posted 05-09-2008 05:35 PM            

I wonder if we'll ever see a 24/7 news cycle question about the value of fathers? IMO, you lose a few points for not enduring labor, or peeing every time you sneeze or cough. But when you cradle and take the baby to the hospital nursery and come back with a bottle of wine and a pizza... well, all is forgiven. That would be HWMBB. Oh, I could also smoke in the hospital. No, you may not ask my age.

I think both mothers and fathers can feel trapped from time to time. You lose a lot of freedom when you have a loner or a litter. But that is more than counterbalanced with joy and utter amazement, and, well... mindless love.

As children get older and develop distinct personalities, life gets a bit more confusing. You end up watching a bird hatch and don't know what you're going to see. IME,HWMBB and I each related better to some kids than others. It all came out in the rinse cycle.

They're all plugging along as independent, productive adults and we keep plodding north wondering what'll happen next.

All in all, the value of any parent is in what they do.

posted 05-09-2008 05:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam Mc Kee:
More apples and oranges, methinks, but I'll concede the basic point that they're extremely valuable.

---

Bullsh!t. A stay at home mom is only worth what her oppotrunity cost is--i.e. the forgone wage. You could possibly factor in child care as well I guess, but $117,000? Forget it.

quote:

---

The eighth annual survey calculated a mom's market value by studying pay levels for 10 job titles with duties that a typical mom performs, ranging from housekeeper and day care center teacher to van driver, psychologist and chief executive officer.

---

While we do hire a someone to come in clean our house once every couple of weeks, it isn't like our house is dirty. My son still makes it to swim practice, school, and so forth. All of these things are done in households where both parents work, so I'm calling bullsh!t on the method too. The implication here is that, if you don't have a stay at home mom, you must then pay $117,000 to get the same things done. Does that sound even remotely reasonable?

------------------
Steve
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a "Satan", but this man is as close to "the real McCoy" as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
steve_v@steveverdon.com
Deinonychus antirrhopus

posted 05-09-2008 06:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve_V:
Bullsh!t. A stay at home mom is only worth what her oppotrunity cost is--i.e. the forgone wage. You could possibly factor in child care as well I guess, but $117,000? Forget it.

---

Nobody disputes that.

Sorry that you failed to understand what I wrote.

posted 05-09-2008 08:17 PM            

I spend $80 a week on keeping clutter down with teh maids. Which gets lost in the spending noise...

posted 05-29-2008 08:36 PM            

She sends molto pix and videos. Obviously adores the child. Leaves him with a friend's mom during work hours and, of course, tended to him all night while dad was away. She's not a trendy, high maintenance sorta kid. Hand me downs and used furniture are fine with her.

I've made a few phone calls. Taking a taxi to and from grocery store would cost me ~ $7 each way. Maid service (still waiting for a home visit and estimate). Tending to dogs and walking them ~ 2 hours/day (training included as well as trips to vet). Cooking? If we ate out every nite, it'd certainly cost $20-$30 per nite. My professional time is charged at $115 to $150/hour. I work from home -- no commute, no wardrobe. When I did work in an office and traveled to meet clients locally or around the country, my local commute was on my own dime, but long distance travel was a client cost.

I couldn't justify charging my professional rate for running kids back and forth from soccer and basketball practice/games. I guess I could figure out a taxi rate.

No matter how hard I try to inflate the figure, I'd have to pay both baby sitters and maids $1000/week to come anywhere near the $117,000 figure.

I'm a fabulous cook. So what? Certainly we save money by eating at home, but it's simply easier to eat at home with a gaggle of fractious children and kids want plain stuff rather than gourmet food. Cheap and quick.

I get completely lost with 'jobs' like psychological counseling and helping with homework. These are your kids for dog's sake. You love them and do your thing for love not money.

In one sense, parenthood is invaluable (you can't farm out mindless love), but when you break it down into its various components it's certainly not worth $100K+ per year.

I stand prepared to be beaten about the head and shoulders by every mother in the nation. Do they even ask this question in other countries?

posted 05-29-2008 11:51 PM            

quote:

---

In one sense, parenthood is invaluable (you can't farm out mindless love),

---

That's exactly it.

But also, value is not price.

The price I'm willing to pay voluntarily for something is necessarily less than its value--otherwise what would be the point of the transaction?

If I'm currently starving to death with no food, then an increase in food supply from zero to one meager sandwich a day is worth a king's ransom to me, but that hardly means that the reasonable market price of a sandwich is a king's ransom.

Thomas Sowell once wrote an essay talking about "advantaged" and "disadvantaged" children. Growing up he certainly fit the liberal definition of a "disadvantaged black child" for any number of reasons, but he catalogs all the advantages he had--stable loving family, strong work ethic, a belief in education. When he moved to a new home the first thing they did was take him to the library to get his library card. He once asked his sister how old he was when he could first walk, and he was told "Oh nobody knew when you could walk. Somebody was always carrying you." You can't buy that for any price.

posted 06-03-2008 01:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sam Mc Kee:
Nobody disputes that.

Sorry that you failed to understand what I wrote.

---

Technically, I was agreeing with you. Sorry, I was the one that wasn't clear.

Here is another way to think about this. Suppose your wife is currently staying at home. She decides to head back to the work force for whatever reason. Unless she finds a job that pays $117,000 + X where X is the costs associated with commuting and being back in the workforce, she should simply stay home because she provides $117,000 in value to the household. Clearly this is nonsense, hence so is the $117,000 figure.

Further, that in-kind value is similar to the rental value for a owner-occupied house. Think about the tax implications for that. The husband earns say, $83,000 and the gov't decides to tax not only the rental value of the couples home (thus negating the mortgage deduction) but also the in-kind value of Mommy's labor bring the household's income up to $200,000.

By the way, I busted my ass this weekend at my son's swim meet. I was there over 24 hours over two days, not counting setting up the e-z-up and stuff the night before. Does that count for time-and-a-half and double time at my existing wage rate? If so, that means I brought in at least an extra $1,000 to our household based on my current salary...yet I'm not a stay at home mom.

How I hate these studies. They give stay-at-home-moms even more reason to think that their already bloated opinions of their self-worth is even higher. I walk into the pool area and see them reclining on the lawn furniture napping and then they tell me how hard they work.

------------------
Steve
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a "Satan", but this man is as close to "the real McCoy" as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
steve_v@steveverdon.com
Deinonychus antirrhopus