Should stay-at-home moms be given a salary in return for their work?
Periodically, there are debates about whether to compensate stay-at-home moms for their work in caring for their children and their home. What do you think about this idea?
Where would the salary come from? I know how much it would cost if you added up a stay-at-home mom's job. For two-three children, it adds up to around $80,000 a year based off being a cleaning lady, personal driver, nanny, etc. But who would pay for the salary? Don't say the government. We are in enough debt. I don't like the idea because mom's have almost always remained at home during history. It is only now that woman have the opportunity to work instead of being a mother. Honestly, I believe this is what grandparents and one of the parents are for; staying at home with the children. Within a few years, I intend to have children and propose a deal with my mother-in-law. She is coming into the age of retirement and should not be working at an office. If she lives with my family and acts as the mother of our home, everything she needs will be paid for.
That sounds like a very dear offer for your MIL, and it sounds like she is wonderful!
Hope it works with your MIL. My own mother told me flat out I could find a sitter for childcare and not ask her - because, as she said, she "paid her dues" as an at-home mom and enjoys her freedom now. Not all grandmas want to be f/t babysitters.
It sounds like she considers child care a burden. My grandmother loved watching over children. She ran a day care out of her home and I'm sure my mother will be overjoyed. Denise, who knows what she thinks.
I agree - My mother did seem to make it sound like a burden. Too bad. Yes, I love the grandmas that love the little ones. I belong to a women's group that has such wonderful grandmas in it. They sometimes bring their little grandkids - so cute!
Thank you for seeing the worth of stay-at-home moms! No one else would want the full-time job because love doesn't pay the bills. My family always started having children late in life, so I had no in-laws or family support younger than 80.
That's very different from my family. Everyone had children the first few years of being married before they were 30. And yet, I was still disappointed that I never met my great-grandmother. I hope you have more support now.
I get a salary. I get a car paid for, a house, power, water, food, clothes, shoes, and just about everything else I need all in exchange for getting to do something I already want to do.
Prov 31:28 Her children rise up and call her blessed;
Her husband also, and he praises her:
29 "Many daughters have done well,
But you excel them all."
I'm gonna be the guy who plays it safe  with an I-don't-know. When I read this all I could hear was another question, the principle of which speaks to me: "Should I pay my children for making excellent grades?" Well sometimes they can be rewarded, but the true reward comes as they learn that being upstanding, intelligent individuals that are possessive of a good work ethic will guarantee them most things they want in life.
I think any mom (or dad) desires a little "extra mile" show of appreciation sometimes. But the real ones know that their children and homes are not their burdens but are their privilege. The reward is inherent.
So I'll man-up and say, No, there shouldn't be a salary. We see too many people today who have kids all over the place with no plan for their care nor do they care to do the right thing by them. They act as if society owes something to them for bearing children into the world they didn't want; then somebody else has to care for them, many raising a host of kids a second time. These are the people with the salary mindset.
This assumes an irresponsible woman who is having kids all over the place. What about the wife of a working man who takes care of the house and kids/ This is a difficult question. A wife would need to ask husband for money for clothing, shoes, etc
diane, any wife who has to ASK her husband for money shouldn't be married to him. I have never once asked my husband for money. It is our money not his, just as the children are ours not mine.
My husband has always considered his salary as belonging to both of us to run and maintain our home and family. So in a way I am paid, I have equal access to our money, and in fact make the financial decisions for the family.
A stay-at-home parent is doing important work but as iburmaster writes - where would the money come from?
Marcy.......WHO would pay a woman to care for her own home and her own children?....as in, WHERE would the compensation come from? How would a salary or rate be determined? Mainly...WHY should a woman be compensated to care for her home and children? I admit, I'm baffled.
Frankly, Marcy, I'm trying not to laugh......there has actually been debate about this? This concept seems very strange to me and I don't see it ever becoming an issue for serious consideration.
However, I have always been in favor of Employers, whether large Corporations or even privately-owned businesses, including a "child-care" allotment, as part of a salary and/or benefits pkg. OR...making it feasible for a woman to actually be an employee, who works from her home, which is becoming more available. This seems to be just as important, if not more important than paid Holidays and vacations, etc.
fpherj - I know it sounds surprising that this has been a debate, but it truly has been argued about for decades. I'm not saying which side of the fence I fall on here; just wanted to see what people think!
In other countries, women are already financially compensated for this very important work. Italy and France compensate women who stay home to have children. There are probably other countries that do this, too.
No one can compensate mom work with salary. A great job,job that need much sacrifice,responsbilites and attentation,hardwork to bring up kids.No one could do this for salary.They need our respect,warm hub,our care and of course our love and affection.
Absolutely, but it'll never happen! Have you ever done the math regarding the salaries for each hat a stay-at-home mom wears? It's put Bill Gates' salary to shame!
difficult question , funnily enough i went to a woman's fight back meeting in London and they raised good points on this topic ,on one hand mothers who are at home are bringing up the children of tomorrow and also by looking after children they loose out on there pension . but some people might say in a financial crisis that we are in right now we should be careful with the countries money to get out of debt , . woman have done it before they can do it again . my personal view from experience of different people i have met i believe that woman should be given money but it should not be called salary it should be called a bursary and this aids in looking after the child and also is paid into a pension which can be carried on when the woman gets a job after the child is grown up.
As a stay at home mom, in a home where the budget is tight to stay out of debt, it would of course be nice to be paid for my dream job of being a mommy. However, the payment I get is not monetary, but in the time that I get to spend with my children.
If there were some way for stay-at-home moms to be paid (I don't know by who), I can only imagine that there would be people that would do it for the money and would not be loving and caring mothers. Unfortunately, I think it would become problematic.
Us stay-at-home moms will just have to continue to find creative ways to earn money and to be good at budgeting.
Can't beat this comment with a stick! Well put!
As a stay-at-home mom I completely agree with your comment!!!
If the Stay -at-home-mom has to be given salary, it would be she, paying to herself. Because all the finances are in her hands. In most households the husbands give these responsibilities to the wife only. She is in charge of the whole money. It is she who pays the bills, pays for grocery and other necessities of the family. It is she paying for her children education and other needs.
The Stay-at-home-mom just needs love, respect , appreciation and acknowledgement by all the family members. The work which is done out of love, care and affection does not require any salary. That's my opinion.
Her work and attention towards her house can't be calculated by money but if we want to give her something we can give her love and more respect as she deserves it
I think there are a lot of good answers already and I agree with most of them. When the husband makes the living, the money he brings in is half hers already, especially if you live in a community property state. If a sah mom received a salary in one of those states, would half the money belong to the husband?
There are some stay-at-home moms who do receive a salaries. It's called welfare.
The child tax credit should be much higher. Then we are not subsidizing stay at home mothers at the expense of working women without children. If a woman chooses to stay home or a mother chooses to work and pay for childcare, her contribution to society in the form of children is compensated for.
Iguess some type of compensation is in order. If mom didn't take care ofof the kids then you would still have to pay someone to do it.
Taking care of the children and home is work. However the husband spends a lot of the money he makes on his wife, his children and his home. The problem with giving the wife a salary in return for her work is that she is looking after her kids and her home. I guess a husband and wife could figure out how the money is going to be divided between them. They could have separate accounts and split the living expenses or all of the money could be their money. I do think the the wife should not be broke. She should have access to money that was made by her husband without asking her husband for the money.
She takes care of him, too, don't forget. Answering the phone, doing his laundry, running errands, the bedroom stuff and saving money from no daycare. A husband shouldn't have to spend a lot on his wife. It should be spent on kids, hubby & hom
The "bedroom stuff?" OK frump.. Now we're open for discussion! LOL..."Looking after the kids??" Bless your heart. I just love your choice of words! LOL
No. I mean, why should they be? I'm not saying that watching/caring for children isn't work. It DEFINITELY is a full time job. However, it is also a full time job people CHOOSE to take on. You CHOOSE to have children (for the most part.) We don't need to be giving out any more money in this country for asinine and absurd reasons.
I guess it depends how much your spouse earns. Where would a spouses salary come from? The gap is so wide about the quality of work a stay at home mom does. I know when I stayed home, I was up by 5:30am, showered and dressed. I never sat around in P.J s... How does one decide how much the salary is worth?
In a perfect world i would have liked the salary I left. I would have invested it.
For me , my [our ] paycheck , whether my wife worked or not became communal property , always has ! Where is this compensation to come from other than that ? Government entitlements ? Wefare ,?...........Santa?
it is interesting you bring this up . My latest hub is regarding a topic very similar. I would have never even considered the government paying me to stay at home with my kids. I am a single mom of three, and I just walked away from a 72,000 annual salary because my children were suffering. My daughter had a mental health issue, I went on FMLA, it opened my eyes to the reality of how much my kids (all three teens) hadn't gained the skills necessary to become productive results. As a single mom, I hadn't done my job "growing" them. Balance is hard.
I think there needs to be more opportunities for telecommuting, work from home, and virtual companies. If you read about the look at the latest meeting of NW philanthropists (looking for a rich husband ha ha) they talk a lot about future virtual offices. This would open up so many choices for parents who wanted to do more and combine work and home. Philanthropy NW and Forbes online have some great articles. Good question, thanks.
Yes. Actually this is done in some form in European countries. They value women who chose to remain home and work raising children and taking care of the household. In Italy, my great-aunts never worked outside the home - they always were homemakers. At retirement age (65) they were given a government penison for the work they had done at home all those years. I don't know how much it was, but they were compensated for their time working in the home. I think it should be done in all countries in the world. Stay at home moms work just as hard or harder than those that work outside the home. We need to value that somehow in this country.
I agree with you. Being a parent is the most important job in the world. I wish America had more of the same values as other countries. The sad truth is we don't value our kids in America. We value money. We raise our kids the same way!
That's very forward thinking of Italy. Thanks for teaching me something new. I agree - I wish there was a higher value on it here in the USA, too.
By stay-at-home mom, you mean stay-at-home parent, right?
To be honest, this is a system that would be massively abused in less than a New York minute. It would be nice to have for the moms and dads who stay home and work hard every day taking care of the children, but let's face it, if anything was going to be taken advantage of, this would be it.
The repercussions would be that the tax payer would end up dearly for it (where's the money going to come from if not from our own pockets), and there would also be a whole bunch more children who are being raised by parents who only wanted them for the free ride. It's basically a request for massive abuse across the board.
Just look at welfare systems. Yes they are absolutely necessary and they are brilliant to have, but they are already abused by far too many people looking for an easy road.
I'm definitely not saying that everyone who use these systems abuse them, but we all know that there are a lot of people who do, and they will also do whatever they can in order to get paid to effectively do nothing.
If we lived in a world where everyone shared a moral compass, and was decent, then maybe. But we don't.
I would LOVE to be paid to stay at home, but... it's never going to happen.
In my perfect world ~ parents who stay at home would earn 1/2 of the cost of the child to be in daycare... so they would only get paid until the child reaches age 5 or 6 and is "of age" to start kindergarten.
One of the big problems is that families with lower incomes are put in a situation where it almost doesn't make sense for both parents to work because daycare is so expensive it takes almost the entire paycheck of one of them to cover it!
Other countries have plans which DO pay mom's to stay at home with their children up to a certain age. I think it would be great if America could find a way to make that work.
Of course there would be those who abuse it, then everyone would cry about what a waste of money it is because the lazy mom's who just want to sit on their butt all day and not go get a "real job"... blah blah blah... I can hear it now.
And I wouldn't feel comfortable with someone who had to come to the house every so often to make sure I was doing a good job... so how do you prove you're one of the "good ones"?
It would be a total mess to figure out & like I said, never going to happen.... so...
I'm just waiting to win the lottery and count that as my payment instead
I am on the fence. Not Sure. There is more than a paycheck. There would be all the legal issues too. Does that mean when two marry automatically they are declared a business? Got to pay those payroll taxes, social security, etc. I asked a similar question regarding allowances as a pay structure. Kids have Soc Sec when now - birth?
On principle it is kinda' a family tradition dad handed mom the paycheck. He got an allowance. I have many co-workers who operate that way too. I think I would like to see some 'real' stats who manages the money in the household first. If one has control over the finances, the paycheck is handed to that one, then how about the pay for the work to begin with?
I learned an adage a ways back that the difference between yours and ours is why - 'Y'
Bad thinking, the type of thinking that has led to a 60% divorce rate. It's a partnership. Do I really need to review the roles? Instead, think about the reasons for working and earning money.
Who would be paying this salary? The husband or significant other? Oh, wait...the government? Why not? The government should tax us all higher so stay at home mom's can get a salary. They tax us for all those wanting free healthcare.
Why should they be paid? Wasn't it their decision to do this? If they wanted, or needed a salary, then get why not get a job?
I agree that it is definitely hard work. I have done it, and understand it is as much work as "going to the office" every day.
I agree with peeples and duffsmom. In actuality, they are getting a salary. They are being taken care of financially.
Everyone makes decisions in life. I chose to stay at home when my children were young. At times, we had to go without, because that second salary wasn't there. What I gained with my kids, could never be out weighed by the extra money. When they were older, I had to work, because by then I was a single Mom.
Caring for your children is part of what being a parent is all about. If you wanted to get paid to do it, maybe you should have just gotten a job in a daycare.
That really depends on if you're the stay-at-home mom or not. If you are, your answer would be yes. If you are not, your answer would be no.
Seriously, this question reminds me of an episode of "All in the Family". Edith wanted to buy Archie a TV set for their anniversary but the stores wouldn't give her credit because she was "just a housewife". She decided she would have Archie "pay" her $1.00 a week for the 30 years she cooked and cleaned and raised their daughter. Archie's response was along the lines of "I won't pay you to do the job God gave you to do." He quickly changed his mind when he discovered why Edith wanted the money.
No, stay at home mothers should not get a salary for their work. First off, if you're single with a child, or married with children, you get help from the government. Whether it be welfare or tax credits. Second, you don't have to have children. Third, who would pay for it? Fourth, would soccer moms in the suburbs get paid more than inner city stay at home moms? Your reward is knowing that you raised your child to be the best person that he/she could be.
The work that stay at home moms do is priceless. I'm assuming that your husband is the one whom you will expect to pay your salary. Motherhood is a joy and the love should be given freely. Your husband's chosen role is to provide a stable home environment for you and the child or children. He has the responsibility of keeping you all safe and assuring your well being. His level of responsibility is priceless. You are dependent upon your husband in the same manner that you depended upon your parents Because of your husband, all of your needs as well as those of the children are met. You and your husband are partners and are equally responsible for the care of your children. Your contribution is to provide a sanitary, nurturing, and loving environment for your husband and child/children while your husband earns the money to pay for your home, utilities, food, clothing, cars, entertainment,etc. I would recommend that you focus on the tangibles and non-tangibles you experience and enjoy as a stay at home mom. Focus on all the positives you receive as a stay at home mom, i.e, you get to bond and spend time with your child/children...you get to watch them learn and grow,..you get to hold them close during the day as swell as during the night...you get to teach them and mold them...you get to do wonderful things for and with them....and, in return you are loved and showered with hugs and kisses all day long. Your children are your master pieces. what a joy it is to be involved in teaching the next generation of individuals who will assume responsibility for the planet earth after your generation.
My question is, just what would your salary cover? All that you do is out of and for the love you have for your child/children. Nurturing and caring for them is what moms do. So,count your blessings and thank God for your family every day, many times a day, You have been given a sacred charge. Enjoy the journey!
No- of course not.
It's your choice to have children and you should subsequently pay for the 'priviledge'. If you choose to stay at home and not go out to work or find paying employment then that is also your choice.
Government's subsidising parents who have children should question why it's done. In fact as a non-child bearer maybe we should get tax rebates as we are not bleeding the benefits systems of family allowances or tax credits.
Having children in the western world is a choice
What a great, thought-provoking question. Maybe government should pay social security in retirement years but not during the working years. Let adults be responsible for themselves while they can. Let adults work it out themselves while they're young.
Before I married, I earned more than my husband. My husband wanted me home so he paid $500 a week to me (in 1997). He handed over all paychecks. He earned $800 a week at the time. I deposited the difference in his bank account. By the time I had the third child, my weekly pay was up to $725 a week. I told him, he could keep any difference - no matter the amount. But I always earned my amount and here's why. I did everything and paid all bills with this money. He traveled and was always gone. I earned every cent. We agreed to this deal before we married, too. There were no surprises. We went into this agreement with our eyes open. When we ended up getting ready to divorce, he honored this same agreement and still pays me $725 a week. When the kids are grown, he still plans to pay me $500 a month for twenty years (until retirement) to offset the lost potential earnings that I gave up to be a f/t parent. As time has passed, the value of the money has gone down but I am very happy and he has been able to become a well-paid executive (six figures) because I sacrificed a f/t career for p/t work and f/t parenting.
However, I would have accepted far less as a salary had he been willing to take a job at home without travel. I also would have been able to work more myself, with another parent to pick up the slack, thereby increasing my earning power. So, it all would have equaled out to about the same amount of money in total - except he would also have enjoyed seeing his kids grow up, something he gave up because he valued his job more.
I enjoyed parenting so much, I chose to home-school, too, and run my business from home. We became the "house on the block" where all the kids come over after school - because so many parents aren't home and they're bored. I help them with homework and give them snacks. They play in my backyard or 'game' in the living room. Their parents appreciate me being available and often drop off gifts, like bags of oranges or chips for the neighborhood kids to share when they're over. I think this is the best job EVER! I'm so glad I gave up my corner office for this. I don't know if I can ever return to the corporate world again!
I consider this a silly question. Husbands that work to support the family do not get paid, they work for a family paycheck. If the family functions anywhere near the way it should no one gets a "paycheck" whoever works for money (husband or wife) is doing so to provide for the FAMILY, it is not "their" paycheck. A family that really cares for the well being of the children will have one parent at home to care for them. I have a friend that has no real work skills and his wife is a nurse , so to provide the best income for their family, he stays home and she works outside. Pride should not enter into this decision.
If you are going to have children you need to be responsible for them. If you can not or will not then you should not have any. Too many people that have children put themselves first. Until they are raised you are responsible for them to be a top priority in your life. If not it is YOUR fault if they bring shame upon you.
Stay at home moms have BIG jobs. It's thankless and super challenging. But, once you have more than one child, alot of moms and dads decide on this factor based on the mothers desire to be a "stay at home mom" at least in my circles this is true. This, coupled with the skyrocketing costs of childcare saves the average household alot of money, and the trade off is usually driving used cars, and staying rather frugile in efforts to keep a well maintained home and relationship... the huge dividend in that decision, at least for us, was that we knew where our kids were, we knew that no one cares like a mother, and altogether, at least in our case... if she has to make over 45K yearly to keep up with all of the costs associated with a working mom, but we have 3 kids. So, it's probably best left to each case as to the monetary value... but the real question is what is the value of the kids safety, and his/her/their futures in relationship to knowing mom or dad was always there for them growing up? If a mom has to work, I think that is admirable, and many do, however, what is the value of being able to just attend to the things she or sometimes stay at home dads want to care about? Tough question for sure.
Yes and they should receive Social Security benefits, too. After all, children grow up to pay taxes. What would happen if every single woman refused sex for at least a month? Think about it. The government would be losing out on a lot of potential taxpayers. Maybe it would serve the govt. right to not bear any children for even a year or more. Think of how many women there are in this world? I'll bet the govt. would be trying like hell to convince women to have kids so mothers should get paid. Maybe the birth control meds would be tampered with, too. But I'll bet if no women bore any children for at least a month or a year, things would change. You don't realize what's important until it's gone, sometimes. Well, if there's no reproduction going on, there will be fewer consumers of baby clothes and stuff. I guess the men would have to get operated on to have an artificial womb implanted and then, they they would have to have a c-section. Women are taken for granted.
by brielise 6 years ago
Do you think stay at home moms are "lazy"?Watching Anderson right now, this is apparently a huge debate. If I have the financial means, I want to be home with the baby, and my boyfriend supports this decision. It's not because I don't want to work or think I shouldn't, I just want the...
by Libra 6 years ago
Do stay-at -home moms get the recognition they deserve?There has been a lot of debate on this topic. What is your opinion?
by Peeples 7 years ago
Is there a stigma to being a stay at home mom?Heard some of this on talk radio (bad for my health I know but I'm addicted) yesterday. Does being a stay at home mom imply to others that you are somehow less intellectual than a working mother? If so why?
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
Hilary Rosen (Dem strategist)raps Ann Romney as unqualified to serve as Mitt's economic adviser, stating she's never worked a day in her life.Ann Romney opens a Twitter account to tweet back about her choice to stay home and raise five kids and "believe me, it was hard work."The flap has...
by Susan Reid 4 years ago
Mitt Romney thinks so.Yet almost 64% of moms with young kids work.What's the solution here?Romney said in Tuesday’s interview that he thinks it’s preferable for one parent to stay home when children are young. The comment came during a discussion of early-childhood education and preparing for...
by JeniferD 8 years ago
I ask this because since the U.S. congress makes six figures a year doing essentially NOTHING for the people that voted them in and THEN denies the unemployed extended comps calling the unemployed 'lazy'. Any jobs that paid a living wage in my state went overseas to cheap foreign labor...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|