Why a Mommy Salary Makes Sense

on October 14, 2011 at 2:15 PM

mommy salary
I Should Be Getting Paid for ThisIn the ongoing struggle of making motherhood work in the modern world, one leader has stepped forward in an attempt to give value to stay-at-home moms. Monetary value, that is, I think we can all agree that stay-at-home moms true value cannot be overstated. Yes? Yes.

Wendy Luhabe, a South African businesswoman who is consistently recognized as a leading entrepreneur made a proclamation for all the right reasons. Luhabe is suggesting that mothers who choose to stay home with the children get a "mommy salary" of 10% of their spouse's income in order to give monetary reward to moms making that choice.

While I can get behind this idea, I do think that number is a little bit low.

Luhabe also makes the point that the benefit in having children raised by their mothers will pay off for the rest of society. I totally agree. And that women may lose the resentment that may come from feeling like they're stuck in an undervalued position in the family. Again, I'm totally with you there, Luhabe. I like the way this lady thinks!

But wouldn't 50% be a little bit more appropriate? After all, if you're both going to be contributing to the household bills, groceries, and everything else why not make it even? Especially if, by raising secure kids who always have at least one parent around, you're actually helping reduce crime rates (in the long run), and increase the possibility of children staying in school and graduating. Really, that's a huge service to your world, and your community. 50% of a salary really isn't too much to ask. Especially when one could really value a stay-at-home mom's salary at $115,000.

Still, I'll take 10%. It's really the thought that counts, right?

Would you want a mommy salary?

Image via Valerie's Genealogy Photos/Flickr

About the author April Peveteaux

writes about anything that gets stuck in her craw. A mom of two in Los Angeles, she can't believe she practically lives in the country now after attempting to raise kids in Brooklyn.

Filed Under: back-to-work, childcare, work

Comments (39)

Nonmember comment from me

on Oct 14, 2011 at 2:22 PM

wait, who would pay for this?

Report this comment

Kritika

on Oct 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM

I think this article is stupid. After paying electric, water, gas, cable/internet, mortgage/rent, food, clothing, diapers, baby food, toys etc...then asking for an additional 10% of your husband's salary to be spent on discretionary items for yourself seems like alot of pressure to put on a sole provider and would grow resentment. Don't be surprised when he's spending extra time with his secretary at his "real" job so you can play Pretty Pretty Princess at home.

Nonmember comment from Shelly

on Oct 14, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Well...I make 100% of my husband's earnings. It's OUR money, not HIS. He recognizes the importance of what I do. Isn't that what a marriage is? An EQUAL partnership? No wonder so many people are unhappy, or get divorced!!

zandhmom2

on Oct 14, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Really, who would pay for this? Our government who is broke? I have been a full time working mother and a full time stay at home mother...both have been my decision. I didn't stay home until my family was able to financially afford for me to stay home. My choice.

RhondaVeggie

on Oct 14, 2011 at 2:39 PM

It's a nice gesture but I don't think it's necessary. Look at how much you can save by staying home. When my son was a baby I added it all up and me working outside the home would cost about $50K by the time you add up the daycare, working expenses like a professional wardrobe and travel, and extra costs for things like food and farming out tasks like carpet shampooing that wouldn't have time for if I weren't at home full time. That's not even including a cleaning lady which I suspect my hubby would insist on. That's just for one kid. If I had to pay for daycare for more kids I'd need to make even more to cover the expenses of working, let alone enough to compensate me for missing watching my kid grow up.

tinypossum

on Oct 14, 2011 at 2:41 PM

You are making the assumption that mothers who work aren't raising their kids? Who do you think is doing it? Who do you think gets up in the middle of the night with a sick toddler? Who's cooking, cleaning, running here, there and everywhere? Who? MOM (and Dad, to some extent). Just because a mother works outside the home doesn't mean that she isn't raising her kids and putting in all the hard hours AFTER she's already worked a full day. Give me a break.

Facebook comment from Sarah Swanson

on Oct 14, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Germany already does this, though it is a flat amount rather than a percent of spouse income; that is a better system, because a SAHM whose spouse makes $100k/year isn't doing four times the work of a SAHM whose spouse makes $25k/year. I don't know what an ideal amount would be, I'm not an econmist.

The government could easily pay for this by being able to reduce funding for school breakfast and lunch programs, after school programs, drug and sex education programs and child care subsidies...because the mother could (theoretically) do those things instead. The culture would reap the benefits within a decade when kids who get enough attention from a parent don't turn into teenage delinquents or gang members or get pregnant at 15.

This will never happen in the United States though. Way too "socialist."

There is such a nasty animosity toward working mothers. Such snide remarks about missing this and that and someone else raising our kids. Why so nasty, SAHMs?

Facebook comment from Lisa Moore

on Oct 14, 2011 at 2:59 PM

@tinypossum yeah right like sahm's dont get it from working moms too. Dont even try to act like its 1 sided, that is so juvenille. I have been on both sides of the fence and got crap from the oposite side no matter which path I took. It's part of life, people are judgemental.