Why Stay-At-Home Moms Are Worth More than $100K a Year

reply to post by getreadyalready

Do the women in your organization make less than the men? If they do, and they have female bosses, then who is to blame? Certainly not some male-dominated culture.

I'm talking about a former employer....not my current one...which RELOCATED TO MEXICO...hence why i hate free trade. (We were a profitable company BTW)

We had 400 employees, easily 2/3's of which were women...possibly more. There was a pay scale based on positions worked. Sex did not matter for hourly work. Salary may have been a different story but that's something I wouldn't know. We also received a cost of living raise every year which added 3 percent based on current pay. A raise was guaranteed every year.

Every woman who worked there could make the same pay as men as long as they could do the same work. It was a great place....boy do I miss that job.

Good benefits, good insurance, good dental, eye care, quarterly bonuses, good pay, good work environment.....GONE. Frickin shareholders sold us out. Our Plant Manager actually cried the day he told us we were all losing our jobs. He fought to keep us going. That was a horrible day.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Do the women in your organization make less than the men? If they do, and they have female bosses, then who is to blame? Certainly not some male-dominated culture.

I'm talking about a former employer....not my current one...which RELOCATED TO MEXICO...hence why i hate free trade. (We were a profitable company BTW)

We had 400 employees, easily 2/3's of which were women...possibly more. There was a pay scale based on positions worked. Sex did not matter for hourly work. Salary may have been a different story but that's something I wouldn't know. We also received a cost of living raise every year which added 3 percent based on current pay. A raise was guaranteed every year.

Every woman who worked there could make the same pay as men as long as they could do the same work. It was a great place....boy do I miss that job.

Good benefits, good insurance, good dental, eye care, quarterly bonuses, good pay, good work environment.....GONE. Frickin shareholders sold us out. Our Plant Manager actually cried the day he told us we were all losing our jobs. He fought to keep us going. That was a horrible day.

Well I hope you can find that again,

that is a terrible story

Stay-at-home moms might well be worth more than $100K a year but we refuse to subsidize mothers who are single or whose husbands don't bring home huge paychecks .... so those moms have to work. And while they're out working the kids are being watched by .... who knows, that old lady in the back apartment who's a bit senile, that middle aged woman on the top floor who has a real taste for "cough medicine", maybe that very strange guy in Apartment 4-B, or maybe just left to themselves and the other kids on the street corner. And that's how they're supervised until Mom comes home from work, exhausted and maybe short-tempered.

When things go wrong we say the mother was neglectful, but we made sure that she couldn't stay at home.

reply to post by braindeadconservatives

Well I hope you can find that again, that is a terrible story

I won't find that again until laws are changed....everything is set right now for wages to stay stagnant or go down....and benefits disappearing.

Man, I'm just sick of the BS....and i'm sick of people defending that BS.

reply to post by beezzer


It's not hard, women are all the same.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by beezzer

 

It's not hard, women are all the same.

Makes me sad.. someone wasnt petted enough as a child or laid down with a dirty woman and got burnt. Here.. have some ice cream, make ya feel better sweetie.

If you wish hard enough, smile, wash up some.. you might find that right woman that makes sparks shoot out of your butt and youll change your views on women ( or just that one in particular) ... or youll fall in love with your hand and have a lifetime of happiness.. and die old, cranky and alone..

Im off to find some frozen yogurt.

reply to post by Advantage


Yeah they'll be all nice and sweet and you'll think you in love, this is one man I can feel it...let's get married! Two years down the road....wtf was I thinking?

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Advantage

 

Yeah they'll be all nice and sweet and you'll think you in love, this is one man I can feel it...let's get married! Two years down the road....wtf was I thinking?

meh, we've all had complete failures in love.. believe me.. we just dont all become bitter brittle meanies, Get back on that horse, use deodorant, and find someone who is fun.

reply to post by xuenchen

What many people unwittingly or willingly miss-out on is the context of the statement, "She hasn't worked a day in her life." Sure, it was badly put because the POINT was not an attack against stay-at-home moms. She meant that Mrs. Romney did not work a day in her life IN THE BUSINESS/OFFICE/WORKING ENVIRONMENT a.k.a. an "official" JOB where she worked for a paycheck at a business. That was the intention of the comment.

She was simply pointing out that for candidate Romney to seek his wife's opinion concerning the economic focus of women in general was sadly out of touch with the average **professionally** working woman (i.e. in a place of business).

Yes, Mrs. Romney worked hard to raise her kids and battle cancer. She also did so with healthcare and no need to worry about paying the bills. Raising children and fighting disease in a positive, affluent environment is a far cry from trying to do the same thing while maintaining a JOB and with little or no healthcare. Comparing Mrs. Romney to the average middle/low income *working* mother is a travesty to people who **really** have to struggle. Mrs. Romney and her family are in the higher upper class and have no worries about income and healthcare.

The comment was intended to reflect that aspect. Yet it has been sorely taken out of context and only the short 15 second clip is being played over and over without the context of the entire discussion.

reply to post by GhostLancer


Couldn't have stated it better.

You nailed it.

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Germanicus
Only an Oprah fan would believe that a stay at home mother is worth 100k a year.

Its not that hard.

Even less so for wealthy people like the Romney woman.

I wonder how many nannies where employed to help this poor, poor housewife?

Also, once your kids are past the age of 4 or 5, you rarely see them during the day anyway.

Are the stay at home welfare moms worth 100k a year too?

My thoughts exactly!

Over $100,000 a yeaR! wtf, you have got to be kidding me...

Hmmm lets see, 52 weeks a year, working full time, at 40 hours a week, is 2080 hours a year, take $100,000 and divide that by 2,080 and you get $48.08 an hour.

Nope, sorry, no stay at home mom is worth $48.08 an hour.

Even the basis for this argument is subjective as hell. Come on people... how can we even pretend to put a worth(in regards to money) to the role of being a mother. There's no college necessary, there's no special skills that haven't already been engrained into our society that any other person is more privy to. The entire notion that it's possible to equate a job title such as 'Stay at home mom' with a salary is disgusting.

BTW, there's absolutely no way that Romneys wife didn't have help, just like most mothers. After the ages of 4-5, other than keeping them on the right path as far as learning, behavioral patterns, and making a lunch... there is not much more to it.

I am by no means taking away from stay at home moms, I'm sure, just like any job... it can be demanding, bring hardships, be difficult at times... but CMON PEOPLE, putting a value of $100,000 a year is ludicrous. The only possible way to even come close to defending the idea is to take in account for inflation.

Lets see a double cheese burger at McD's was once $1(3 years ago), and is now $1.48.... so if the salary for a stay at home mom is now $100,000.. 3 years ago it was... what? roughly $65,000 a year... nope still not worth it.

Well maybe if more liberals had stay at home "moms" they would have better manners and someone who is making 162k a year is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being poor.

And it is class warfare a lot of people can sit here and say liberals most of them never worked a day in their lives the proof is in the pudding with all the government subsidies people get in this country.

reply to post by neo96

And it is class warfare a lot of people can sit here and say liberals most of them never worked a day in their lives the proof is in the pudding with all the government subsidies people get in this country.

Where's your proof? No conservatives whatsoever get any kind of government funds? If they do, are they closet liberals in your view? What about the moderates? Are they communists? Radical revolutionaries?

I get your point of view though....*Snip*

-----------------


Oh, and let me get this out of the way since I know you will post it.

"This thread isn't about me! WAAAH WAAAH WAAAAH!!!!!!"

Originally posted by Evanzsayz

“I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

Yeah its hard to sit on your ass eating ice cream all day, screaming at the kids telling them to go to their room, clean the house for you or go outside and play.

If this is how you parent, your doing it wrong.

reply to post by David9176
You're right.

This thread is one of the first of many where it'll be a hate-the-rich-fest.

Class warfare, brought to you by the Obama Administration.

It's the only ammunition left.

They've played the race card.
They can showcase the economy.
They can't highlight unemployment.
They can't bring out their foreign policy succeses.

So they (and their supporters) fan the flames of class envy, "economic justice", and further divide this country.

Like i said lack of manners what more proof does anyone need actually thanks for proving it.

reply to post by beezzer

This thread is one of the first of many where it'll be a hate-the-rich-fest.

Class warfare, brought to you by the Obama Administration.

By Obama?

I'm curious...when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy...when Eisenhower raised taxes....was that class warfare?

Seriously.....looking at the last 30 years....I see who's winning the "class warfare" battle. Wealth disparity has exploded.

Republicans use the term "class warfare" only to protect the incredibly wealthy from paying more taxes. that's all it is. It's the same BS as referring the rich as "Job creators".

In your opinion, Republicans advocating the poor paying more taxes and having their programs cut is not "class warfare" correct?

It's the suppressed rich that is keeping this country from thriving....in your opinion...correct?

Well, I have most of my life been a stay at home mom, however I worked from my home to help make ends meet,
Daycare,
Housekeeping,
and crafts,
made jewelry, and dolls and quilts for years, raised two sets of kids, ages range from 44 to 24,
it is a long story.

reply to post by David9176


Wrong.

It's about entitlements and taking what isn't earned.

This "stay-at-home" issue is a thinly diguised attempt at vilifying people who have worked hard and have been successful.