play tennis, and we travel.

I am sorry about your SIL. That is horrible. Neither my husband or I had life insurance (other than minimal amounts through work) when our children were very young. That was probably a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.)

You and your DH are making a big mistake in not having life insurance on you. Imagine that you drop dead of a brain aneurysm tomorrow. Who would take your place and do everything you do and for how much? How would your DH and children cope emotionally with your loss? My SIL died suddenly last year leaving two young children. That has necessitated hiring a full-time live-in nanny plus evening, weekend and childcare to cover all the hours SIL used to be available. The children are in therapy and that is another extra cost they didn't have before. How many years would DH be able to keep this up without additional financial help?

Finally! Someone mentions life insurance. I am a SAHM and DH and I purchased term life insurance for each of us based on our current roles. He has life insurance through work, but we don't feel it's enough to maintain our current modest lifestyle. If I died, DH would need a nanny, housekeeper, cook, etc. This is not to validate myself but to assess real dollars to services that might need to be replaced. I think we got insurance to sum about $80,000. I think. It was a few years ago. This is not a debate of SAHM va. WOHM vs. WAHM But to attribute real dollars to hiring situations.

[Anonymous]

My brother, a geriatrician, practices in a "concierge" practice for high net worth, older individuals. He earns much, much more than the physician above claims, so I do not doubt the earning potential. That said, people do obfuscate the details in their posts, so it could be that the poster was just as likely a law firm associate, a lobbyist, etc.

[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.

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.

I must have missed where a SAHP ever suggested that society owes him/her something for his/her decision to stay at home. Clearly my decision to SAH benefits my family. Just as your decision to work benefits your family. Doing what works best for your own family is just all part and parcel of living in a society. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.)

You and your DH are making a big mistake in not having life insurance on you. Imagine that you drop dead of a brain aneurysm tomorrow. Who would take your place and do everything you do and for how much? How would your DH and children cope emotionally with your loss? My SIL died suddenly last year leaving two young children. That has necessitated hiring a full-time live-in nanny plus evening, weekend and childcare to cover all the hours SIL used to be available. The children are in therapy and that is another extra cost they didn't have before. How many years would DH be able to keep this up without additional financial help?

Finally! Someone mentions life insurance. I am a SAHM and DH and I purchased term life insurance for each of us based on our current roles. He has life insurance through work, but we don't feel it's enough to maintain our current modest lifestyle. If I died, DH would need a nanny, housekeeper, cook, etc. This is not to validate myself but to assess real dollars to services that might need to be replaced. I think we got insurance to sum about $80,000. I think. It was a few years ago. This is not a debate of SAHM va. WOHM vs. WAHM But to attribute real dollars to hiring situations.

That's not enough, pp. Unless you have family in the area to pick up the slack, you would go through $80,000 in a few years just in childcare costs. We have $500,000 on me and double on DH.