How much do you think a SAHM is worth?

My3LilMonkeys wrote: They did a thing about SAHM on the radio this morning. I only caught the end of it, but the gist of it was that if you add up the average costs for all of their services (cooking, cleaning, laundry, taxi service, child care, etc.) a SAHM should be paid a salary of $212,000 a year!

Who all agrees that the government should pay SAHM? How much?

For all working moms like myself, would you stay at home if you were paid? How much would you need to be paid to SAH?

Personally, I enjoy my work and the intellectual stimulation. But if I were paid to stay home, I would give it all up in a second. My main motive for working is that we cannot afford for me not to. I think a salary of $25,000 or $30,000 would be enough to convince me to stay home - though I think being a mom is worth much more than that!

Also, do you think all moms should be paid? How much should working moms be paid in relation to SAHM?

kit_kats_mom replied: I don't know about paid but I do think that a retirement plan (kinda like ssi) would be nice. maybe we can get the govm't to take a chunk of our kids paychecks once they start working as repayment for all of our "sacrifices" I suspect we'd have a lot more kids going to college

sunshine girls replied: If the government wanted to pay me to be a SAHM I'd probably accept. We don't really need the second income though, and I enjoy being a SAHM. My kids are worth more than all the money in the world to me, I feel lucky to be able to spend all day with them.
I don't think I could really put a price on it

~Roo'sMama~ replied: I don't really think that the government should pay SAHM's a salary. A tax break or something would be nice though!

coasterqueen replied: I don't think they should pay for mom's to stay at home. In a perfect world it would be nice and i would except, but it's not so I wouldn't. Why? Because someone has to pay the government for the government to pay SAHM's. Who would that be you ask? Those who work out of the home. That's how all government assistance programs get funded.

MM'sMama replied:
I totally agree


I LOVE LOVE LOVE your siggy BTW very beautiful and angelic congrats on your PG too

MyLuvBugs replied: That would be SOOO nice if the government would pay me to stay at home. But to be a SAHM, is a priceless job. I don't know if there is any amount of money that could cover it all. 212+ thousand a year would be a very nice start!! But I'd probably settle for aroung 40,000.

MyBrownEyedBoy replied: I would not only need to be making about 40,000, but I would need insurance for myself and Logan. That is why I work. Well, that and I like my job.

mammag replied: I'm a SAHM but I don't think the taxpayers should be paying me to stay home....and like Karen said, that's who would be paying it. I also agree that a tax break would be nice though.

Besides, to add up all the jobs I do....accountant, teacher, nurse, maid, chef, landscaper, pshycologist, etc...... why it would just be too much.

C&K*s Mommie replied: ITA with **roo'smama** a tax break would be nice. As for a salary, nah, being here is satisfaction enough. And when I make mistakes, I would not feel so guilty about being paid to do a poor job, and getting paid. BUT on the other hand- for $212+++/ yr I would have my DH stay at home, and take that much needed break from working hard.

holley79 replied: I would love to be a stay at home mom, unfortunately DH and I can't afford it. Luckily though we only need a sitter for 2 hours on the days that I work.

mom21kid2dogs replied: If you subsidized people to stay home with their children wouldn't you have to subsidized childless and childfree families? I mean look at how cost effective those families are.

Sorry, I don't feel the government needs to subsidize my lifestyle choice as nice as it would be to be paid . Good, affordable health care for the middle class would be nice, if they need to subsize something!

Boys r us replied: Who do you think the government gets money from? We the People!

I'm out working everyday and I come home and do the laundry and clean the house and cook and taxi service to and from ball games and play dates and I would never consider it okay for the government to take more money out of mine and my husband's paychecks so that other mothers could stay home.
I hear people say all of the time.."oh the government shoudl pay for this or the government should pay for that" but those same people never stop to think where exactly the government gets their money from..we, the working people, pay for all of those special programs.

luvbug00 replied: I think anytime you can spend with your kids is better then any benifit you could recieve. I work and SAH and just being able to see Mya grow is all the modivation I need to get stuff done..

coasterqueen replied:
ITA. Is someone going to pay me for all the work I do for/with my family when I get home from work too? In that case....I'd be rich. Just because I work all day doesn't mean I come home and do nothing then.

mysweetpeasWil&Wes replied:
Now I think people are getting offended here when I don't think anyone is pointing out that one is better or that one does more work than the other, okay? Maybe I'm wrong, but judging from both Nichole and Karen's posts, I feel that you both think that us SAHM feel that you don't do anything when you get home and that we should get paid so much more for our efforts. I don't think that's what the discussion is about, but I guess that's JMO. I am so amazed at what you both do, but we all "work" hard whether it's inside or outside the home. So when we say we the people, I guess I feel included in that because yep, I do WORK. ITA that I couldn't put a price on it, nor would I want assistance from the govt, but I don't think you can put a price on being a mother PERIOD, whether you're home with your kids or not. Hope no ones feelings are hurt. I think this is more of a lighthearted discussion that's just sortof a "what if". Maybe I'm wrong.

coasterqueen replied:
Well I thought this was a lighthearted conversation Rae. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way. I just simply stated that those who WOH are the ones who would have to subsidize the pay SAHM's would get and I think that's wrong. I don't expect anyone to pay for my daycare because I work. I was not saying that one is better than the other. I also simply stated that if SAHM's were to get pay from the government than WOHM's should get pay for the time they are with their families in the evenings because we are "SAHM's" in the evenings just as well as true SAHM's are. I also said I'd then be rich because of the money I earn from WOH PLUS money I'd get for taking care of my family in the evening. Plain and simple. Never was I ONCE trying to offend SAHM's. I was giving my point of view from a WOHM. That's it. Again, I'm sorry if you felt I was doing anything else but that.

Edit to say I know that SAHM's work, but you choose to work with no pay. Those who work out of the home should NOT have to work for pay so that you can stay home. Believe me I'd rather SAH but I don't have the luxury to do so as you do and if I have to work for you to SAH, I think that's unfair. But it would be WE (those who work out of the home) that would have to pay for you to if one expected the government to pay SAHM's. That's all I'm saying.

mysweetpeasWil&Wes replied: Oh geez, Karen I wasn't thinking you were offending SAHMs at all. I thought YOU were offended. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. I just thought you and Nichole sounded like your feelings were hurt, so I was trying to make it more comfortable, but I guess I didn't do so good! You had said at the end of your post "Just because I work all day doesn't mean I come home and do nothing then", so I guess I read that as if you assumed some of us were saying you didn't do anything when you got home. I was only saying that we all work hard, do you not agree? Sorry.

I guess I need a break because I apparently read things wrong and I offend people when I don't mean too at all.

coasterqueen replied:
Guess I read you wrong too. Hey, it's easy to do. No, I'm not offended at all. I just think if someone did expect the government to pay or if the government did then they should pay us as well.

I do know many SAHM's that DO think that people who WOH have life so much easier and that we have it "easy" when we get home from work. But no one on here, these are people IRL.

ammommy replied: Good heaven's, no, the gov't shouldn't pay me. I get free room, board, and insurance thanks to DH. We call it our bartering system

I get very angry when people bring this up (not angry at anyone here, just at the idea). Frankly, the salary that people come up with when deciding on what a SAHP is worth is ridiculous. I remember the number that Dr Phil came up with (somewhere over $200,000) and I wanted to scream "Yes, I do all of those things, but not full time every time!" For example, I"m a Taxi service, cook, personal shopper, and housekeeper, but only a few hours a week each, not 40 hours a week, each.

Now, I mentioned this on another board that I sometimes visit and was reamed, but I know everyone here is more mature

coasterqueen replied:
Oooh that Dr. Phil I wanna know what he thinks I should make for the 10+ hats I have here at work and get paid nothing close to $200,000 a year (obsurd) PLUS go home and be mother, wife, housekeeper, financial advisor, accounts payable/receivable, lawn mower, lawn keeper, etc, etc, etc. That man makes me mad!

mysweetpeasWil&Wes replied:
ITA with what you said here, but let me clarify one thing and I'm not trying to sound defensive, but SAHM is no "luxury" for me, just our family's choice. It has nothing to do with money IMO. I sure wish it was a luxury though!!

Boys r us replied: My feelings aren't hurt at all..I'm just pointing out that the people who earn an income and are taxed on it are the ones who pay for our government to run and offer special benefits. That's all!!

I know SAHM mom's work and I respect any mother who chooses to stay at home, but that is a personal decision and one that I would not be willing to financially support.

mysweetpeasWil&Wes replied:
Gotcha! Thanks for understanding what I wrote. I was actually trying to defend you two because I thought you both were getting offended by this discussion. See, we are all strong mature women! YAY!

coasterqueen replied:
Thanks for the clarification. I think it's all in how one sees it. For me, it would be a luxury. To me luxuries are things I can afford. I would SAH if I could afford it, but for us it wouldn't matter what little "luxuries" I would give up we couldn't afford it, unless we gave up our land that's been in our family for many many moons. Course we wouldn't be able to afford health insurance unless we both worked.

But again, it's all how each perceive it. For some they perceive it as a luxury and others don't. Edit to say that not one is better than the other .

Boys r us replied: I agree Karen! I think most moms would consider staying home with their children a luxury. I happen to be one who doesn't want that luxury. I don't think by saying it's a luxury that it means it's a life of luxury..it's just something a lot of people cannot afford, but wishes to have or be able to do.

Maddie&EthansMom replied:
AMEN TO THAT!!!!

coasterqueen replied:
Some days I don't want the luxury either. Especially with DH out of town and I feel like I have no break anyways.

Maddie&EthansMom replied: I agree. I don't have the luxury of being able to WOH. As silly as it sounds, we can't afford for me to go to work. We wouldn't be able to pay for childcare and since I don't have a degree I wouldn't make enough to matter. So, here I sit. Gladly. Besides, If I worked our kids would never see either of their parents. Scotty's job/profession will never change...whether I go back to work or not. Karen, you've said before that you work so Ryan doesn't have to work so many hours. I wish that were the case here b/c I would do just as you and go to work so Scotty could be with the kids more. It sucks for everyone to not be able to spend more time as a family. I wish he could find a job doing something else, but it won't happen. We decided that it is best if I'm at home so the kids know I'm here. We make it work, I guess and we do the best we can. It took years for me to get used to it, but now it is the way of life for us. My parents were the same way. My dad worked 3 jobs to put food on the table while my mom stayed home. She didn't have a choice. Neither of them had a degree. I would probably work if I had a degree...especially 2 years ago when Scotty lost his job and we got behind. This is why we need to tell our kids to GO TO COLLEGE!!!!

(Karen I hope you don't mind that I used you as a reference)

mysweetpeasWil&Wes replied:
Well I don't think we can say "most" and I'm going to support what Karen said and repeat that it's all ones own perspective or how we perceive things. Like anything, we really have no idea what others do until we're in their shoes. I don't know what it's like to WOH while having children, so I'm not going to make any assumptions of what it's like. I suppose everyone can define the word "luxury" differently, but IMO, the image I get is someone who has money to burn and goes shopping whenever she can. I supose the word luxury means "EASY" to me. I know you all didn't say this, but just as some may perceive WOH as easy, which I don't think it is AT ALL, SAHM is not one of luxury where I can sit around and watch soaps whenever I want. See, I do have a degree. So like I said, in my case, my choice to SH was not one of money. I do admit that my salary would probably all go to daycare anyway, but I'm doing it for so many more reasons than just because my DH makes a salary that allows us too, kwim? Just like someone feels strongly about BF their children until their 24 months, I feel strongly about staying home. You could give me a $200k salary in an office, but I would still be right here.

And I guess I sorta take back what I said about it not being a luxury. The "luxury" for me is getting to be with Wil everyday, all day. But when I say it's NOT such a luxury, it's because as mothers, we ALL know, that being with our kids at all times can be too. Am I wrong?

Boys r us replied: I definitely don't want to argue about something like the definition of a word..lol..but you're reading more into what Karen and I have said..when we say most mom's would like the luxury of being able to stay home, she and I both mean, the financial ability to be able to stay home. In fact, I think we've each said that being a SAHM is hard work, neither of us said we think you sit home and eat bon-bons all day and watch soaps! I know how much work it is! I've been there and done that and know it's not for me and give kudos to any woman who can and wants to do that! You don't have to defend your role as a SAHM to myself and I know you don't to Karen b/c she yearns to be one. So perhaps each of us should have worded ourselves better and said ABILITY instead of LUXURY...but to her it is a luxury to stay at home..b/c it's something she can't afford. Just like if I said, my family and I have the luxury of being able to go out to dinner 4 nights a week..that doesn't mean we're eating at Ruth's Chris steakhouse every night, it means we have the ability to be able to afford it..a luxury that some don't have. So I guess it's really all in how you use the word as to it's meaning, but I can assure you that Karen nor myself used the word luxury to infer that you shopped and had your nails done everyday.

mysweetpeasWil&Wes replied: I'm not trying to start an argument either. And if you see in my post, I am stating that this is MY definition of luxury just as you all have. I'm sorry if I'm not allowed to do that. And if you read my post thoroughly, I stated , so I thought I made it clear that I didn't feel you or Karen were pointing anything out or offending my choice. I am only clarifying MY CHOICE. I don't see anything wrong with that. Now my feelings are hurt, so I'm getting off.

Again, we don't know how life is for anyone until we're in their shoes. Sorry I didn't know that you've been there, done that. I don't know any of you to know exactly how life is for you, so of course I didn't know that Karen wants to be a SAHM. I'm only giving my opinion and it hurts that some people can stand up for what they believe in, like BF, but I can't stand up for SAHM without being judged. You once called me "insecure" about my feelings on being a SAHM and it will always stick with me. Although I'm a strong person and can let it roll off, I suppose you still think that of me by your reply.

I'm so tired of all the misconceptions and misunderstandings and "reading into things wrong". It's sad that it came to this because I certainly thought we were doing fine up until now.

coasterqueen replied:
See that's what I mean by luxury. For me it's a luxury to have the honor to be with my kids all day. I know SAHM's don't (oops, edit) just sit at home all day or go shopping all day.

Now, are you saying that no matter how much you make, even $200,000 WOH that you'd still choose to SAH, is that because you CAN do that? Because your DH and you can afford it? Because I know I would choose to SAH no matter how much I was offered if I could AFFORD to do so. See I actually get offended by comments like that because I, too, would choose no matter how much money I could get WOH IF I could actually afford it.

Edit: I just read your reply to Nicole. Hon, I don't think this conversation is going sour at all, at least from my standpoint. I'm very calm and absolutely fine with all that has been said so far. I think this topic got way off course but that's just looking back. I think it's great that you state your opinions, definitions, etc. Please don't think we can't discuss this as mature adults because I thought we were doing just fine .

Boys r us replied: Rae..RAE! I wasn't bad mouthing you or pointing fingers at you, don't take this all so personally..I'm merely pointing out what Karen and I meant by using the word luxury for fear that I HAD hurt your feelings! I'm not taking any of this personally and I don't think anyone else is either..we are just having a conversation about it..no one has gotten upset until now and I'm not upset for any other reason than I seem to have upset you! This hasn't "come to anything" except an intelligent conversation by a bunch of intelligent women who all have different views on this!

mysweetpeasWil&Wes replied: I agree with both of you, but I hate that by stating our own opinions, even my remark about the $200K, we all assume that it's somehow directed towards ourselves. When that's not the case at all. It's like the whole Walmart deal, not to start it again, but just by stating ones opinion on the matter, doesn't mean we're purposely offending someone's family on here. I'm guilty of this too. So unless someone uses my name or the word "you" to comment on what I said, I don't think anyone is directing anything towards me. Unfortunately, names have been used here and "I don't have the luxury as YOU do" fealt like a direct comment to how one would assume I have it as a SAHM...which I was just trying to clarify isn't what it's all cracked up to be. Sorry if that offends people who want to be there. But it has it's good and bad days like any job. I love being a SAHM and yes my DH makes a decent salary, but I made a decent salary when I WOH the home too. So I stand by what I said about the $200k without meaning that to hurt anyone's feelings. I would love the money, yes, but it would be a very tough decision for me to change.

No hard feelings. PG hormones...

Maddie&EthansMom replied: Okay ladies.

Now ALL of you go to Beauty and Fashion and give me some ADVICE already!!!

coasterqueen replied:
Rae, I'm really sorry if that direct quote I meant offended you in any way. It was meant to you, but I think you saw it differently than what my intentions are. I just meant, and maybe you are right I should have used a different word, but what I meant is you (and sorry I use caps, I'm bad about that, I mean no harm in it) have the ability to SAH. Your husband makes enough money so that you can SAH. So like I said the luxury means you have the ability, not that it's all diamonds and pearls. Like I said, to me luxuries are things you can afford. Just like one maybe able to afford to go out to lunch every day and one may not, it's a luxury IMO. I see SAH the same way and it definitely would be a luxury to me. Just like cloth shopping is a luxury for me. It's something I can't afford so when I get to do it it's a luxury. Just like you have the "luxury" (ability) to say you would SAH no matter what amount an employer would give you to work. I feel I don't. Nothing wrong at all with any of these things, just like there isn't anything wrong with like you said someone BF til 24 months or not. It's all relative to each family. Just like Amy mentioned, we all have to do what's best for our family.

I'm probably still not making any sense. ((HUGS)) No harm, no foul, I hope.

My2Beauties replied: Rae - I don't see how you could be offended by what Nichole said she was merely trying to point out what she viewed luxury as so as not to hurt your feelings! I think this was all just perceived incorrectly, which can happen when we can't hear one's tone of voice! Can we all now!

3xsthefun replied: I'm a SAHM and I don't expect taxpayers to pay for me to stay home. I agree with some of the others said about getting a tax break would be nice.

Sometimes, I wish I could find a job, but truly we could not afford for me to work. By the time we payed child care and gas for me to go to work. There really would not be much money left.

My3LilMonkeys replied: Well when I started this post I was thinking it would be great to SAH and be paid for it....but now that I read all of the other posts and considered all points of view (I never thought about where the money was coming from ) I agree that working people should not have to pay for moms to SAH.

I hope everyone can put their differences behind them about this...you all have greatly educated me on the point(s) that I didn't think about!

ilovemybaby replied: I think we should be paid but it will never happen... If only I earned over $210 K a year... LOL! We would finally be able to buy a three bedroom house!

I do think that ACC (Accident Compensation Corp) should pay out for injuries that occur in the home by mothers looking after their kids. If you hurt your back and you can't take care of your kids (not being able to pick them up etc) then you would need a nanny or something... I mean I don't expect them to pay wages to us (because we aren't getting anything for being SAHMs) but some money to help to pay for daycare or a babysitter or nanny would be good.
NOTE: I'm in New Zealand - ACC is a NZ company... I'm not sure what you have in the US.

ilovemybaby replied: I think what was meant by "luxury" was that SAHMs get to see their kids growing up and to see all their 'firsts' (like first word, first step) and spend all that time with them. I don't think that anyone meant that SAHMs sit around on their bums all day. It is hard being a wohm and a sahm. We both have basically two jobs.
I agree that it is a luxury to stay at home. I can't imagine having to go to work each day and not seeing Abby. We sacrifice the extra income for that. But I think it's totally worth it. It makes things hard financially but it's also not forever... when our kids are in school I can go back to work.

The only thing about being a SAHM that is different to when I was working is that if I get sick I have to take care of Abby still. Whereas when I was working outside the home I could call in sick and lie in bed all day and rest. That is hard because usually when I am sick Abby is sick too so I'm taking care of Abby and myself...
And Paul doesn't try to help out when I'm sick.
But when he is sick he expects me to take care of him and Abby and myself! Men! LOL