Salary.com just released a study indicating that Stay-at-Home moms
, if they actually got paid for their work, would make something close to $117,000 per year.
That's a bit much, I think. Granted, I've never experienced the 'benefits' of having a housewife mother, but I think this number is a bit inflated just to boost the self-esteem of housewives.
The salary was calculated roughly based on the number and types of chores the housewife does, times the hours per week spent working. Respondents apparently 'work' on average 94.4 hours per week performing duties such as, "housekeeper and day care center teacher to van driver, psychologist and chief executive officer." Ok, the CEO part is total bullshit. CEO of a tiny company of 4, maybe. But I don't think it's that serious.
The study also took into account working moms, who "reported an average 54.6 hour "mom work week" besides the hours they spent at paying jobs." How is that even possible? Are they counting an entire 48 hours for the weekend?
The salary calculation is overly inflated because it takes into account overtime hours. Well obviously there's going to be overtime because it's not a real job with regular hours!
For the curious exercise of quantifying and monetizing the amount of work done by housewives, this study is interesting. But for the purposes of using this 'salary' number as a basis for negotiation or justification, that's just ridiculous. So before housewives start running off, demanding more [blank] from their husbands, they should really add up the number of hours the husbands spend dealing with shit around the house to their current salary and then see who's still earning more.
More realistically, this 'salary' should be viewed as the opportunity cost of having kids and giving up a job that earns real income, not just intangible income. Now the cost of having kids just increased significantly. Ouch!