Mommy Salaries

Oooh…I couldn’t wait to post about this article.  It’s not hot off the e-press, but I just found it and am elated with joy to hear your thoughts.  I will keep mine to a minimum and neutral as I am focused on your opinions.

In this article, we learn about a prominent South African businesswoman’s notion that a stay-at-home mom should receive a paycheck equivalent to 10% of her husband’s salary.  The article doesn’t specify from where the money would come.  So, I leave it to you. 

Do you agree with Ms. Wendy Luhabe and if so, how would you structure such a program?  If not, why?  Please.  Indulge in a venue in which to share your thoughts.

“A mommy salary, as a way of giving value to the work of bringing up children, so that it’s not a resentful choice that women have to make.”

-W. Luhabe

5 thoughts on “Mommy Salaries”

  1. Yes and no. There should be some legal enforcement of the sharing of income between married/live-together partners – including addressing the needs of the household (including children or othere dependents). I think that 10% is pitiful. Fifty-fifty should be the split in most cases.
    I should think that money would be pooled, joint expenses would be paid from the pool, and the discretionary money split 50-50. (We could probably have quite a discussion on identification of personal and joint expenses!)

  2. P.S. I also think that, in business, an executive and his/her executive assistant should be paid a salary that gets split 50-50 (including bonuses)!

  3. I agree that a mommy salary, as a way of giving value to the work of women bringing up children. This program should be developed as a program fully funded.

    We can fund a program like this if the the majority is in favor of it and perhaps fund it by eliminating some “pork barrel” projects already funded.

    The % or split could be determed in the process of formulating the program.

  4. Hi Cop Car and Jim! Thanks for reading and your ideas.

    Cop Car-I think the article was talking about some other funds paying stay-at-home mom’s an additional 10% over the household income. So while the husband’s income would be cover the expenses of the family, they would get an additional paycheck for her job. If that makes sense… Or maybe you meant that the 10% should be 50%…

    Jim-I agree-the percent is up for debate and I love the idea of it being its own program. When I was travelling on my honeymoon, I met some women in Japan and in Turkey who were from Sweden and I was astonished at the benefits of child care and parental leave they described. It came up in conversation because they asked a question and the conversation turned to the internal debate so many of my thirty-something girlfriends have – stay at home or go back to work or do both. Both ladies commented on how they were surprised about the debate because in their country, things were so different. Apparently, most women returned to work because of the benefits they received. They received paid parental leave (notice: parental and not maternity…both parents get this leave option!) of …wait for it…480 days! That’s over a year of paid leave to be claimed any time in the child’s first eight years. Child care is heavily subsidized and, according to them, of high quality. I asked for the catch and of course it is all about taxes. They have high taxes but great benefits.

  5. Dr N–Thanks for clarifying what I failed to understand in your original posting. It is amazing how large the differences are among various nations and groups, when it comes to child care and familial responsibilities.

Comments are closed.