This is such a tired old subject, already answered many times. Everyone agrees that SAHM work is significant and worth a lot. Why keep asking the question? There are tables that provide pretty accurate estimates anyway. This is boring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's cheaper to keep her that's for damn sure.

Go away troll.

Go buy a sense of humor. It was a joke.

Half of humor is context. The attempted joke just reads as stereotyped 50s sexism, not humor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's cheaper to keep her that's for damn sure.

Go away troll.

Go buy a sense of humor. It was a joke.

Anonymous wrote:It's cheaper to keep her that's for damn sure.

Go away troll.

Anonymous wrote:I don't get articles like this. Nothing against SAHMS and the work they do, and I do think it sucks that alimony is less common now, when many SAHMS support their husband's career, but come on. Let's pretend we aren't moms and we are breaking this down: a single woman without kids ALSO does laundry, works out (so she get paid as a personal trainer), cooks, cleans, etc.

And as a WOHM and my husband, a WOHD, we do this stuff too - cooking, cleaning, laundry, errands, driving kids around. Yes, we outsource childcare during the day and we do outsource housecleaning once a month, but the rest of it we do.

I just think it is a silly way to value SAHMS. How about just acknowledging, it's hard work.

I agree with you to a point. Certain jobs, however, are almost impossible to perform without a SAH spouse. For example, a litigation partner at a big law firm or a principal at a major strategy consulting firm. When I was in IP litigation, every associate and partner with small to elementary school age children had a SAH spouse -- there was no way to do the job otherwise. If both spouses are in such demanding jobs, there is absolutely no time at all to do the cooking, cleaning, laundry, errands, driving kids around, etc. So, your hypothetical single woman can work and do SAH duties only if she is not in such a demanding job.

Let's not devalue SAHM just because your job allows for housework.

It's cheaper to keep her that's for damn sure.

Anonymous wrote:I'd say at least what daycare would cost the family per year if mother did not stay at home, plus probably a premium for providing individualized care.

What age kids are we talking about?

Anonymous wrote:hm..

chef, driver, nanny, cleaning lady, nurse, personal organizer, personal shopper, secretary, tutor, coach, psychologist, nutritionist, teacher, event planer, etc... quite expensive.

cheap when you live off a man

hm..

chef, driver, nanny, cleaning lady, nurse, personal organizer, personal shopper, secretary, tutor, coach, psychologist, nutritionist, teacher, event planer, etc... quite expensive.

I'd say at least what daycare would cost the family per year if mother did not stay at home, plus probably a premium for providing individualized care.

Anonymous wrote:Priceless, when they STFU.

Ah, there's the DCUM class we all love. Do you realize how misogynistic this appears in this context?

Priceless, when they STFU.

They do this every year, Yawn.

I don't get articles like this. Nothing against SAHMS and the work they do, and I do think it sucks that alimony is less common now, when many SAHMS support their husband's career, but come on. Let's pretend we aren't moms and we are breaking this down: a single woman without kids ALSO does laundry, works out (so she get paid as a personal trainer), cooks, cleans, etc.

And as a WOHM and my husband, a WOHD, we do this stuff too - cooking, cleaning, laundry, errands, driving kids around. Yes, we outsource childcare during the day and we do outsource housecleaning once a month, but the rest of it we do.

I just think it is a silly way to value SAHMS. How about just acknowledging, it's hard work.

Well the article says "homemaker". Some SAHM probably outsource some of these job duties

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-homemaker-worth-182358580.html