The $$$ Value of a Stay-at-Home Mom is...

[Robert Bobik]

For some reason, I thought there was an age requirement for a child to be left home alone.
http://clelaw.lib.oh.us/Public/Misc/FAQ ... Alone.html

[Danielle Masters]

I am not sure if Lakewood still offers the home alone classes, but I remember my oldest son took it the summer before he entered fourth grade. The program taught them simple things like how to shut off a toilet and taught them about answering the door and or phone. They also provided emergency phone numbers and taught them what to do in certain emergency situations. I know my son really enjoyed that program and hopefully it is still being offered because it really is a worthwhile thing for children to learn. As for leaving children home alone as a parent I can't imagine leaving a child under 10 maybe 9 home alone, they just aren't mature enough to handle it. But perhaps some parents would disagree.

[Stephen Calhoun]

If a stay-at-home mom could be compensated in dollars rather than personal satisfaction and unconditional love, she'd rake in a nifty sum of nearly $117,000 a year.

First sentence of article.

Vince, the operative word is 'could be compensated.'

Elizabeth Warren (http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2007test/051007testew.pdf):

"When wages quit increasing, how did family incomes rise? The answer is all around us. Mothers of minor children went back to work in record numbers, and many increased the hours they worked. In the early 1970s, the median family lived on one paycheck. Today the family in the middle brings home two paychecks."

However one wishes to divide the household income marked to the mean middle, say $75,000, what we've got is a 2 earner middle class made up of 2 wages and one can do the math in splitting up that modest pie.

Great youtube.

[ryan costa]

women need to work outside the home so they have better prospects after the divorce. Most of my friends are from divorced families. Nearly every one I know between the ages 40 and 60 is divorced.

It takes more than passion and commitment to make a marriage last. It takes a deep sense of resignation. this is a value modern consumers are less likely to have.

[Vince Frantz]

If a stay-at-home mom could be compensated in dollars rather than personal satisfaction and unconditional love, she'd rake in a nifty sum of nearly $117,000 a year.

First sentence of article.

Vince, the operative word is 'could be compensated.'

The study is fluffy - but it did the job. I was hoping that study would at least provide an "editorial" on the subject of where we place our values.

Of course I don't think there is a way to actually pay stay-at-home parents. But it shows what value you are leaving on the table by sending both mom and dad to work. That value turns to cost as you pay your way back into a quality parenthood through all the various surrogates. My father made $40K a year as a crane operator in the 70s. Which was enough for mom to stay home with 4 kids.

But how clever it is to start counting the middle class as HOUSEHOLD income of $75K. That means dads are still only taking home $40K in 2004 (as Elizabeth Warren shows in the PDF you posted).

So - by duping the middle class into sending mom to work and going into debt, the seeds were sown for the collapse of the family both financially and structurally. The operative term is "moms" not "women". Moms were told that you could do more for the family by taking a job while your kids were still at home.

And so while planning their child bearing years, future parents should consider that if a single earner brings home around $65K - $75K then you would be better off keeping one at home for the kids verses the burden and instability of an extra "income". Most of the families I know with two incomes have a total household of $150k. Unnecessary.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Vince, although I stand with Elizabeth Warren and to some extent with your position too, the devil is in the details.

The biggest fuzzy area is in concretizing the demographic categories and dividing overall income by those same categorical distinctions. In fact, this is where Warren's own research has come under the most pressure.

Also, the character of the household itself is dynamic as Ryan implies. If a two earner household consists of two $50x earners, the per capita income is $50x, the household income is $100x. If they get divorced the per capita income stays the same but the household average is then $50x since there are now 2 households rather than 1, (divided into $100x.)

***

Whereas the point about what is voluntary aim of a potential earner is a more interesting and tendencious view. After all, it is also the case that a family simply cannot afford to rely on a single earner. Although one can argue that this same family could configure their finances to live on $50x rather than $75x, this might be a hard prospect to retail to many families.

Still, as I've argued in the past, at the scale of Lakewood, there are certain things citizens could do to lower the material footprint, and educate others about how to do so.

People may not imagine how it could be possible to cut costs and throw away credit cards and become more the masters of their finances, but these kinds of efforts are the tip of the possible educative and emanticipatory interactions which could change the working dynamics of the economic roller coaster.

[Vince Frantz]

After all, it is also the case that a family simply cannot afford to rely on a single earner.

It is a popular to say things like that but the anecdotal evidence is contrary. About 50% of the families I know have one working parent. They are not loaded. They live in 2-4 bedroom homes and have 1-5 kids.

The values (not in a moral sense) were aligned for that to happen. Both parents are almost always college educated. My generation had parents that worked to put boys and girls through college. These boomers then go on to stigmatize their girls (and boys) who stay at home by pimping that popular two income meme. Add the guilt trip for "sent you to college for what!?!?".

But I would say that it is the college educated group that has seen the value of the one income family. That their education - bought as a ticket to employment - became a ticket to freedom. Educative AND emancipatory indeed!

***

"Households" are not necessarily "families". If you define a household as two people living together then that covers quite a bit of scenarios including two friends in an apartment. Warren specifically focuses with laser accuracy on Families as defined by two parents, two kids.

So when two Adults break up, divorce, move out, etc and they become two households then the effects are quite negligible.

But when two Parents split that "family" still exists even though there are now two "households".

If a family depended on two incomes, the level of cost is fixed at a two-income lifestyle. When one income is threatened, now there are no more "backup" incomes that can join the workforce. This is the inherent instability of a two-income Family.

[Stephen Calhoun]

I should have been more clear: "a" family is not every family. We have to grant also that many two income, traditional (ie. nuclear,) families consist of husband and wife who choose to work because they both want to work for reasons beyond earning an income. This may favor professional pairs.

Agreed also, a traditional family configuration is favored by at least one earner being a professional with a professional type income.

If a family depended on two incomes, the level of cost is fixed at a two-income lifestyle. When one income is threatened, now there are no more "backup" incomes that can join the workforce. This is the inherent instability of a two-income Family.

Yup. Warren's point; a point about only the families in particular stressful predicaments. It reprises the old saw about one's, (or a family's) expenses tending to rise to, or surpass, the level of their income.

My own household is an empty nest example, but, our balance sheet is better than that of many households that are much more affluent both in the sense of assets and debts.

Warren also zeroes in on what are the 'stressor' categories of expenses (for the 2+children family): housing costs, health insurance, and debt, including the cost of owning two cars.

It would be interesting to have solid data on the configurations of Lakewood households.