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
What I see is simply that what is acceptable has changed. But people still judge based on clothes- and today's teens are no exception and there is no reason to think they will be the breakaway group in the human race.
Your ponytail example is an example of changed meaning. Ponytails on men have changed meaning over the years and you have kept up with that. It isn't that you ceased judging. It's that you kept current and know that "ponytail" has dropped the "anti-establishment, anti-science" message that it was linked with years ago. It used to signify "fringe of society and likes it that way" and now it is mainstream. Kids are very well tuned to what message their clothes send but they are also short-sighted. They care only about their peer group and dress only for them, neither knowing nor caring what message their clothes send to adults (unless they are trying to shock). As they age, they won't lose that and become some sort of new non-judging generation. They'll just expand their range considerably to dress for a far larger audience than simply their friends.
No, I'm not. I said people typically expect you to dress a certain way by the position you hold....
and that if you didn't "dress the part" people may question if you're really "all that".
Yes...which means every time I am out front working in the yard and see speeders going 40+ down my 20mph street, which is a basically on a weekly basis.
PumpkinAngel
I seem to remember a study that found out that a super majority of millionaires in the US (80%?) bought only used cars because they felt buying or leasing a new car was not a good investment.
What everyone is saying is that expensively dressed isn't the part we'd want a defense lawyer to play.
Robert Morvillo is one of the best criminal lawyers in the country and typically looks like an unmade bed. Think Columbo. Gerry Spence doesn't seem to do many high profile cases anymore, but in his heyday he was the Guy to Get. He wears a cowboy hat and a bolo tie. In civil cases defense lawyers will never dress in expensive clothes because they don't want to give the impression that their clients have money to burn. They often will wear exactly that Walmart suit you're sneering at.
IME, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
PumpkinAngel
Pages