I'm a stay at home dad and figure it's worth about 24 k. Where do they get these numbers from?
It's 'moms' without an apostrophe; there is a difference between the plural and the possessive.
STAHD wrote:
Where do they get these numbers from?
Rudov explains in the video
Didn't watch the video, but I'm pretty sure that myth isn't really in need of debunking, as anyone with a brain knows the number is BS. As I recall, the super high values for stay-at-home moms are calculated by assuming that every service performed is worth the same amount that a professional would earn. When a mom puts a bandaid on a cut, she is acting as a nurse and her value is equivalent to the prorated nurses wage. When she pours milk over cereal, she is acting as a chef. When she sews a button back onto a shirt, she is acting as a seamstress. (And so on).
By this logic, I could claim that I am doing the job of a professional athlete every time I go for a run and value my own time according to Galen Rupp's prorated earnings. Of course, I'm not Galen Rupp, so the ten miler I ran today isn't worth a few hundred dollars. It is, in fact, nearly worthless for any use other than my own enjoyment and entertainment.
Similarly, the value that any professional adds comes from quality and outcome. If a chef who earned $30/hr served PB&J, string cheese, and a banana for lunch, he wouldn't be earning that wage for long. An ICU nurse doesn't make $80K/yr to put bandaids on cuts. A person who sews a button on does not add the same value as a person who can make quality clothes from scratch.
Ultimately, the value of care taking is proven empirically by the wages that people are actually willing to pay a person to take care of their kids. If one-on-one childcare was worth six figures, nanny's would earn six figures.
The dollar figure really means nothing as it is not a paid profession. It is easy to play with numbers in any profession to value your "worth".
The guy in the video doesn't "debunk" anything, he is just thinks it is funny to sound sexist jerkoff.
silly logic wrote:
Didn't watch the video, but I'm pretty sure that myth isn't really in need of debunking, as anyone with a brain knows the number is BS. As I recall, the super high values for stay-at-home moms are calculated by assuming that every service performed is worth the same amount that a professional would earn. When a mom puts a bandaid on a cut, she is acting as a nurse and her value is equivalent to the prorated nurses wage. When she pours milk over cereal, she is acting as a chef. When she sews a button back onto a shirt, she is acting as a seamstress. (And so on).
By this logic, I could claim that I am doing the job of a professional athlete every time I go for a run and value my own time according to Galen Rupp's prorated earnings. Of course, I'm not Galen Rupp, so the ten miler I ran today isn't worth a few hundred dollars. It is, in fact, nearly worthless for any use other than my own enjoyment and entertainment.
Similarly, the value that any professional adds comes from quality and outcome. If a chef who earned $30/hr served PB&J, string cheese, and a banana for lunch, he wouldn't be earning that wage for long. An ICU nurse doesn't make $80K/yr to put bandaids on cuts. A person who sews a button on does not add the same value as a person who can make quality clothes from scratch.
Ultimately, the value of care taking is proven empirically by the wages that people are actually willing to pay a person to take care of their kids. If one-on-one childcare was worth six figures, nanny's would earn six figures.
Good post.
yeah lets hate on moms like we hate on teachers. they are so worthless right, what the hell do they actually do anyway? basically overpaid babysitters. they should be made to pay us for the privilege to do what they do. F them
good logic from silly logic. best is that I now don't need to watch the video.
More attac'ks on womens' right's.
yyy wrote:
More attac'ks on womens' right's.
^this
The government should pay every stay-at-home mom $117,000/yr.
Your ability to pluralize is quite a tell. Wow, I can't stand you and how your tiny brain works.
libtard wrote:
yyy wrote:More attac'ks on womens' right's.
^this
The government should pay every stay-at-home mom $117,000/yr.
For what? Watching Jerry Spring, Oprah and Judge Judy? LOL. Get a real job ladies!
It's still just a minimum wage maximum hours type of "job". You can only think of it as money not paid rather than potential earnings lost or done for free.
Hard to imagine people thinking they should be paid to raise their own children.
The Federal minimum wage is something like $7.25, right? In any case, let's assume that is the minimum wage. Multiply that by 13 hours per day, which is a minimum figure that a stay at home mom is with the kids if they aren't in school. Multiply that by 7 days a week. Multiply that by 52 weeks per year. That's $34,401. However, she is on the clock all the time. In fact, she is actually on call all night, and frequently called, let me tell you. So, I'll do the 24 hour on call calculation as well. That gives $63,510. But you are not likely to be able to get anyone decent to do child care for one child or children from one family. If the stay at home person has a college degree, that would certainly warrant at least $15-20/hr. At those rates, we're talking about $131,000-175,000 for always taking care of children or being on call.
In truth, the mom/dad is irreplaceable and their valuable incalculable.
jjjjjj wrote:
The Federal minimum wage is something like $7.25, right? In any case, let's assume that is the minimum wage. Multiply that by 13 hours per day, which is a minimum figure that a stay at home mom is with the kids if they aren't in school. Multiply that by 7 days a week. Multiply that by 52 weeks per year. That's $34,401. However, she is on the clock all the time. In fact, she is actually on call all night, and frequently called, let me tell you. So, I'll do the 24 hour on call calculation as well. That gives $63,510. But you are not likely to be able to get anyone decent to do child care for one child or children from one family. If the stay at home person has a college degree, that would certainly warrant at least $15-20/hr. At those rates, we're talking about $131,000-175,000 for always taking care of children or being on call.
In truth, the mom/dad is irreplaceable and their valuable incalculable.
We can always count on you to make some nonsensical statements.
No one is working 24 hours per day. She has to sleep. Most places that I know of do not pay you for being on call. If they do, it's something like $1-2 per hour.
Having a college degree doesn't certainly warrant at least $15-20 per hour. Especially if that degree has nothing to do with raising children. What does a college degree have to do with being able to watch and raise young children?
no off course not. But it is disrespectful to all stay-at-home moms.
Society would collapse were it not for their hard work.
jjjjjj wrote:
The Federal minimum wage is something like $7.25, right? In any case, let's assume that is the minimum wage. Multiply that by 13 hours per day, which is a minimum figure that a stay at home mom is with the kids if they aren't in school. Multiply that by 7 days a week. Multiply that by 52 weeks per year. That's $34,401. However, she is on the clock all the time. In fact, she is actually on call all night, and frequently called, let me tell you. So, I'll do the 24 hour on call calculation as well. That gives $63,510. But you are not likely to be able to get anyone decent to do child care for one child or children from one family. If the stay at home person has a college degree, that would certainly warrant at least $15-20/hr. At those rates, we're talking about $131,000-175,000 for always taking care of children or being on call.
In truth, the mom/dad is irreplaceable and their valuable incalculable.
SAHMs and SAHDs can be great caretakers but their economic worth is that which it would cost to hire an au pair or nanny. Same with everything in life. You're worth what somebody is willing to pay you.
What about people that are making 200,000+ as doctors, lawyers, AND taking care of the kids and house? We can do it all baby.
Do SAHMs have to pay their TVs when they subcontract out babysitting duties to it?
It's hard to debunk this guy. Fox News is a solid informational resource.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2017 World 800 champ Pierre-Ambroise Bosse banned 1 year for whereabouts failures