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
Afford
1 a : to manage to bear without serious detriment b : to be able to bear the cost of
We can afford to do something if it doesn't impact our financial goals, ability to stay within budget etc.
Why what is your definition?
maybe because you've proven yourself.
curious when you were just starting out and not a "high powered " lawyer how did you present yourself to prospective employers, potential clients etc?
I don't know....my dh wore casual dress in the office unless they were meeting clients.
If they met clients they were always in suits....but some places are more "old school" than others.
I also find it hard to believe that there aren't at least a few big stuffy old law firms in Manhattan that still have their lawyers in suits when meeting clients.
I know I've been away from Manhattan for two years...but I find it hard to believe that everyone is in jeans meeting clients....but that's just me.
Jennie
Except of course choosing to work, generates taxable income to the government while sah does not.
PumpkinAngel
I don't think it's quite as simple as "don't judge others by looks". Clothes do send messages and those messages will be received. And should be. But there are layers of subtext and it's also possible to both send a message the opposite of what we intend and to be fooled by a message that is deliberately meant to send false information (ex. a predator wearing clothes that send the message "I'm a trustworthy guy" such as a t-shirt from a cancer charity).
I have not tried to stop myself from judging people on their clothes. Instead, I've tried to be more aware of what message they are trying to send with those clothes and if it's in line with what I want from our relationship (if there is to be one, professional or otherwise). For example: I wouldn't want a financial planner in Armani. I'd want one in Brookes Brothers or dockers- clothes that say "I spend money wisely on investments with a greater shelf life than clothes". And the financial planners around here all well aware that they are dealing with frugal New Englanders in the middle class and dress accordingly. I assume financial planners who are helping rap moguls to invest their money wisely will wear very different clothes, which will say "I've got money to make money".
So it's all about messages. They are sent and they are received and there is no way around that so I think it's better to be attuned to that than pretend it shouldn't exist.
Pages