Heigh-ho, Heigh-ho / View from the Prairie Box

Heigh-ho, Heigh-ho

Posted on Feb 23, 2005 at 3:16 PM in Uncategorized

When a woman says she’s a “stay-at-home” mom or a fulltime homemaker, what automatic judgments do you make? If you’re anything like me, you think soccer mom, homemade cookies and frumpy clothes. It sounds ridiculous for a homemaker like myself to admit such things. But truthfully, it’s what I think. Or rather, it’s what I used to think.

My previous notions about women and motherhood are being twisted and turned in their definitions. It’s not that I ever consciously thought negatively about this position; in fact, I have wanted to become a mother for my entire life and I greatly valued the things mothers accomplished. Well, sometimes I valued them. Other times I assumed (and we know what assuming does right?) that stay-at-home moms had easy lives. After all, how hard can measly chores like washing the laundry and the dishes be? And really, we all know that moms drop the kids off at school, then eat ice cream and watch television all day long. Right?

Um, no. Big N-O. Life as a homemaker is nothing like that.

I am far from a financial planner. It takes all my strength and energy to plan a budget and figure out savings accounts. However, all the talk recently about the future of Social Security made me realize that I am foregoing my Social Security benefits by being a stay-at-home mom. As in, I’m building up NOTHING for my future retirement (for a moment, forget the possible perils of future benefits for everyone, not just me) while working at home to raise children. Somehow this doesn’t seem fair!

If I paid someone else to watch my daughter during the day, then worked as an early childhood teacher in a daycare or as a housekeeper for a cleaning service or as a professional drycleaner or as a lawn care worker for a yard service, then I’d be deemed worthy of Social Security. If money exchanged hands, I could show that I was contributing to society in a measurable fashion. If I hired someone to do the tasks I’m expected to complete by being at home (feeding, bathing, diapering, teaching my child; doing the laundry; cleaning the house; caring for the yard; shoveling walkways), then the paid worker would receive Social Security. But wait…! Isn’t the rearing of children, those responsible for paying for the future retirement of us all, isn’t that something important on a national level?

Food for thought. Chew it over. Respond with your ideas.

10 Comments

bobw Feb 23, 2005 7:41 PM

I dont think we’ll see a dime out of SS. at least that’s what I’m planning on, and I recommend you plan the same. but cant you get SS benefits even if you havent put much in? I really dont know.

you’re not building up nothing. in a real sense, you’re building your real security, as a loving family will take care of you far better than the freakin govt. my parents will probably be financially ok in their retirement, but if they werent, I surely would do my best to take care of them. I think that’s been generally lost in our culture.

but yes, your job is just as important as any other, if not MORE. I’ve certainly learned that this week, as I try to be dad, nurse and employee all at once.

charity Feb 23, 2005 8:20 PM

i actually don’t think it’s true that you’re not building up anything in social security. first, you’ve worked in the past, so that helps, but everyone, whether they receieve an actual paycheck or not has social security benefits — as far as I understand. plus, i think that since you file your taxes jointly with your husband that you receive some of those benefits as well. though this is just speculation. for example, my grandmother was a farmer’s wife her whole life (worked as a nurse for awhile before she was married) and never received a “paycheck” but she receives social security benefits. plus, you also get a tax deduction for children… just some of my thoughts.

RT Feb 23, 2005 10:34 PM

You might be right, CT. I’ll look at the SS issue more. I might be totally wrong about it considering that many women today who receive it stayed home with their children.

RT Feb 24, 2005 10:34 AM

Wow. Enter “social security stay at home mother” into Google and you get an earful! From what I understand (which is really quite little) an unemployed wife is eligible to receive 1/2 the amount her husband will receive in SS benefits. As in Jeremy gets $100, and I will get $50. Does that sound right to you more educated folks out there?

Jeannette Feb 24, 2005 10:43 AM

Even though I think most of Bush’s ideas are not all that great (like wars and stuff), I think he does have a point with the social security stuff (though I the more I’ll learn about this, the more qualifications I’m sure I’ll have). So I’m kind of with bobw on this one. To some extent the situation is mooted by the fact that we may see very little of SS. From all the different avenues of financial advice we’ve sought (and we’re FAR from expert), investing seems to be a better way to go.

Your point is still very apt, though. SS benefits most those who are most economically viable to society. SAHM fall at the bottom of economically unviable…other non-profit jobs (like education at all levels) follow closely. It doesn’t seem right, does it? But our capitalist society is driven by what is most economically viable; that’s the way it works.

charity Feb 24, 2005 12:29 PM

i would actually argue that SAHM’s are economically viable, because in most cases there is one other person in the household earning an income and is financially and relationally stable. in a family setting the individual’s economic viability doesn’t rest with the individual, but the household. being a SAHM (or SAHDad) means you have placed a value on children being around a parent for a good portion of the day. for some having this value might mean not saving as much as one would like for college or living in the $100k house rather than the $200k house. is this really a sacrifice? or is it choosing to live your life by the values you have and by doing so it means you have less disposable income.

… and i don’t think non-profits or teachers/professors fall anywhere near the bottom of economically viable professions. economically unviable is the single mom who is a convenience store worker, working 30 hours a week at minimum wage with no benefits. i guess it all depends on how one defines an economically unviable standard living. the Department of Health & Human Services defines a family of four as living in poverty if they are earning less than $20,000 a year…

Jeannette Feb 24, 2005 3:38 PM

I guess I was thinking more in terms of amount of money available to throw into the pool of Working Money in America. But you make a good point about the SAHM possibility because of a stable income-earner in the other half of the partnership.

RT Feb 24, 2005 3:56 PM

I’ve heard it said that the SAHparent/working parent combo has more stability simply because the SAH one can always go back to work whereas a two-income family is tapped out.

If Social Security and economic viability is not an issue, social viewpoint and respect certainly is. I think there is a strong social thinking that says SAHMs are not working to their potential and that they are not truly *working* at all. I’ve had someone tell me how nice it must be to finally have have time to do all my creative projects (yeah right) and all the time people ask me if/when I’m going back to work. I know I can’t change everyone’s opinions about being a SAHM, but I do want people to see me as WORKING WOMAN day in, day out. I put in 12 hour days at the office, with small breaks for reading/blogging/resting/watching tv during baby’s naptime. : )

kerri Feb 24, 2005 9:17 PM

I think that in all cases it is wise to not be dependent or counting on what the government says it is going to give you; I personally have never counted on SS in planning for my family’s future. I do think that psa’s are a good idea, but the way things usually go with politics involved, I am not optimistic.

Having said that, I would like to contribute my response to people who ask why we have so many children (7, to be exact): “Why, we’re raising good workers to pay for your Social Security!” (yes, people have asked me that)

JSW Mar 1, 2005 5:07 PM

Supposedly, Social Security is going to be insolvent at or around 2052, depending on which organization you want to believe. Insolvent meaning that the “trust fund” will not be able to pay 100% of promised benefits–they’ll still be able to pay out between 75-80%. And by no means do you have to work your entire adult life to qualify–even immigrants who earned money in only other countries can receive Social Security. And yes, you get 50% of your husband’s amount or yours, whichever is greater.

The PSAs aren’t exactly investments in the stock market, either–more like bonds and such, which have higher security. So your money isn’t going to go the way of Enron. The thing that worries me about PSAs is that less money is collectively held. Those who are on the very poor end of things will lose, and those on the wealthy end will gain. Income disparity in this country is bad enough–it just depends on how you feel about taxation and self-reliance, which is just not possible for 100% of any population.

bobw Feb 23, 2005 7:41 PM

I dont think we’ll see a dime out of SS. at least that’s what I’m planning on, and I recommend you plan the same. but cant you get SS benefits even if you havent put much in? I really dont know.

you’re not building up nothing. in a real sense, you’re building your real security, as a loving family will take care of you far better than the freakin govt. my parents will probably be financially ok in their retirement, but if they werent, I surely would do my best to take care of them. I think that’s been generally lost in our culture.

but yes, your job is just as important as any other, if not MORE. I’ve certainly learned that this week, as I try to be dad, nurse and employee all at once.
charity Feb 23, 2005 8:20 PM

i actually don’t think it’s true that you’re not building up anything in social security. first, you’ve worked in the past, so that helps, but everyone, whether they receieve an actual paycheck or not has social security benefits — as far as I understand. plus, i think that since you file your taxes jointly with your husband that you receive some of those benefits as well. though this is just speculation. for example, my grandmother was a farmer’s wife her whole life (worked as a nurse for awhile before she was married) and never received a “paycheck” but she receives social security benefits. plus, you also get a tax deduction for children… just some of my thoughts.
RT Feb 23, 2005 10:34 PM

You might be right, CT. I’ll look at the SS issue more. I might be totally wrong about it considering that many women today who receive it stayed home with their children.
RT Feb 24, 2005 10:34 AM

Wow. Enter “social security stay at home mother” into Google and you get an earful! From what I understand (which is really quite little) an unemployed wife is eligible to receive 1/2 the amount her husband will receive in SS benefits. As in Jeremy gets $100, and I will get $50. Does that sound right to you more educated folks out there?
Jeannette Feb 24, 2005 10:43 AM

Even though I think most of Bush’s ideas are not all that great (like wars and stuff), I think he does have a point with the social security stuff (though I the more I’ll learn about this, the more qualifications I’m sure I’ll have). So I’m kind of with bobw on this one. To some extent the situation is mooted by the fact that we may see very little of SS. From all the different avenues of financial advice we’ve sought (and we’re FAR from expert), investing seems to be a better way to go.

Your point is still very apt, though. SS benefits most those who are most economically viable to society. SAHM fall at the bottom of economically unviable…other non-profit jobs (like education at all levels) follow closely. It doesn’t seem right, does it? But our capitalist society is driven by what is most economically viable; that’s the way it works.
charity Feb 24, 2005 12:29 PM

i would actually argue that SAHM’s are economically viable, because in most cases there is one other person in the household earning an income and is financially and relationally stable. in a family setting the individual’s economic viability doesn’t rest with the individual, but the household. being a SAHM (or SAHDad) means you have placed a value on children being around a parent for a good portion of the day. for some having this value might mean not saving as much as one would like for college or living in the $100k house rather than the $200k house. is this really a sacrifice? or is it choosing to live your life by the values you have and by doing so it means you have less disposable income.

… and i don’t think non-profits or teachers/professors fall anywhere near the bottom of economically viable professions. economically unviable is the single mom who is a convenience store worker, working 30 hours a week at minimum wage with no benefits. i guess it all depends on how one defines an economically unviable standard living. the Department of Health & Human Services defines a family of four as living in poverty if they are earning less than $20,000 a year…
Jeannette Feb 24, 2005 3:38 PM

I guess I was thinking more in terms of amount of money available to throw into the pool of Working Money in America. But you make a good point about the SAHM possibility because of a stable income-earner in the other half of the partnership.
RT Feb 24, 2005 3:56 PM

I’ve heard it said that the SAHparent/working parent combo has more stability simply because the SAH one can always go back to work whereas a two-income family is tapped out.

If Social Security and economic viability is not an issue, social viewpoint and respect certainly is. I think there is a strong social thinking that says SAHMs are not working to their potential and that they are not truly *working* at all. I’ve had someone tell me how nice it must be to finally have have time to do all my creative projects (yeah right) and all the time people ask me if/when I’m going back to work. I know I can’t change everyone’s opinions about being a SAHM, but I do want people to see me as WORKING WOMAN day in, day out. I put in 12 hour days at the office, with small breaks for reading/blogging/resting/watching tv during baby’s naptime. : )
kerri Feb 24, 2005 9:17 PM

I think that in all cases it is wise to not be dependent or counting on what the government says it is going to give you; I personally have never counted on SS in planning for my family’s future. I do think that psa’s are a good idea, but the way things usually go with politics involved, I am not optimistic.

Having said that, I would like to contribute my response to people who ask why we have so many children (7, to be exact): “Why, we’re raising good workers to pay for your Social Security!” (yes, people have asked me that)
JSW Mar 1, 2005 5:07 PM

Supposedly, Social Security is going to be insolvent at or around 2052, depending on which organization you want to believe. Insolvent meaning that the “trust fund” will not be able to pay 100% of promised benefits–they’ll still be able to pay out between 75-80%. And by no means do you have to work your entire adult life to qualify–even immigrants who earned money in only other countries can receive Social Security. And yes, you get 50% of your husband’s amount or yours, whichever is greater.

The PSAs aren’t exactly investments in the stock market, either–more like bonds and such, which have higher security. So your money isn’t going to go the way of Enron. The thing that worries me about PSAs is that less money is collectively held. Those who are on the very poor end of things will lose, and those on the wealthy end will gain. Income disparity in this country is bad enough–it just depends on how you feel about taxation and self-reliance, which is just not possible for 100% of any population.