stay at home mom - a $134k job

[econophile]

A study by Salay.com about what stay at home moms are worth has been getting some press today. They estimate that it would cost $134k per year to hire someone to be a stay at home mom. You can read the full story here (link). A lot of the assumptions and methods are pretty bad, but the study is probably just done for publicity.

edit: that link describes last year's estimate. this year's estimate is $138k.

[Lazy Meatball]

Maybe I should compute the salary it would cost to find someone to feed and bathe me and present myself with a certificate saying that I'm worth that much.

[NicksDad1970]

I guess I'm worse off than I thought I was

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I should compute the salary it would cost to find someone to feed and bathe me and present myself with a certificate saying that I'm worth that much.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only if you're not working because you have to bathe yourself.

[econophile]

LM,

yes, some of the tasks used to calculate the moms' salaries (doing laundry, washing dishes, etc.) are things that i have to do and have some market value.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
A study by Salay.com about what stay at home moms are worth has been getting some press today. They estimate that it would cost $134k per year to hire someone to be a stay at home mom. You can read the full story here (link). A lot of the assumptions and methods are pretty bad, but the study is probably just done for publicity.

[/ QUOTE ]

tons of stuff on this topic... how much is "stay at home mom" worth in terms of GDP etc. last weeks economist had an article about the affects of the differences between male & female employment. they found a counter-intuitive result where the countries surveyed whose male - female unemployment rate is highest (fewest females relative to males employed) had lower rates of fertility:

"Where the gap between male & female employment rates is small, women tend to have more babies. the reason seems to be that in countries where taxes on second earners are high or affordable child care is hard to find, women must often choose between children and work, especially if their incomes are low. Where second earners are not penalised by taxes or where child care is cheap or subsidised, they can have both."

interesting thoughts on the subject.

$134k seems a bit high, if i were to ball park guess id say it's the same as a live in nanny...that'd probably run ya 50-75k.

i guess one way to think about it is if you were a women (bear with me here), how much would you have to be paid to do that job...or, how much would you pay to NOT have to do that job??

Barron

[AmadisSB]

do you think they factored in the cost of getting a hooker every night as well?

[einbert]

This study was probably done by women, and should therefore be disregarded completely due to their lack of analytical, logical, and mathematical reasoning ability.

They are pretty to look at and fun to have sex with, though.

[lefunque]

Also would not be surprised to see that Divorced Women of America or some such female divorcee support group contributes to this website. Not saying they don't deserve their settlements, but this can only increase their values.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
This study was probably done by women, and should therefore be disregarded completely due to their lack of analytical, logical, and mathematical reasoning ability.

They are pretty to look at and fun to have sex with, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an outstanding analysis.

Seriously though, these studies come out every once in a while always saying the same thing, and the ones I've read bits and pieces of use a very suspect methodology. They will say how much a gardener costs per year, say, and then add that to a total as if someone were a full-time gardener. Then they get every other job added together as if it too were full-time. Sorry, but nobody works five 40 hour jobs a week, nor do they have to.

Also, they don't deduct the fact that a gardener has to go home to his own place, for which he pays rent. Last I heard, nobody is charging their wife rent. Or for food, electricity, use of credit, gas, power, telephone, doctor and dentist bills, clothes, etc. And nobody listens to their gardener nagging them or has to put up with their gardener's mother-in-law, which has gotta be worth something.

So, true value supplied isn't really looked at, nor are the freebies subtracted.

Of course, we can argue whether they're really freebies, of course, but that wipes out the main argument, that wives do something that's worth money that could or should be compensated monetarily. You can't call them family one minute and employees the next, picking and choosing wherever and whenever you like to wring the most money out of the equation.