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
You would have to report the income you made, then you would have something to deduct from.
PumpkinAngel
I outsource a lot of things.
PumpkinAngel
Not true.
PumpkinAngel
I call them all the time for people speeding up and down our street.
PumpkinAngel
You may not think about it, but you are sending a message with your clothes every single time you step outside. And on a subconscious level, I bet you are aware of it although it is so automatic that you don't consciously think it out loud. The way that many people handle this (definately me, perhaps also you) is to do all the "what message does this send?" choosing when purchasing the clothes, frequently by purchasing only from stores/websites/catalogues with a "look" that is consistent with our intended message.
I also don't believe that you can't judge people by what they are wearing. I bet you do it on a nearly constant basis- and almost always correctly- as nearly everybody does. I'm not talking about knowing the names of different designers. I'm talking about figuring out if somebody is "from around here" or if they are a member of your "tribe". I use the word "tribe" very deliberately because that's what cultural anthropologists use too when talking about people and their clothes. According to cultural anthropologists (and I truly believe them) we all pick our clothes with a (conscious or not) eye to what other people will think when they see them. Sometimes we word this to ourselves as looking at a particular outfit that sends a message we don't want to send and pass it over on the clothes rack saying to ourselves "that's not 'me'". Or just don't even go into certain stores because everything in those stores is "not me". And what "not me" means when we look at clothes we are contemplating wearing is " that doesn't send the message I want to send".
Different clothes mean different things in different locations- regional or neighborhood- so what I am wearing today (or what you are wearing) could take on completely different meanings if we magically swapped places. My clothes in New England could mean something else entirely in California and something else yet again in Istanbul. But all of us know at a very deep level exactly what our clothes "mean" in our own neighborhood and workplace.
Sure, there are conservative firms and there are conservative clients. There also are casual firms and casual clients. I didn't say that I never dressed formally.
What I am saying is that there's a major difference between an ostentatious (and typically garish) show of wealth and dressing appropriately.
Who ever said anything about "ostentatious (and typically garish) show of wealth"
I said people typically dress for the type of position they hold...and in many cases are expected to.
and also one MIGHT question credentials if someone didn't "look" the part.
Pages