The Debate Concerning Salaries for Stay-at-Home Mothers
Abstract
Motherhood is, according to investigative reporting, statistical analysis, and common knowledge by mothers, a more than full-time job. If all of the jobs mothers must do were assigned hourly wages, the overall value of a stay-at-home mothers’ work would equal more than the average income of a typical American family. Some experts and celebrities believe that women should get a salary if they are stay-at-home mothers. Other people believe that stay-at-home mothers should not get a salary. Each side has more than one reason to support their beliefs. The current American political, cultural, and financial situation makes giving stay-at-home mothers a salary unfeasible. Although salaried stay-at-home mothers is unlikely to ever become a reality in the United States, there are other changes that should be made politically, culturally, and financially, such as offering subsidies for day care for low-income families. This would benefit not only families but also enhance the prosperity of the nation as a whole.
The Debate Concerning Salaries for Stay-at-Home Mothers
The question of whether or not stay-at-home moms should receive a salary from the government is a subject that is debated around the world. A myriad of questions surround the topic, ranging from what are stay-at-home mothers really worth in monetary terms to where the money would come from if mothers were to receive such a salary. While there are many sound arguments for and against the idea of a salary for stay-at-home mothers, the idea is not one that the citizens of the United States are able or willing to support today for social, political, religious, and financial reasons.
Although it may be true that the United States is not prepared to offer stay-at-home mothers a salary, there are still many considerations concerning motherhood and the work mothers do that must be examined before making the determination that stay-at-home mothers should not get salaries. A 2012 article in The Fiscal Times provides a chart detailing a list of all of the “mom jobs” that a mother has to do, a comparable paid job, hours mothers spend doing that job, typical hourly wage for the paid job, and the “annual mom cost” (Briody, para. 5). For example, mothers spend an average of 14 hours every week cooking; professional cooks typically earn an hourly wage of $9.08, which adds up to an annual mom cost of $6,607 (Briody, para. 5). By far, the biggest expense listed in this table is that mothers spend at least 40 hours each week as a child care worker; professionals typically earn $9.58 per hour, adding up to an annual mom cost of $19,916 (Briody, para. 5). Overall, the total average annual mom cost equals $60,182 (Briody, para. 5). Obviously, this average cost would rise or fall depending on where the family lived and average cost-of-living expenses in their locations. However, this average calculated amount shows that the full time care of a stay-at-home mother equals a significant financial value, one that surpasses the average American family income of $50,054 (Tavernise 2012, para. 4).
People who believe that stay-at-home moms should get a salary include Wendy Luhabe, a South African woman named in 1999 one of the 50 Leading Women Entrepreneurs globally, and celebrity Jenny McCarthy (Curnow 2011, para. 2; Pinarski 2013, para. 1). Luhabe believes that women deserve a salary “as a way of giving value to the work of bringing up children, so that it’s not a resentful choice that women have to make” (Curnow 2011, para. 3). Luhabe believes that women who stay at home to raise children should be paid a salary equivalent to ten percent of what their husbands earn (Curnow 2011, para. 8). Celebrity Jenny McCarthy, known for her stint as 1994 Playboy Playmate of the Year, roles in movies like Scream 3, and her Presidency of the Generation Rescue Foundation since 1998 is also for stay-at-home mother salaries (“Biography” n.d., paras. 1, 3). McCarthy stated her rational for the stay-at-home mother salary saying, “Let’s be honest, how many of us would continue to go to work day after day knowing we were not going to earn a paycheque? I know I wouldn’t” (Pinarski 2013, para. 1). Today’s Parent writer Jennifer Pinarski, who refers to stay-at-home mothers as SAHMS, writes, “I noticed parents in favour of salaried SAHMS did not suggest where the money would come from. McCarthy suggested vigilant budgeting and expense tracking . . . Government subsidies were bandied about” (2013, para. 11). Even Luhabe had no suggestions as to where the ten-percent salary she believes is fair would come from.
In spite of the question of where money would come from for salaries, there is much evidence that stay-at-home mothers provide value to the nation’s economy. Tribune Business News reporter Elvina Nawaguna writes, “Contrary to the idea that stay-at-home mothers are just out shopping, many are active in their communities and children’s schools” (2012, para. 17). Certified public accountant Terri Goleno believes that if all of the time stay-at-home mothers spend volunteering were to be taken away, “communities would lack more and need more government assistance” (Nawaguna 2012, paras. 21, 23). Additionally, by staying home, mothers save families “between $3,582 and $18,773 per child each year” in day care costs, and mothers who home-school their children “save the public education system between $12,000 and $27,000 per year” (Nawaguna 2012, paras. 25-26). Unfortunately, in spite of cost savings regarding day care or benefits to the finances of the overall community or state, many families cannot afford to have mothers stay at home to raise the children.
A 1999 article published in the Christian Science Monitor discussing the state of Minnesota’s attempt to assist stay-at-home moms by giving a low-income parent cash to remain at home with their infants for the first year of their lives (McLaughlin, para. 3). The article offers the example of Sharon Logan, who received a monthly check of $365 when she stayed at home with her newborn; according to the article, the idea had bi-partisan support because “conservatives back it because it addresses their concern over the breakdown of the American family . . . [and] Liberals like it because it responds to early-childhood research that shows children prosper if they get consistent, quality care in their first few years” (McLaughlin 1999, para. 6). Another reason the program is seen as advantageous to the state is because it saves money; giving this cash benefit turned out to be lower in cost than subsidizing day-care for low income families (McLaughlin 1999, para. 11). It can be imagined that the funding for such a program would come from local, state, and federal taxes and funds. However, an examination of this year’s Child Care Assistance Program Manual issued by the state of Minnesota’s Department of Human Services (MDHS) did not indicate whether the At-Home Infant Care program still existed (“Child Care” 2013). An examination of the MDHS website offered information on how to qualify for the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) which appears to be a day care subsidy program and not a cash benefit ( “Child Care” n.d., para. 2). According to a 2011 article concerning Minnesota’s CCAP, the nationwide recession and government shutdowns as well as Republican vetoes on budgets including child care jeopardize the programs the state has to offer (Aslanian, paras. 1, 14). This example shows that even states that have attempted to offer cash benefits for stay-at-home mothers have encountered challenges financially and politically making the programs difficult for parents to enroll in or simply altogether unavailable.
Some other nations, such as Germany, offer stipends to new parents. Germany offers a monthly check of 150 Euros (equivalent to about $195) to parents who stay home for the first three years of their child’s life (Havertz 2012, para. 3). According to Havertz, in Germany, “Generally, parents can take up to three years off and still have their jobs guaranteed” (2012, para. 3). Additionally, Germany has extensive government and church funded day care programs (Havertz 2012, para. 1). The situation in the United States is far different. In the United States, “The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees both women and men up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave around the birth or adoption of a child as long as they work for larger employers (50+ employees) and meet certain tenure and working hour requirements” (“Maternity Leave” 2011, para. 1). However, between 2006 and 2008, 29.4 percent of women in the United States did not take any maternity leave; data suggest that the reason may be because they do not qualify for FMLA or their employers do not offer paid maternity leave, making it impossible for the family to afford necessary expenses unless the woman continues working (“Maternity Leave” 2011, para. 2). Obviously, when it comes to work and childcare options, American mothers face far different options than do German mothers. The German cultural, financial, and political situation is far different from the United States, making it difficult to compare whether or not a similar system would work in America as it does overseas.
There are a multitude of reasons why people do not support offering a salary for stay-at-home mothers. Many people rightly ask where the money to pay for the salaries for stay-at-home mothers would come from, a very important consideration. Conservative writer Kevin McCullough writes, “One of two options comes to mind. Tax the citizens, or tax companies (which then in turn pass on their tax to the citizens.) Either way citizens get taxed (Companies never do.)” (2013, para. 8). McCullough also brings up pertinent points that many other people ask, such as would offering a salary cause women to keep having children so they would not have to return to other paid jobs and what the limit would be to when such a salary would end (2013, paras. 13-14). The recession has caused many couples to believe that two incomes are necessary to support a family; considering this belief, it is hard to imagine that the American people as a whole could be convinced that there is any way to generate the funds to provide stay-at-home mothers with a salary (Briody 2012, para. 5).
A variety of American cultural values also make the idea of salaried stay-at-home mothers unlikely in the United States today. Pinarski of Today’s Parent, obviously not convinced by entrepreneur Wendy Luhabe’s idea that offering stay-at-home moms would be empowering and make women less resentful of that choice, is bothered by the idea of paying stay-at-home mothers a salary because it “treats us like employees . . . of the government or of our spouses” (2013, para. 17). Ruth Graham, writing in direct response to Luhabe’s ten-percent of the husband’s wages salary idea, believes that staying at home to raise the children is “a personal decision” and that “That choice . . . should be respected and honored, and in most corners of our culture, it is” (2011, para. 1). The evidence of the number of women whose workplaces do not support maternity leave and the percent of women who believe they cannot afford any maternity leave at all make this idea of cultural respect and honor for mothers appear to be idealistic and imaginary. Graham also believes that mothers who stay at home to raise their children reap “enormous benefits that parents who work full-time in offices forgo,” although she neglects to mention exactly what those benefits are, especially for low-income families who may have trouble affording basic necessities if a mother opts not to work (2011, para. 3). The heavy influence of the religious right on American culture and politics is highlighted by conservative writer Kevin McCullough, who writes that “having the state or the government compensate [women] for their efforts is morally wring . . . Why? Because God already created a preferred tax-payer funded compensation plan for the family. We call them Fathers!” (2012, paras. 23-25). McCullough’s ideas may be offensive to many mothers as well as fathers for a number of reasons, but his values reflect a particular set of moral ideals that a significant number of strident political voices promote.
The wellbeing of entire families is at stake if they cannot afford the basic necessities of life in order to bring up a physically and mentally healthy child. Offering a salary to stay-at-home mothers is not the solution because not only is American not culturally, politically, or financially able to support such a measure, but also the question of where to draw lines of when such salaries should end is impossible to answer. However, more should be done in America to make sure that families and children have the basic necessities in order to be healthy. In order to accomplish this, both cultural and political changes will have to take place. For example, for many years, the idea of the nuclear family with the father going to work and the mother staying home to take care of the children was an American ideal. When parents needed assistance with child care, grandparents, aunts, other family members and family friends were available to help. The extended family played a big role in raising children. However, today more people must move in order to find jobs, and extended family may not be available to assist, necessitating costly day care if both parents must work in order to support the family.
The country as a whole must be involved in finding ways for children to receive the care they need. The issue is not whether or not mothers should receive a salary for their work, but whether children are receiving the things necessary to grow up healthy. A greater cultural emphasis on the important work that mothers do and the value of this work by supporting maternity or even paternity leave would be a beginning to changing a culture that fails to value the work parents do. Conservatives who wish to reduce the welfare rolls must realize that the ability to find affordable child care is the only way for parents to not only have the time to work and support a family, but also to further educate themselves so they can better support their families without the need for public assistance. A salary for stay-at-home parents is not the solution, but community efforts with affordable and subsidized day care for children is the best way for not only parents but also their children to be able to fulfill the American dream.
References
Aslanian, Sasha (7 Jul. 2011). Parents Await Ruling on Child Care Assistance Subsidy. MPR News. Retrieved from http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/07/06/
shutdown-childcare-subsidy
Biography for Jenny McCarthy (n.d.). IMDb. Retrieved 24 Apr. 2013 from http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000189/bio
Briody, Blaire (4 May 2012). What Are Stay-at-Home Moms Really Worth? The Fiscal Times. Retrieved from http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/05/04/
What-Are-Stay-at-Home-Moms-Really-Worth.aspx#page1
Child Care Assistance Manual (Mar. 2013). Minnesota Department of Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/groups/county_access/documents/
pub/dhs16_175124.pdf
Child Care Assistance Program (n.d.). Minnesota Department of Human Services. Retrived 25 Apr. 2013 from http://www.dhs.state.mn.us/main/
idcplg?IdcService=GET_DYNAMIC_CONVERSION&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&dDocName=id_008688
Curnow, Robyn (13 Oct. 2011). Why Women Need a 'Mommy's Salary'. CNN Living. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/13/living/mothers-salary-wendy-luhabe/
Goodman, Peter S. (23 May 2010). Cuts to Child Care Subsidy Thwart More Job Seekers. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/business/
economy/24childcare.html
Graham, Ruth (14 Oct. 2011). Sorry, Stay-At-Home Moms, But You Shouldn’t Get A “Mommy Salary”. The Grindstone. Retrieved from http://www.thegrindstone.com/2011/10/14/
career-management/
sorry-stay-at-home-moms-but-you-shouldnt-get-a-mommy-salary-627/
Havertz, Rieke (16 Aug. 2012). Germany Debates Plan To Pay Stay-at-Home Moms. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/
2012/0816/Germany-debates-plan-to-pay-stay-at-home-moms
McCullough, Kevin (15 Apr. 2012). Why Tax-payers SHOULD Compensate Stay-At-Home Moms. TownHall.com. Retrieved from http://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/
2012/04/15/why_taxpayers_should_compensate_stayathome_moms/page/full/
McLaughlin, A. (12 Nov. 1999). When Moms Get Paid to Raise Kids from Home. Christian Science Monitor. p. 1.
Maternity Leave (2011). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa11/hstat/hsrmh/pages/233ml.html
Nawaguna, Elvina (24 Apr. 2012). Stay-at-Home Mothers' Work Adds Up to Significant Worth. Tribune Business News.
Pinarski, Jennifer (8 Feb. 2013). Should Stay-at-Home Moms Receive a Salary? Today’s Parent. Retrieved from http://www.todaysparent.com/blogs/run-at-home-mom/
stay-at-home-moms-salary
Tavernise, Sabrina (12 Sep. 2012). U.S. Income Gap Rose, Sign of Uneven Recovery. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/
us-incomes-dropped-last-year-census-bureau-says.html
