Stay-at-Home Salary
As I was huffing & puffing on the bike this morning, I tuned in to a Today Show segment about a company called Salary.com that values all types of jobs. Apparently, they had gotten many requests from stay-at-home moms to find out what their current salary would be in today's marketplace. They valued a stay-at-home salary at $130,000/year. Not bad if anybody would actually be willing to pay it. The base salary was 45,000/year and the rest was made up in overtime hours. On average, the stay-at-home mom put in 100 hours a week. I figured that was about 68 hours short of the acutal 24/7 requirement.
Thoughts: the only reason to want to know this is to make stay-at-home moms feel more valued. No one is actually going to "charge" this, and as I've already said, no one would pay. Why is a dollar amount needed, then, to define value to this role? Does it make me feel any more important knowing this? Kind of! But then I realize my vaule sensor is all messed up, upside down, etc. Value from God is a lifetime pursuit for me. I often forget and start to seek my importance instead of His importance in my life.
Randy, I like hearing about your big dreams. You're starting to remind me of Larry James-which is a compliment! I figure if I can incorporate a fraction of what Larry recommends it would be a huge God-thing. Keep blogging about this! Here's a question for anybody: At what point in history did the government start to take care of the poor? Typically has it been the church's desire to take care of the poor and we didn't do a good job at it so now the government has stepped in and the church stepped out? I'm really just wondering.
The other day, Larry recommended Foster's Celebration of Discipline and Freedom of Simplicity. I'm sure many of you have already read those books. I've heard about them, done studies about them, but never read them for myself, so I started the Discipline one and really like it. Mitch saw it and said, "Oh great, don't you think we have enough discipline around here already!"
Hope everyone has a great week. Trisha, we are all anxiously waiting & ready for any big news. April, I'll be thinking of you with those kiddos on Cinco de Mayo. There's also a big birthday coming up on that day, too. Got any good "Honey" stories or pictures to blog, Anda?
love you guys!
jill
posted by Jill @ 10:11 AM
1 Comments:
Jill,
I think the government has always had a responsibility to take care of poor people. When it was done right the church did the governing so there wasn't a separation. I'm thinking of Moses (who instituted God's first government) and the early years of America when schooling was the same as training kids in righteousness. When Christians aren't leading the government things get way out of order. The problem now is that if we do seek political solutions we put our money in the hands of a godless government who then tells us we can't work with them if we're going to be evangelical. The answers are very difficult right now. It seems to me that in the early church the solution was for the church to take care of its own people. I wonder if we should go back to that model now, and if so what it would look like.
Anybody else have any thoughts?
Randy
Post a Comment
<< Home