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.

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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 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?

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.