Groundbreaking journalism

Yet another article about how much money stay at home moms would make if they got paid. $131,471/yr. Unfortunately the article is complete fluff. The problems:

It's mom-specific. Would it kill them to throw a gender-neutral reference in there or at least mention the growing numbers of SAHDs?

It's a reuters story based on an "informal survey" by powerhouse website salary.com where the survey respondents gave titles that fit what they do. That's some rigorous science, there. Based on the weak references provided in the story, the titles that the SAHMs gave included nurse, chauffeur, etc. But it's ridiculous to go from "the X minutes a day that a parent performs nursing-related tasks" to "having them earn the equivalent of X minutes of a nurse's salary." To pick on this example, there's a whole lot that nurses do that stay at home parents don't and can't. A significant part of the value of a nurse is having an immense base of medical knowledge that might be called into play in any given situation. Taking care of a child with a fever or pouring antiseptic on a skateboarding injury just don't compare. A better way to look at this is: how much would America pay someone else to do this job for your children? What do we pay the nurse at the gradeschool? The bus driver? The daycare teacher? The music teacher at daycare?

It assumes 40 hours + 60 hours of overtime. Yes, I get the point that stay at home parents' work doesn't end, but if you want this number to be useful for any sort of comparison at all, then don't count the bleepin' overtime. Guess what, the parents who work out of the home come home and do that 60 hours of overtime too. Or is that just me?

One quote: "Coleman said feedback on the figure was mixed. Some felt mothers deserved more, some less. In general, though, many were pleased to see a figure above $100,000." Um, really? They were pleased to see a figure above 100k? I hadn't expected that.

And the quote from the mom who said she "definitely" thinks she should make that much? That's what really convinced me.

Then at the end, cue obligatory reference to how all SAHMs say that really, you can't attach a dollar amount to the time spent at home with children (but if you have to, I mean really have to, then how about a number above 100k?).

What tripe. A story built on nothing. It doesn't add any value and worse yet, it takes away from other stories on this topic that might be more balanced and thoughtful (admittedly, I've never seen one). I get that it sucks that stay at home parents don't earn a paycheck and yet they do a variety of tasks that, were they working out of the home at those tasks for other people or their children, would earn money. I get why people write these stories, hopefully it helps add visibility to the work that goes on at home. But can't we write them better than this?

Comments

[ElizabethN]

Thank you for articulating everything I thought when I read this story!

If people were rational (c'mon, I can dream), we could answer the question of what SAHPs are worth by looking at how much insurance we carry on them. In the case of my wonderful part-time SAHD husband, that would be the same as what's recommended for an income-producer making about $150k. Even at that, I doubt I could hire out everything he does for our household for that amount. But most people don't carry insurance on the stay-at-home parent at all.

[Russ]

Great post, KC! Sure, you can try to ascertain a value for life insurance puropses, but the true value of a parent just can't be quantified financially (as ElizabethN mentioned). At-home parenthood isn't about the money anyway... it's about the kids.

[Anne]

I as well find those analyses bogus. My au pair's pay works out to about $250 for 50 hours a week of child care. Even if you double it on the theory that I'm caring for the kids at the same time (I'll be chauffeuring one while she cares for the other two, for example), it's still only $26,000 a year.