compensation for SAHP's, according to
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 07-03-2006 - 10:00pm |
the census bureau, and salary.com.
i found this in the local paper today, and granted, its in the dear abbey section, i found the information she gave was very interesting and pertained to a lot of questions in another thread.
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=79d4660d-963e-4ccf-adbd-9435d20c1a8b
"According to the Census Bureau figures for 2004 — which are the most recent — there are 36.7 million mothers of minor children in the United States. About one-third of them, 10.8 million, are stay-at-home moms.
According to an article penned by Al Neuharth, the founder of USA Today, in its May 11, 2006, edition, “Salary.com compensation experts estimate that stay-at-home moms work an average of 91.6 hours a week.” That's more than double the number of hours the average office worker puts in. He went on to say, “That should be worth $134,121 annually.”
He quoted the compensation analysts as figuring the lowest-paying parts of a mother's job are “housekeeper, laundry machine operator and janitor. Higher-paying categories include computer operator, facilities manager, psychologist and CEO.” With a 91.6-hour work week, 52 weeks a year, it works out to be $28.16 an hour."

Pages
He was trying to sell to you. It was a sales pitch. would you believe he was an incredible financial planner if he was driving an old beat up car, wearing sloppy clothes?
When people are in sales they tend to put their best foot forward...I think that is all he was doing.
But you are producing a lot more pollution when you drive your SUV, if you had instead a small Toyota, Honda, VW.
No you're not producing as much as those people who drive them everywhere - which I personally think is disgusting. I never want to have to buy a car, but I know it's a necessity. So i'll probably buy a small Smart Car or something. - but compared to the amount you could be producing, it's a lot more.
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/suvreport/pollution.asp
I don't know, most high powered lawyers tend to dress nice. I guess if they came highly recommened I might consider going with one that dressed like they shopped at walmart...but I would worry about how the jury perceived my lawyer. After all people judge by looks all the time. Kind of like how lawyers try and "dress" their clients a certain way before a trial....
So I guess if I had to lawyers that were equally good I'd go with the one that looked the part. Wouldn't you?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
from you "but it just looks like he needlessly throws his money around on fancy cars rather than being economical and making wiser financial decisions."
If he can afford the car maybe he is making wise financial decisions.
but isn't that what most financial planners do? A cousin of mine joined prudential and went to their training. When he came to our house it was PAINFUL! It just about KILLED us....but it was what they taught him to do. YUCK.
I'm sure we can all find well to do people who don't "dress to impress"....but aren't they the exception?
While Bill Gates may not have a "great sense of style"....his clothes are not cheap.
Pages