compensation for SAHP's, according to

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-01-2003
compensation for SAHP's, according to
982
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-11-2006 - 2:19pm
There are very few criminal courthouses in the suburbs. You may have traffic court, but anything above a misdemeanor will be heard in a larger locale.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-11-2006 - 2:22pm

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?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-11-2006 - 2:23pm
I must live in a different region too . . . of Manhattan. I had breakfast with a prospective client 2 weeks ago. She is the general counsel of a major corporation and she was wearing jeans. I have another client with a floor in Rockefeller Center who I've never seen in a tie. My office is a few blocks east and I promise you I'm not wearing anything you'd consider appropriate for the address or position.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-11-2006 - 2:25pm

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?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-11-2006 - 2:32pm

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-11-2006 - 2:34pm
so then if you are in a well to do area, your lawyer would dress the part..right?
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Tue, 07-11-2006 - 2:35pm
hopefully as a society we are getting away from that at least to some extent - and from what i see we are - and that when the teens of today become adults they will take us even further away from that seterotypical attitude. i remember my first dd pedi. he had a ponytail, at first i thought i dont know about this guy, 15 years later i wouldnt give it a second thought if i were just meeting him
Jennie
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Tue, 07-11-2006 - 2:35pm

Except of course choosing to work, generates taxable income to the government while sah does not.

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 07-11-2006 - 2:36pm
yes, i agree....looks matter.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 07-11-2006 - 2:37pm

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