I think maybe I'm just jaded about Stay at Home moms in general. I think the whole thing is ridiculous - and this study just further encourages women to stay at home ("hey, you're doing something with economic worth") when I don't think most women should (there are exceptions). How about calculating the loss to the economy of women who should be working but aren't because of some 50s ideal that you aren't a good mom unless you are 100% of your time raising kids? And to say the value a mom provides is equal to that of a nurse or a therapist? That's absurd. Nurses and therapists are educated and trained, which is why they command that money. For the most part, moms are not. At best, stay at home moms are the equivelent of an inefficient day care operation. A more valuable statistic might be comparing how much the time of mothers vs. fathers is worth (presumably on average fathers spend lest time in a caregiving role) to show that some men need ot increase their contribution to the household.

I think it's insulting too. It's like, "Hey men! You're getting $117,000 worth of free labor from your wife! ::high five::"

Wow. Way to devalue an entire group of women.

This "At best, stay at home moms are the equivelent of an inefficient day care operation." is quite possibly THE most offensive thing I've read all week.

They calculate that number to help people understand that mothering IS work-I'd be happier if this was calculated for stay at home parents instead of mothers, but if people continue to insist that raising PEOPLE is not a worthwhile cause, they'll still need to do them.

I work outside the home, my husband working part time to take care of the kids and this is just...man....we're raising the next generation, not babysitting...

Ha! You are jaded, but in most situations concerning the role of women, that is extremely positive. Stay at home mothers should be compensated for the work they provide. I cringed at that woman's lovey dovey, I don't want the money spew as well. I think that if it were paid men would also be more likely to stick around and help a bit as well.

If you condescend to the mother who "doesn't" want the money I think you are missing the point. Speaking for myself, as a mostly stay at home mom for the immediate future, the actual cash is so not the point. I mean, it would be nice to get a paycheck sure - but just to have more money, not because that would somehow validate my worth as a mother. I recognize that I am extremely lucky to be able to stay home with my infant right now - but it is still hard ass work. And as "icky lovey dovey" as it sounds to some, the rewards ARE better than money. This does not make me a better mother than those who work. But it is my choice and I am happy with it.

Um, WOW, becca. I don't even know where to start, but here goes. Yes, patriarchy made it seem like you were only a complete woman if you were a SAHM, and I heartily disagree with this because I believe in *choice.* But I absolutely can not support your idea that the majority of SAHM's are inefficient, untrained drains on the economy. I'm a mom, obviously, and I stayed home for six months before going back to work. In that six months, just as the study suggests, I did the work of a nurse and a therapist and a CEO of sorts, all with no training and very little sleep. At times I thought I was going to lose my mind, but this is my son, my own child, we're talking about so I kept trying through the crying, the uncertainty, and the emotional drain. It's one of the hardest jobs I've ever had to do, and there were NO breaks. None. But is a daycare facility more efficient? Is "efficient" really the most important thing in raising a child?? I'm the only one I trust 100% to pass on my values to my son. I'm the one who spent so much time and energy on him in his first six months that I know he's getting sick even before he does. Trained nurses and doctors know this, and ask mothers for input at sick visits- young child care is similar to doing nonstop research and collecting tiny bits of data that no one else can see- is his color a little off? Is he acting different today? Is he sucking on two fingers instead of a thumb? The idea that training equals monetary value has some merit, but it's also rooted in patriarchal ideals about what training means- and childrearing can't be learned without *on the job* training. I am absolutely the most qualified person to take care of my son. I love my daycare provider and spent a great deal of time choosing her, but she's caring for six other kids with different needs at the same time and my son knows the difference.

I don't think this study encourages women to stay at home who wouldn't originally- no one's lining up to hand out the cash, are they? The intent of studies like this is to show the value of the work that SAHM's (and moms who work for pay, as that statistic was included as well) are already doing, in the hopes that their efforts will be better appreciated by their partners, by other women, and by the world at large. I can understand Jessica feeling jaded about it- the studies don't seem to be attaining their goal. But that's no excuse for bashing women's choices, just because they don't happen to match your choices, becca. That's counterproductive, and no better than telling all women they have to stay at home.

Let's put aside for a moment the argument over fairest division of labor in a two-parent household, and call this what it is: salary.com pandering to women for page views on Mothers' Day.

Caretaking for my offspring is equivalent to caretaking for myself. Reproducing is a selfish choice that a person makes for nobody else's benefit but their own satisfaction. Until the kids are adults, they are the parents' responsibility. Nobody would pay me for taking care of myself, and nobody would pay me for taking care of my own kids. Therefore mothering, or fathering for that matter, does not pay and has no market value. People who had kids do not now have a claim to act like they are martyred or underappreciated by society. If I spend all year ensuring my progeny, then that should have been its own reward. I can't expect to have my cake and pretend that I should get paid for it too.

"...the loss to the economy of women who should be working..."????

According to what value system? (There always is one behind a *Should.*)

What, are all the stay-at-home-moms doing wrong by not being good cogs in the wheels of this nurturing and humane social machine we've got going in the U.S.?

There is so much more that is wrong with what you wrote... but there are many others to take you on for it.... I have to get some cleanup done after breakfast with the kids. Oops! Sorry! Should I be too ashamed to admit that?

My husband and I were discussing this article the other day, and he asked a good question. Who would pay that much for that job if it was run as a position through a company? Also, is it more important to look at the market rate for childcare/housekeeping? I don't think there are job postings for nannies that pay that much. The job does not require any special training or education, but obviously some may be more educated or talented at cooking, cleaning, psychology, teaching, management etc.

It would be better to calculate the minimum of what the work is worth and then work up from there. If you took minimum wage, say $6.50/hr, and assumed 16 hours of work a day, seven days a week, the total is $50,024 counting overtime as time-and-a-half. A stay-at-home mom's work is definitely worth something, but $117,000 seems a bit excessive. There a lots of people with masters degrees and doctorates that don't make that kind of money. I would be more interested in what the economists at the Freakonomics blog think is the value of a stay-at-home mom over an article from Salary.com.

In all fairness though, some people really DO find it rewarding to stay at home. I'm a man, and if, when I get married I'm given the chance to be a stay at home dad, I'd jump at the chance! I'd much rather do that for nothing then slave away working for Another thing that concerns me about the tone of this article and some of the responses; if we're coming to the point in society where we're asking to get paid to RAISE OUR OWN CHILDREN, there is something seriously fucked up with that.

I'm a feminist SAHM who also plans to homeschool. I consider myself fortunate that I have the opportunity to devote such a large amount of time, affection and wisdom to my son, much more than he would get at an "efficient," impersonal, overpriced day care center.

I offer no apologies for the fact that I hands down do NOT trust over-worked strangers to raise my son to be the strong, intelligent, balanced feminist man the world desperately needs him to be. No one is an invested in him as I am. Should I just let him loose in our hypermasculine culture without devoting as much time as I possible can to teaching him the things he'll need out there? Because it's a drain on our ECONOMY, of all things? That just seems like backwards thinking to me.

A woman doesn't need to be a mother in order to validate her womanhood. A woman who can't or chooses not to stay home with her children shouldn't be shamed for not being a "good enough" mother. But I resent *my choice* to do so being seen by ANYONE as weak, or somehow anti-feminist, when my child raising efforts have EVERYTHING to do with stregnth and feminism. The economy is the very, VERY least of my worries when it comes to the future of this world.

"At best, stay at home moms are the equivelent of an inefficient day care operation."

Woah, becca, woah. I'm not even a mother, and this rubbed me the wrong way. I assume you're not a mother? Because mothers are so much more than just an "inefficient day care operation" -- and the fact that you said inefficient is even more appalling.

It get's on my nerves too-The women receive their annual pat on the back, be happy ladies, now back to work! Perhaps a proportional Social Security deposit from the government would be more like it. That would help a woman's retirement funds when she outlives her well-rested husband.
I don't think the WAHM versus SAHM argument needs to be rehashed. There are many choices at play here. Not the least of which is that the lower earner typically steps out to mind the kids. Since we still don't make as much that tends to be the women. Contrary to the first commentator's opinion many SAH's are reacting to the inefficiencies of daycares locally and see that they themselves could do a better job. Have you seen some daycare centers????
Some want the Mom path and there's nothing wrong with that either. The key here is choice.
I am a working mom with 2 kids, one child in daycare, one in the school system. I work mostly from home for a NYC company but it took me 4 years of motherhood before I could negotiate this arrangement. I just wouldn't settle until I had it. So now I have the best of both worlds and am at full salary.
Here are the real issues- pay equality, retirement impact of "opting out", family workload share. Some issues are external, some are internal to a household and some are both. All are valid. Let's not lose focus.

I'm a SAHM. I have a Master's Degree. I chose to have children. I chose to stay at home, giving up my So. Cal salary.

For Jessica to say she'd frankly prefer the cash irritated me. Yeah, because...that's all that matters, right? That women have equal pay within a capitalist system. Down with the patriarchy as long as we're making money?

Childrearing has always been the great divide in feminism - and it usually divides between women who have kids and women who don't. Can't we cut each other some slack and honor the choices we're each making? And instead fight anyplace we see women who don't have a choice?

This always amazes me. Previous generations have made women equal under the law and changed cultural norms surrounding women and work but women still accept unfair partnerships/marriages. Perhaps this is the feminists final frontier. Men want women and women want men but when the two come together it always seems as if the men get their way. Women still consent to relationships and benefit (otherwise why enter) but the total benefit is skewed towards the men. To solve this women need to become empowered when it comes to entering and negotiating a relationship. As this article points out, it is not as if they don't have a lot to bargain with.

I agree with jhcz that $50,000 appears to be closer to a realistic number. I'm sure that there are a few people in the world (e.g., J-Lo) who pay more for a good nanny, but almost anyone else doesn't. And at some point quality doesn't necessarily increase your value -- e.g., even the very best waiters at TGIFs don't make $80K.

More importantly than the pat-on-the-back, though, how about using this study to get Soc Sec benefits for SAHMs? That would be of some meaningful financial comfort to any SAHMs who find themselves divorced when their children are 18.

SAHMs are often overlooked. Society & the media undervalue the hard work and huge impact SAHMs make. Is there really something more important than raising YOUR OWN kids? And as expensive as day care is--it can cost as much as college after all--for a lot of working class families with 2 or 3 young children its the only way they can make it. Its an incredibly difficult, isolating, and unappreciated job, and not every person is cut out for it. For those who want to do it, though, I think its great. If anything $117K undervalues the contribution of SAHMs. I only wish there was a way to monetize the $117K & actually pay women for it!

I am *so* tired of this study.

They include the salary of *CEOS* in their calculation. A stay-at-home mother is NOT A CEO! At best she is the head of a nonprofit microbusiness, and as the head of a for-profit microbusiness I can only imagine how much *less* I'd make if my microbusiness was a nonprofit.

I once calculated how much my work outside my job was worth to my family and came up with $38K. I was not a stay at home mom; the point of the exercise was to try to prove to my husband the economic value of the work I was doing on *top* of my day job, such as cooking dinner, washing clothes, etc. The number was as high as it was because my husband is legally blind and needed me to drive him extremely long distances, and replacing me with a taxi would have been costly. I think when I did the numbers as a SAHM, I came out at $68K, again because of the taxi.

The work a SAHM does is vital to the nation's economy and the well being of her family. But it is not worth $117K. Replacing every function a SAHM does with someone who is paid to do it probably costs around $50K. This is artificially low precisely because SAHMs are women and work for free, so any work anyone does that competes with SAHMs is competing with free labor and has deflated wages (such as child care, which is worth vastly more in terms of the value and difficulty of the work than anyone is actually paid for it), but at *best* a SAHM might be able to get to $70K and that's because she works overtime.

Also, the work traditionally done by men around the house is worth between an additional $20K-$60K depending on how handy he is.

I'd like to see a good study on the value added to families by the work of a SAHM. This isn't it.

I think the CEO thing probably pulls up the average a bit. I wonder if they take into account the size of the company. CEO of a 3-4 person company is definitely not going to pay the same salary as CEO of a 500 person company as CEO of Ford.

And to sort of defend Becca, 1 mom with 1 kid in 1 house is pretty inefficient from an economic standpoint, but so's making a piece of clothing by hand, or creating a work of art. It's bespoke parenting!

In our neighborhood, though, the moms do a lot of teamwork, which makes it a bit more efficient.

I think it'd be interesting to do this for men, too. Not as stay at home dads, but just for the work we do around the house. In my house, I'm a handyman, carpenter, plumber, electrician, lawn guy, chef, furniture builder, launderer, dishwasher, and CFO. I'd imagine the average salaries of those jobs is higher than $117,000.

My point is not that I'm more valuable than my wife, but that society still values "male" work over "female". It costs a lot more to hire someone to fix your toilet than to take care of your kid or clean the house.

My question is, if we were to pay stay-home mothers, should we also pay mothers who are in the paid workforce AND do the majority – or all --of the housework and childcare (which includes managing outside childcare arrangements, that takes time too)? And how about stay-home mothers who can afford to hire childcare and cleaning services to help out?

I hate this study (every year!). The statistician in me is irritated by the way they calculate the monetary value of the work being done. I'm not an economist, but shouldn't the pay be calculated by what you'd have to pay to "replace" the stay-at-home parent? When parents work outside the home, they don't hire nurses, drivers, chefs, CEOs, etc. It really seems like more of a feel-good thing than a serious salary study.

At the same time, I totally get that stay-at-home parents work hard and are under-appreciated. My mom stayed home with my brother and me, and it was really great. I just wish there was a better way to express the point "It's real work" than "You'd be paid $117,000/year for this!"

I have to go to work so I don't really have time to comment on this article, other than to say that I find it simultaneously aggrandizing and condescending.

Interestingly enough the salary calculated by Salary.com for Mom's has gone down since 2006.

Mom Salaries for 2006

Here's a calculator they provided to figure out your own hypothetical salary based on their data (also shows the average time a Mom allots to each individual job): Mom Salary Calculator

The 10 jobs that they based their salaries on were:
* Housekeeper
* Day Care Centre Teacher
* Cook
* Computer Operator
* Laundry Machine Operator
* Janitor
* Facilities Operator (???)
* Chief Executive Officer
* Van Driver
* Psychologist

When I first saw the article, my honest, immediate reaction was: OK, so what about all of the women who are supposed to be making $117,000 IN THE WORKFORCE, but only get 77% of that? Why doesn't that get a big headline and lots o' fanfare (at least) annually?

Having said that, I send mad props to moms. :)!

Hey, what about us stay at home dads? Are we worth nothing? I know we're a small minority, but we exist! (And are growing!)

Seriously, these statistics are stupid. Yes, if the work of a stay at home parent was paid, it would add up. The number sounds like a lot, but consider that "working" parents also contribute to the household (albeit a bit less) and that work isn't paid either.

I bet there are a lot of working parents making, say, $50K annually, who, if paid for their household contributions, would be valued another $75K annually.

The number is also bull because I'm sure there are a lot of overtime, overworked nannies out there who make no where near $117K a year.

"Frankly, I'd prefer the cash."

Of course you see the problem with this statement right? You're imposing your values on an entire group of women.

Money isn't king to any of us. At some level we all trade off money for personal satisfaction.

I would probably make more money as iBanker, a sex worker, a trader, a small business owner (running profitable a family business) than I do as lawyer. But I like being a lawyer. It makes me happier than the extra $200k/year I would get doing some of those things.

My best friend is a trained psychologist. She worked with developmentally disabled children until about 6 months ago when she had child number 4. She loves being a SAHM. She like finger painting and macaroni art. She gets more personal satisfaction from teaching her children to be kind, respectful, and happy human beings that she would ever get from even a $500k a year salary.

We're all different. We all want different things. It isn't fair to apply your value system to others.

Um, yeah. My comment about preferring the cash was supposed to be a joke. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

But I don't think it's condescending to suggest that women's work - whether in the formal economy or at home - should be valued. And Aerin, while you may think that focusing on money is somehow falling prey to capitalism, I'm betting there are plenty low-income moms out there who think that money is pretty darn important.

Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.

Assuming fairness in families, median SAHM/Ds are worth (paid) about 1/2 of the median income of families with one partner staying at home. Some more, some less. It's an economic contract once one of you has decided to stay home.

Therefore, salary.com, I call bullshit. If you are going to speak economically do so, instead of pandering to people who think they're worth more than they're getting paid.

SAHM/Ds aren't leaving your jobs. Therefore you are happy with your pay and the free market is satisfied. Admittedly you get some employment benefits (love, sex, retirement plan, probably health care) that are hard to measure, but people who are unhappy with their SAH pay/benefits package tend to get divorced (switch jobs). If you aren't divorcing, you are worth exactly what you're getting.

** I recognize many SAHM/Ds view their work as priceless with unamable value, which is kind of like working for a charity for peanuts becaues you believe in a cause. This is totally ok. None of this post is condemning you, just salary.com's BS. I am guessing you are all happy with your pay/benefits ;)

The only economic study that would make any sense is one that would be directed at how much the SAHM needed to earn outside the home to pay for the essentials of her at home work.

Even calculating the costs of childcare and other household work is one of what it would cost for someone to take care of children or a house other than his/her own. A labor of love is rarely compensated at the market rate for similar

These kind of studies make it into litigation when a SAHM is injured or killed and the family wants/needs to recover the economic costs of her contribution to the family. The number seems pretty inflated to me, perhaps for this reason.

This whole arguement here is turning into a SAHM vs working mother debate.

Jessica, you trivialize the importance of parenthood with your "cleaning up socks with no compensation" comment. Parents are way more than just underpaid day careproviders and cleaners and taxi drivers.

Putting a monetary value on parents is trivial. How can we reward nurturing, teaching the facts of life and sitting down with your child to hear about their day?

The study also misses the men who work in and around the house. Not just doing "manly" things like cutting the lawn and maintaining the cars, but those who cook, clean and take care of their children.

And I'm really pissed at the title of the linked article "a mother's love is worth $117,000 per year". WTF is that about?

"Is there really something more important than raising YOUR OWN kids?"

"I hands down do NOT trust over-worked strangers to raise my son"

I have to call this out.

Parents "raise" their children, full stop. Even parents who send their children to child care for some amount of time per day. This terminology is completely insulting.

Okay, I just have to mention this because it is a pet peeve of mine. It always irritates me when parents say that 'no one is better equipped to raise my child than me.' Do you remember being children? As awesome as my mom was, and she really was, there were times when I needed space from her. When I needed to be alone. When I needed exposure to other adults, with different personalities, who saw me differently because they hadn't been there from day one. There were times in my life where I needed other mother and father figures, and also figures who weren't there to discipline me. There were times when I needed people who were closer to my own age, so they could bridge the gap between the grownup world and the kid world--which they did better than my parents because they had crossed that bridge more recently.

I was a nanny for two sets of kids. And I can tell you I gave them things that their parents did not. I went on nature walks with one kid, taught another to play waterpolo, and brought my own books to read to my other two charges. Now, of course, I always checked with parents before doing things, I did not want to undermine their parenting goals. But by interacting with people other than our parents, our lives become richer.

So yes, sometimes other people can bestow gifts on your children that you could not. And the same will be true of me when I have children.

I think taking "Frankly, I'd prefer the cash" and translating it to, "Frankly, all women should prefer the cash" is an issue of reading comprehension, not an issue of Jessica "imposing her values on an entire group of women."

Okay, I thought feminism was all about women exercising power to direct their lives, to choose for themselves how they wished to live, to not have obstacles in their path to self-fulfillment - no matter where that path might lead.

But, now, I am getting the impression that some choices are more equal than others.

My other complaint is that the article seems to imply that only women are considered appropriate SAHM - why not also value SAHD?

It has become my preoccupation that the way our society will become less patriarchal is to remove the stigma of men doing housework.

No more "pussy-whipped" or "hen-pecked" labels for men who live in female led households where the woman is the breadwinner and the man is the home-maker.

Maybe if we achieve this kind of parity conceptually, then everyone will be more liberated to choose how they wish to find fulfillment and neither gender will be trapped in antiquated concepts about their appropriate roles.

david

Putting a monetary value on parents is trivial. How can we reward nurturing, teaching the facts of life and sitting down with your child to hear about their day?

Well, we pay child care workers, right?

I'm certainly not trying to trivialize the importance and value of parenting - and of course it's more than cleaning up socks and changing diapers! Apologies if it came off as if I think otherwise. But I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that women's (or men's) work at home has value.

I think it's wonderful that so many parents find being with their children and staying at home rewarding in itself - but does that mean that we shouldn't talk about what women's labor means in the broader sense?

Okay, I thought feminism was all about women exercising power to direct their lives, to choose for themselves how they wished to live, to not have obstacles in their path to self-fulfillment - no matter where that path might lead.

But, now, I am getting the impression that some choices are more equal than others.

My other complaint is that the article seems to imply that only women are considered appropriate SAHM - why not also value SAHD?

It has become my preoccupation that the way our society will become less patriarchal is to remove the stigma of men doing housework.

No more "pussy-whipped" or "hen-pecked" labels for men who live in female led households where the woman is the breadwinner and the man is the home-maker.

Maybe if we achieve this kind of parity conceptually, then everyone will be more liberated to choose how they wish to find fulfillment and neither gender will be trapped in antiquated concepts about their appropriate roles.

david

I'll echo some sentiments here that the study seems silly because the number it comes up with is really over the top. Most people who read and discuss the article probably joke around about it for a few minutes, say "thanks mom" (or something), and then happily ignore the issue for the rest of the year. In fact, characterizing house work as being like a chef, CEO or nurse is precisely what makes it silly. House work and caring for one's own child are not necessarily easy tasks (especially the 24/7 aspect), but really are different from being a chef, CEO or nurse! We all KNOW that, and so this study ends up back-handedly (though perhaps unintentionally) trivializing house work.

I'd rather see a more realistic valuation of stay-at-home work followed by a real committment to ensure things like alimony, Social Security benefits, etc. on that basis. I also second the thoughts of gordon.gekko in that it's better for women when the value of this work is considered in relationships.

Those of you who are comparing this number to what you would make in a formal job are talking about opportunity cost - the income that you forego by staying home. There's no reason that the services you provide at home can't be worth more than what you would be paid in the formal workforce - people take new, higher-paying jobs all the time.

The real catch is that when mothers take formal jobs, they often still provide a lot of the services that are being measured here. What the post doesn't mention is that Salary.com also estimated the value of a working mother at home, and it's nearly $70,000 over and above what she is making outside the home.

The big problem with this study is that there's no baseline. People without children in their household also do some amount of "extra" unpaid work as well. You can't count the unpaid work that parents do and not count the unpaid work that non-parents do.

I could care less about the monetary figure. My worth is not based on my paycheck, it is based on my contribution to society. It doesn't take much looking around to see that salary and contribution to society do *not* go hand in hand (look at a pro baseball player vs. a teacher). And I can't think of a bigger or better contribution to society than to raise my children well.

My first child is due in 2 months. The *only* thing that I regret about starting our family now (instead of waiting til hubby is out of grad school) is that we will not be able to afford for me to be a SAHM. It is what I want. Not because hubby expects it or says i should/have to. Not because society expects it or says I am less of a mother if I don't. Because it is what I want. And feminism is about being able to *make that choice for myself* And as soon as I'm told I *should* be working, or I am wasting my intelligence, ambition, drive, ivy-league education etc. by staying home, I am suddenly in the same position that working moms were in during the 50s. It is a segment of society telling me that my *choice* for my life is wrong. We fight for women to be able to make their own choices in all aspects of their lives. We encourage our young girls and tell them they can be *anything* they want to be. We applaud the girls who do want to go on and become scientists, lawyers, doctors, CEOs. But why do we then whisper and point and sound disappointed in those who *choose* the more traditional roles such as mother, nurse, or teacher? That choice is just as valid as a choice to be a scientist or doctor, and provides *just* as much benefit to society.

Not everyone needs a paycheck to feel valued as a person and contributor to society. I could care less what my monetary worth as a SAHM is. That's not why I want it.

What bothers me is that they count a lot of stuff that working parents also do: My husband and I both work. Our son is in day-care during the week. We still cook (including for his day-time meals, which are not provided by the day-care). We still clean. We still do laundry. We still balance the checkbook. We still manage the our household affairs. If there was a way to make it financially feasible, I think it would be great to have some sort of subsidy for women who stay home with their babies and toddlers, both to recognize the value of that and to make it possible for more women, but I don't think we should act like SAHM or dads for that matter, should be compensated for all the stuff that is just part of being a self-sufficient adult - even if accomplishing those tasks are much harder with a bunch of little ones around. Nor should we assume that women who work outside the home turn around and pay someone else to do everything for them.

Economic Woman, this post does mention what women who also work outside of the home will make.

And SaraP, you are still in a better position than women in the 1950s. Don't kid yourself. You were actually able to get the degree and make the choice. There will be whispers and pointing no matter which choice you make, trust me, one of my sisters made one choice and one the other and neither is free from criticism.

One article doesn't speak for the whole of feminism. As far as I'm concerned the answer to this conundrum is that perhaps we need to be more creative.

Examples would be, more cooperative efforts within the community, technology and pressuring companies to offer more non-traditional work options such as working from home and altered schedules (And now that gas is sky high I've heard that some companies are already making this happen).

Ismone- I don't think you're talking about two mutually exclusive concepts. I believe that I am the most qualified person to care for my child, but I also believe that he needs other responsible adults that he can trust in his life. Part of my job as a parent is to cultivate relationships with other adults that can provide that for him- his daycare provider, his grandparents, my close friends, etc.

Is there anywhere on the site where they show the actual formula and salaries that they use to calculate this value? I'd be interested in seeing where the number falls without factoring in the insane compensation that CEO's are currently paid. When you average in people who make many millions of dollars a year and probably shouldn't, the numbers get unrealistic pretty fast.

What I'd really like to see addressed it the prevalent low self-worth a lot of SAHM's have because they feel they're a drain on the family bank account by not working.

In many instances, esp. when children under age 5 are concerned, it's prohibitively expensive to hire childcare and go back to work. Also, if the parent has work hours that fall outside of 8-5, center-based childcare wouldn't cover your needs and you'd have to pay out the big bucks and get a nanny or something. So, there is an economic choice behind choosing to be a SAHM, in some cases, certainly in mine.

But - getting back to the point - there are SAHM's who aren't totally blissful and fulfilled in their roles. It's what they have to do, and they would love to work a few hours a day if only it were possible. So - what about these women, who are depressed, and charged with raising sons and daughters that we hope will change the way society sees women? They certainly shouldn't draw the ire of the militantly child-free.

As a working mother, am I worth the same? Less, since I'm not there all the time? More, because I'm doing it all and a full time job?

What a strange question to me now that I'm working again.

Well, one thing I hate about these stories is that they make working mothers invisible. The story should be how much unpaid work all mothers do, not limit it to SAHM. Cause there's plenty of mom's doing all that stuff, and still working outside the house.

Also, most articles I've seen on these topics come from a deeply conservative place. They always have a math equation that women working out side the household are a drain on finances, cause look how much you save being a SAHM.

Skimming the comments I've seen a few about raising children being a "selfish" or "private" act. Having and raising children is essential to the health of society, and mothers should not have to bear all the costs of raising children. I would suggest people look up "Reproduction of Labor".

"by interacting with people other than our parents, our lives become richer. "

true that.

Also, I think there are plenty of SAHM who are plenty self-righteous about their choice, but who aren't very ideal parents nonetheless. Maybe compensating them and showing them some societal appreciation would lesson the stress and help out a bit, but well...

I mean, props to Jessica for pointing out the fact that low-income women would probably view the money thing differently than all the women on here claiming they're insulted by the idea they should be paid for their work.

But back to my original point -I am nowhere near comfortable with idealizing the SAHM as the best possible mode of parenting, either. I had one. I think her personality and her general discontentment with certain aspects of the choices /she very strong-headedly made/ is largely responsible for pretty disfunctional family relationships now that my siblings and I are adults.

All SAHMs (and SAHDs) are not created equal. I don't know many people my age, actually, who had a SAHM, but of the people my age who most admire their parents and have the most positive relationships with them, their parents generally worked at least part-time while they were growing up.

So I think if to justify to yourself your choice to be a SAHM, you have to look down your nose at any other parenting choice, there's something wrong with that. I think that's at least one more way in which it could be good to see what being a SAHM looks like in terms of market value -i.e. just another job, valuable in its own right, but not somehow necessarily morally superior.

"by interacting with people other than our parents, our lives become richer. "

true that.

Also, I think there are plenty of SAHM who are plenty self-righteous about their choice, but who aren't very ideal parents nonetheless. Maybe compensating them and showing them some societal appreciation would lesson the stress and help out a bit, but well...

I mean, props to Jessica for pointing out the fact that low-income women would probably view the money thing differently than all the women on here claiming they're insulted by the idea they should be paid for their work.

But back to my original point -I am nowhere near comfortable with idealizing the SAHM as the best possible mode of parenting, either. I had one. I think her personality and her general discontentment with certain aspects of the choices /she very strong-headedly made/ is largely responsible for pretty disfunctional family relationships now that my siblings and I are adults.

All SAHMs (and SAHDs) are not created equal. I don't know many people my age, actually, who had a SAHM, but of the people my age who most admire their parents and have the most positive relationships with them, their parents generally worked at least part-time while they were growing up.

So I think if to justify to yourself your choice to be a SAHM, you have to look down your nose at any other parenting choice, there's something wrong with that. I think that's at least one more way in which it could be good to see what being a SAHM looks like in terms of market value -i.e. just another job, valuable in its own right, but not somehow necessarily morally superior.

Kristen, the "I" in Jessica's statement makes it clear that she is not imposing her values on an entire group of women.

I think it's disingenuous for people to act as though SAHMs are all devoted women who actively engage their children, attempt discipline, provide nurturing, etc.

Maybe I just watch too much Supernanny.

I know my comments are kind of shocking. I respect that people should have "choice" about what they want to do with their lives, but I would argue very few SAHM's have real choice with society telling them they are better moms by staying at home, and with day care costing a small fortune, and with work places not having family friendly policies, are they taking an easy road out or making a true choice about how they want to spend their lives? I also ask the reverse question - SAHMs justify their position by saying they have the time to pass their values to their children and raise real contributers to the country -- well, there are two problems with that argument in my mind 1. Are you saying working moms (or dads) can't instill values in their children or raise good kids? 2. Well, what about their daughters, are you raising your daughters to contribute, or are you expecting 50% of the population to make their only contribution nurturing their own 1-dozen children?

I don't disrespect the role of the mother. My problem is that I think most people who make the choice to "stay at home" are saying that is their ONLY role, to take care of their children and spouses, and I don't really think that's the ideal we should strive for. If you think your calling in life is to care for children, how about starting a school or day care center so you can care for your own children and your neighbor's kid whos calling is to be a doctor or lawyer?

I think maybe I'm just jaded about Stay at Home moms in general. I think the whole thing is ridiculous - and this study just further encourages women to stay at home ("hey, you're doing something with economic worth") when I don't think most women should (there are exceptions).

This is bullshit. You have no right to impose your own value system on women who choose to stay at home.

I get it--you dont think women's contributions at home raising kids is as valuable as their contributions outside the home as a working mother. Thats so very condescending of you.

I have no intentions of being a stay at home mom, but I recognize that women should have the freedom of choice to do that if they prefer and I'm not going to put them down because of it because thats THEIR choice.

So excuse me while I give you a big FUCK OFF for your condescending crap.

This study sounds like meaningless feel-good crap that takes advantage of our economic illiteracy. It, along with its little press release, is designed solely to drive paying customers to salary.com's premium product. I admittedly don't know enough about the methodology they used (and I bet they don't want us to know because it's likely to be staggeringly unscientific). But you cannot just weight each of the 10 component jobs and then tack on a commensurate 1.5x (or whatever) overtime rate. You have to construct a demand curve for the specific job as a separate entity. What we'd likely find is that, like most "female" jobs, it would pay far less than its true social and economic value. Yes, even with all the overtime factored in. If we were really setting out to value the mom job, I bet we would probably find it worth something closer to $45K. BTW, for those of you objecting to Jessica's "imposing her value system," she's actually right to do so and the reason is economic. Staying home for a significant period of time has been shown to hurt women's earning potential (and therefore their children's welfare) in the event of divorce or spousal death. It also forces many men and women to keep working far into their retirement years.

Daycare: $900/wk
Housecleaner: $100/wk
1 entree per night meal plan: $90/wk
Child transportation service: $65/wk
Remote Personal Assistant Service: $499/wk (for 10 hrs)

Those are real numbers if I wanted to hire someone right now to take care of my kid, drive them around, prep my dinner for me (I'd still have to cook it) and clean my house. Assuming two weeks vacation and one kid, that's about $82,000 a year.

Based on my rough estimations, that's the replacement value of a stay at home mom, if she's really top of the line. Admittedly, not all are.

I think we are forgetting that salary and equity are very different things. A salary only reflects the market exchange rate for a good or service. Equity however is a measure of value. There is a reason that economist will try to figure out how much to pay someone, but not how much a person is worth. Salary is easy to find, human value is not. To say that what a SAHM/D is worth based on salary equivelents is fine, but it means nothing in terms of value/worth/equity. Equity is what important, and this post has nothing to do with it. Reread the first sentene, it says "market value." Market value only applies to things with are marketable. the vast majority of the value we get from jobs or parenting is not marketable, like happiness, fulfillment or self-worth. Trying to place a value on them is useless, if it could be done people would have done it years ago.

My problem is that I think most people who make the choice to "stay at home" are saying that is their ONLY role, to take care of their children and spouses, and I don't really think that's the ideal we should strive for.

Own your shit, becca. This is crap and you know it. I want you to go survery 10 of your SAHM friends and ask them if they think it is their "only" role. That's YOUR projection of what you think SAHMs do.

Kids can't take care of themselves. Men can. SAHMs are not all chasing their husbands around with a fresh martini an a lint brush to keep him looking spiffy for that big important job he has.

Granted, it's harder to hang onto yourself when you become a parent. But it's hard whether you're working for pay or not. It's just harder. I have a friend who put it succintly, when talking about the change in his life: "I come home and I think, 'Where's Tom? He used to live here, but now I only see signs of "Dad" around the house.'"

Taking care of your own kids is really, REALLY not a crime. And I'm tired of hearing that it's bad for the economy and teaching our kids the wrong thing and it smothers them and all that other crap. It's just another way to say: "No matter what you do, women, it's always wrong."

I should not be hearing this from women who purport to be feminists.

This is just a quick rule of thumb: If you are worried that receiving money for your work "trivializes" your work, you probably have no idea what it's like to actually need that money. Because I'm pretty sure I've never, ever, suggested someone not pay me for something I've done as a great and profitable service to them -- yes, even when it's work I felt good about doing. In a communist utopia we might all be doing a labor of love simply because we want to and it contributes to our families and communities. But we aren't in a utopia. We're in a receding capitalist economy where money puts food on our tables. The only recognition that will keep you and your kids alive in this society is monetary recognition.

So to the "I don't do it for the moniez, I do it because I choose to raise my kids" crowd, get over yourselves. The only thing more degrading than receiving payment for work you do with love is receiving no payment for work you do with love...

Sociological Mom,

The reason that statement grinds on my nerves is that I've heard some pretty dreadful parents saying it.

I know quite a few people who would have had better childhoods if their parents had left them with anyone else as a caretaker.

I also think it feeds into this idea our culture pushes, with regard to both parenting and partnering, that one person should be enough. I'm not quite into that 'it takes a village' bit, but I think it does people good to spread out the work and the modeling among other people. I worry about my cousins not just because I think their parents have a screw loose, but because they have a screw loose and isolate their children from anyone who doesn't.

And what about the stay at home parent? How will their children learn to balance self/other if they see one parent being completely self-denying? Parents need to be selfish too.

I am guessing that when Jessica says "Frankly, I'd prefer the money" she means "I'd prefer the money over the once-a-year pat on the back," as opposed to "I'd prefer the money over the kid." Clarifications happily accepted; but that doesn't strike me as particularly controversial.

Becca, on the other hand is utterly off base. "How about calculating the loss to the economy of women who should be working but aren't..." WTF? A stay-at-home mom IS WORKING. If she wasn't doing some sort of work, there wouldn't be anything there to calculate comparative value against. Would Becca claim that when the family is paying a nanny to do that job, no work is being done by the nanny? That was just stupid.

As for the idea of SAHM's work going uncompensated, I'd like to remind you that my wife has access to food, shelter, medical care, and half of my bank accounts. While that access isn't specifically contingent on the work that she does as mother of our children, it is not like she is picking up everyone's socks and then going home and having to pick up a second job so she can make the rent on her own apartment. If I were paying a nanny to do those chores, that money would be removed from our accounts and thereby unavailable to my wife. Instead, it stays in the family.

I haven't read the study yet, so I can't comment on its content. I will say that the net monetary worth of a working spouse (of either sex) probably is more properly calculated as the amount earned minus the amount necessary to spend on childcare. If a spouse earns $35,000 a year, but it is necessary to spend $25,000 a year on child care, the net monetary worth is about $10,000 before tax. As others have noted, relying on hired help imposes additional requirements regarding hours and availability of the nanny. It should not be surprising that some families might consider the overall picture to be not worth the tradeoffs.

Here's a little pet peeve of mine: If salary.com is the source of the information, please provide the link to salary.com, not to the story cnn wrote about it.

Here's the Mom calculator:
http://www.salary.com/aboutus/layoutscripts/abtl_default.asp?tab=abt&cat=cat012&ser=ser041&part=Par499&isdefault=0
(link is in 3rd paragraph, then one more click)

And here's the Dad calculator:
http://www.salary.com/aboutus/layoutscripts/abtl_default.asp?tab=abt&cat=cat012&ser=ser041&part=Par502&isdefault=0
(link is at the bottom)

For both, the value of the work is based on assumptions about the number of hours spent doing various job, like housekeeping, nutritionist, groundskeeper, etc. You could personalize these hours to see what the at-home work of a single person with no kids is worth.

What's interesting about this is that job categories for SAHM and SAHM Dad overlap by less than you would expect. There are fewer job descriptions available in the SAHD calculation than in the SAHM calculation, and different categories are filled out in the defaults.

But what's really interesting is that salary.com's defaults for 1 kid in the 0-5 year range give SAHM dads $129k national median for 80.2 hours of work, while SAHM moms get $117k national median for 94.4 hours of work.

If there is a compulsive type person with a lot of spare time on their hands, I'd be interested in seeing how the pay compares for a SAHD and a SAHM with identical numbers of hours in identical job categories.

"Is 'efficient' really the most important thing in raising a child??"

Good question. I mean, I can see how efficiency is important in some aspects of childrearing, but it definitely shouldn't priority #1 of the whole job!

"I don't think this study encourages women to stay at home who wouldn't originally- no one's lining up to hand out the cash, are they?"

Which reminds me, do other self-employed people write paychecks to themselves when they don't have outside clients/customers/etc.?

"Reproducing is a selfish choice that a person makes for nobody else's benefit but their own satisfaction."

Except when they're choosing it because their spouses, their in-laws, population growth promoters in their demographic group, etc. asked for it...

"For Jessica to say she'd frankly prefer the cash irritated me. Yeah, because...that's all that matters, right? That women have equal pay within a capitalist system."

As if this isn't important for people outside capitalist systems too?

Doesn't how much the money (or the goods and services to be traded, in a barter system) matters depend on how much the children need it to stay fed and housed, how much the mother already has saved up, how much the mother can count on her partner/family/etc. to chip in, etc.? Lovingly nurturing children and affording things aren't mutually exclusive, especially when the children can't photosynthesize and need to eat things instead...

"More importantly than the pat-on-the-back, though, how about using this study to get Soc Sec benefits for SAHMs? That would be of some meaningful financial comfort to any SAHMs who find themselves divorced when their children are 18."

Very good question.

"Do you remember being children? As awesome as my mom was, and she really was, there were times when I needed space from her. When I needed to be alone. When I needed exposure to other adults, with different personalities, who saw me differently because they hadn't been there from day one...

"...But by interacting with people other than our parents, our lives become richer."

I can totally relate! Diversity isn't just good for adults. ;)

"So yes, sometimes other people can bestow gifts on your children that you could not. And the same will be true of me when I have children."

Likewise, sometimes you and someone else can bestow gifts on each other's children...

"I believe that I am the most qualified person to care for my child, but I also believe that he needs other responsible adults that he can trust in his life. Part of my job as a parent is to cultivate relationships with other adults that can provide that for him- his daycare provider, his grandparents, my close friends, etc."

Coolness.

"In a communist utopia we might all be doing a labor of love simply because we want to and it contributes to our families and communities. But we aren't in a utopia. We're in a receding capitalist economy where money puts food on our tables"

Likewise, no matter if we're in a communist utopia or a receding capitalist economy, it's work that takes food from where the plants and occasional fungus* grow (and where the animals are if you're not vegan) to our tables. Even when not enough of the people love that labor...

"I worry about my cousins not just because I think their parents have a screw loose, but because they have a screw loose and isolate their children from anyone who doesn't."

Yeah, good point.

"And what about the stay at home parent? How will their children learn to balance self/other if they see one parent being completely self-denying? Parents need to be selfish too."

True, selfishness isn't always bad!

* mushrooms are yummy! :)

This isn't a study, it's a demonstration to market Salary.com. The company sells custom compensation software to employers.

The SAHM marketing demo is a fanciful way of demonstrating what the program is good for. Everyone knows what a mom does, but nobody knows what a mom salary should be. So, it's an effective way to illustrate the kinds of factors the program takes into account: Hours, duties, % of time spent doing highly compensated work vs. lower-paid work, etc.

As far as Salary.com is concerned, the point is not to furnish an economically rigorous model of the value of domestic labor in contemporary society.

The point is to help potential consumers understand what their software does, in broad, user-friendly terms.

True, selfishness isn't always bad!

Not every SAHM is a downtrodden, suffering, martyred person who puts everything and everyone before herself.

Give it a rest.

I really do not get what these studies are trying to prove. Is it just some ploy to make people feel better. Secondly, if my mom was worth so much money as a SAHM than why did she and I almost end up homeless after my dad left with the paycheck? I can respect peoples ideas that staying home can be a good thing. However, there are serious costs if your husband decides to leave you. I say this from personal experience.

I am pissed about this article as if a Mothers worth is fricken monetary. Only in the capitalistic system we can publish an article that says so. Guess what...I don't agree!

My Mother was a stay at home Mom working crappy jobs and raising the three of us in a very hard situation. Which I am writing a book about this and you can read more about it soon. My Mom is awesome! I have no intentions of ever being a Mom but I honor Mother's all over, everyday. Especially my Momma! I was inspired to write a poem about her today.

I would post it her by it is very long! Anyway the poem is about my Mom and her dealing with a very hard home life, working shitty jobs, feeling less than (as the blue collar folk often do) and the spiritual side of the poem is knowing the higher purpose of her life as a spirit in a body.

If anyone really wants to see it let me know. I can post it to my blog or here.

:D

My mom had me in her mid-thirties, worked til I was around eight and then homeschooled my brother and me. At no point in time, except when I was very young, did I ever think that raising me was all of her life. I was always aware that she was a person in her own right and that every time she drove me somewhere or took me on field trips, etc. that she was consciously choosing to give up her free time to do something that I wanted. She told me that working when my brother and I were little was very hard for her, because she wanted to spend more time with us.

All of this to say that staying at home is a choice and I don’t believe, unless the parents are mistreating or neglecting their children, no one has a right to judge that choice. Who are any of us to say whether or not someone is raising their child properly?

Becca, there have been studies done for years on the value of unpaid housework to the economy.

Just Google it, but from memory it ranges between 30-40% of GDP in the US and Canada.

Parenting/ nuturing must be wonderful but the unpaid housework that comes with it makes me squirm.

I'm young, but I think doing all that washing/ironing/cleaning without reward would make me a very very resentful person. Just like Marx' analysis of unpaid labourers feeling less 'human'.

Surely that can't be healthy for a parent?

Especially if that resentment is directed towards the people you love most: yourself, your partner and your child.

"I'd be happier if this was calculated for stay at home parents instead of mothers"

I completely agree with you. The term "stay at home mothers" gives the impression that only women are fit for the job of raising their family when all my like my dad was the primary care giver.

I always felt awkward telling other kids that my dad took care of me and