Who's Online
We have 216 guests and 1 member online
Business News Feed
|
Reuters: Business News
|
| Reuters.com is your source for breaking news, business, financial and investing news, including personal finance and stocks. Reuters is the leading global provider of news, financial information and technology solutions to the world's media, financial institutions, businesses and individuals. |
|
-
Asia stocks edge up for 7th day
HONG KONG (Reuters) - Asian stocks inched higher for a seventh day on Tuesday on hopes for a global economic recovery later in 2009, but the yen's gains against high-yielding...
-
Oil below $48 on profit-taking
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Oil slipped below $48 on Tuesday on mild profit-taking, after rising 5 percent overnight on fears that Israel's deepening incursion into Gaza and a spat between Russia...
-
Toyota says plans 11-day factory halt in Japan
TOKYO (Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp , the world's biggest automaker, is to halt production at all its Japanese plants for a total of 11 days in February and March...
-
Merrill brokerage chief McCann to leave
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bob McCann, head of brokerage at Merrill Lynch & Co, announced his plans to leave the securities firm, just days after its acquisition by Bank of...
-
Prosecutors seek to jail Madoff
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. prosecutors asked a judge to jail accused swindler Bernard Madoff on Monday, saying he sent jewelry and other items worth more than $1 million to...
-
Car sales plunge heralding bleak 2009
DETROIT (Reuters) - U.S. auto sales plunged by 36 percent in December led by outsized declines at Chrysler LLC, Hyundai Motor and Toyota Motor Corp as the battered industry closed...
-
Apple's Jobs reassures investors about his health
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Inc Chief Executive Steve Jobs sought to soothe investor concerns about his health on Monday, saying his weight loss was caused by a hormone imbalance...
-
Economists seek solutions, signs of life in housing
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Top economists at the Allied Social Sciences Association's annual meeting have been searching -- in some cases, in vain -- for signs of life in the...
-
Cigna to cut 1,100 jobs, citing weak economy
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Health insurer Cigna Corp said on Monday it will cut 1,100 jobs, or about 4 percent of its workforce, and consolidate certain operations as it...
-
Fed buys MBS in latest unconventional move
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve on Monday kick-started its latest unconventional program to boost the moribund economy, this time taking aim at the heart of the slumping housing...
|
|
Written by Emilia Saults
|
|
Wednesday, 29 October 2008 12:52 |
A Mother’s Worth
Many of us would agree that a mother’s love is priceless. However, Salary.com has a handy tool for calculating just how much a mother might be paid for all the work she does for her family – if she were doing the same work as part of a ‘real’ job. The unpaid professions mothers find themselves immersed in are many and varied. One minute a chef, the next a clinical psychologist, mothers are often talented in many areas. Last year Salary.com estimated that the average mother would be earning approximately $138,095 a year. Not too bad! It’s nice to have a reminder that the things you do for family have tangible value.
Some take the worth of a mother a step further, and claim that good mothering, particularly stay-at-home mothering, benefits society as a whole. I will not argue against that. If I’m a decent parent it generally will not directly benefit anyone I do not know personally, but the more children who are helped to grow into responsible, hardworking people, the better off humanity will be. I’ll buy that. Needless to say, there are many fantastic parents with full-time careers who raise wonderful children, but the kind of one-on-one attention a child can receive from a stay-at-home mom (or other truly dedicated, caring provider) is very good for a child’s development.
In an article published last month, Lewis Carter talks about a conservative think-tank in England that endorses the idea that mothers should be actively encouraged to stay home with their young children through state-funded financial assistance. Steve Biddulph, psychologist and author of the popular book The Secret of Happy Children, also believes there is great harm done by putting young children in daycare, and that national funds should be put toward helping mothers stay home for at least the child’s first year. I cannot say these radical ideas, put forth to help mothers and children, outrage me. I agree that many mothers would parent more confidently and competently if they did not feel pressured to return to work. However, before we pay mothers to stay home, tax payers – parents and non-parents alike – must find the answer to two major questions. First, would state funding really help mothers and their children, or could it actually put parents at a disadvantage? Second, if this financial support does assist the people it is supposed to help, is it the responsibility of others to fund these parents?
In his previously mentioned article, Carter states that some conservatives wish to promote “mothers' freedom to raise their families as they wish.” I believe this is a critically important freedom to endorse, but will giving mothers more money really give them more freedom? When the first (or third, or fourth) year is over, it might be difficult for mothers to rejoin the workforce. If it has been necessary for them to receive government money in order to stay home up until that point, surely they will be forced to return to work, but after at least one year of unemployment. Even if the transition back into the workforce does happen to be easy for the mother (and the child who has become accustomed to her presence), accepting money from the government for mothering also requires the acceptance of government within mothering. It would be easy and logical for the government to insist upon whatever it considers good parenting practices. Perhaps leaving mothers who do not wish to vaccinate their children uncovered, or families with any number of alternative views or parenting methods closely monitored. No one will parent more freely when the government starts deciding what is best for our children, even if they are willing to pay us for it.
Clearly, one of the major reasons for supporting the claim that mothers should be paid for mothering is that it would be good for mothers, babies, and ultimately society, but obviously accepting state assistance could leave mothers scrutinized and vulnerable. However, assuming some mothers could indeed benefit, the second question is whether it is the responsibility of others to help these parents. I do not think paying mothers to mother is necessarily a bad idea. In a sense, that’s what some fathers choose to do: support the mother financially to ensure the kind of upbringing he wants for his child. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as both parents agree it is what is best for their family. Using tax dollars is a different matter. Many taxpayers would hate to see their money go toward parenting practices they disagree with, and others would not want their money going toward parenting children they do no even know – period.
As difficult as it can be to balance stay-at-home mothering and a budget, the mothers, their significant others, and their children do receive great benefits, so the compromise should be theirs. In a very real sense, all the money Salary.com says a mother should be making is money a mother is saving. Mothers who choose to spend one-on-one time caring for their own children are providing their children with the equivalent of a very high-quality, full-time nanny – the kind they might not be able to afford even if they worked full time. Many of us prefer to do our own laundry, cooking, and cleaning, either because we cannot afford to hire someone else to do it, or because we prefer our own methods. Through stay-at-home mothering, parents can potentially give their children their preferred style of a first-rate upbringing – at a fraction of the price they would pay to hire someone else to do it.
Not only can stay-at-home parenting be emotionally satisfying for mother and developmentally good for child, it can be a financially intelligent decision. So although, by some calculations, moms might sacrifice a theoretical $1 million by choosing to stay home, the money is wisely invested in a childhood impossible to purchase. No matter what career path a mother chooses, the choice is hers. Others should not be forced to pay for her decisions, and she should not be coerced into the parenting practices her government deems best. Mothers are indeed priceless, and their financial and parenting decisions are their own. |
|
|
|
