to think there should be no such thing as a SAHM

[TalkinPeace2]

they might be an ex investment banker
or a part time nurse
or a part time teacher
or an active volunteer in the community
BUT
in these days where most women are educated at least to 18, very few did not work before kids
and very few will not work when their kids are older
so actually should define themselves by their personal achievements - currently undertaking a prolonged break
rather than some sort of domestic - which is what SAHM implies to me.

chin chin Margo

I think SAHMs are brilliant. Incredibly valuable to other grown-ups and their kids alike. An absolute foundation of what's really worthwhile.

how are you measuring worth and return to society
thats an incredibly sentimental statement that I think you'll find hard to justify

did I say I was?
why are you loading that on?
I don;t do sentiment

SAHMs are either benefit claimants or the wives of the rich
the middle 66% of the population work to a more or lesser extent

I thought scottishmummy was asking Irania Talkin . Do you want to answer my question? Have I missed the point of your op?

Scottish, 66% might work full or part time, but a recent You gov poll revealed that a tiny tiny 1% of Mothers actually want to work full-time. It's not a lifestyle many people would choose but I appreciate that you fall into the 1% camp. Please don't give a hard time to the other 99%.

and it is such utter bollocks to say that sahm's are the 'wives of the rich'.
I am currently a sahm and we are not rich. My husband has a good job and we make wise financial decisions (eg. working in London but living in a commuter town with cheap house prices and good schools)
Almost without exception, the other sahm's I know are married to men with good jobs, or jobs which pay more than the national average, but not six figure salaries. None of them are 'the wives of the rich'. You make us sound like characters from a Jackie Collins novel!!

autumn
if you and your friends DHs earn more than the "national average" you are in the top 25% {see links to stats ad infinitum}
the option of paying the bills with only one parent working is ONLY available to those on benefit and those in the top 25% by income {see IFS income links and infinitum}
you are in a bubble - accept it

hehe,that's a big ole rant op
I wasn't actually responding to you
as you were

lol, I'm 'in a bubble'.
No, I'm really really not.
I know many sahm's whose husbands have average salary jobs: teachers, taxi drivers etc.. they get by just fine. It's often very doable if you make wise financial decisions. During my first stint of stay at home Mumdom, back in 2001, my husband was earning average national salary and we lived in a fairly expensive part of the world. It's possible to make it work if you cut your cloth accordingly. Not always possible, but more possible than many people imagine.

LOL, in addition to displaying her total ignorance of economics, scottishmummy has now managed to display her total ignorance of statistics. And of course she also regularly displays her absolute ignorance of the conventions of grammar and spelling

I am a SAHM because childcare for our 3 young children would be beyond our JOINT INCOME!

Go figure that one out.

Starlight, I bet you're a rich wife like me, eh?!!!

I think it much depends on one's definition of rich.

If you can pay a mortgage, pay into pension funds, feed and clothe your family, ensure your DC have decent educational activities and opportunities, enjoy access to spot and culture...on one wage...then you're probably pretty comfortable no?

Not sprinkling diamond dust from your helicopter rich, but far far more comfortable than the vast majority of folk.

If you're scrimping on any of those things to be a SAHP...then that's another matter.

Surely , if people earn more than the national average, they are in the top 50%, because the national average is ^average?.
Have I missed something, or are 25% above, 50% on the national average and 25% below?

There are many different 'averages'. A salary can go up to anything but it can't be less than nothing, so 'average' often has to take into account of this.

I remember an education minister of the past saying that it was just shocking that half of all children were performing below average at school.

But he was a twit.

amillionyears
The "average" is the mean - which is the sum of all the incomes divided by the number of incomes. The lowest possible income is zero, but the highest possible income is enormous (footballer, hedge fund manager, oligarch)
so the mean salary of £26,000 a year is distorted by a few really high earners and is in fact more than 62% of the population earn.

The median is the income that is exactly half way along the income distribution - 50% of people earn less than that, 50% earn more.
The median income in the UK is around £18,000 a year.

Even in London, the median wage is only £23,000
ie half of all the working population in London earn less than £23,000

a fact that many MN posters forget when they think of themselves as 'average' or 'normal'

Ooh, I learn something new everyday.
I always thought of the national average as being the median average, not sure why.
I suppose it is right that it is the mean average.
Am surprised that it it so skewed, and skewed upwards not downwards.

amillionyears
how could the average EVER be skewed downwards?
the bottom number will always be zero but the top number can be millions and millions
and there will ALWAYS be more low earners than high earners.

Does it take into account part time workers?
And there will be several who earn millions and millions, but a huge number of lower paid workers, so yes, I would have still thought that the mean national average would have been below and not above the median.

it is the figure for how much income people have, regardless of the number of hours they work
but 20,000 people earning £10,000 are out weighted by Roman Abramovich 'earning' £500,000,000 or Wayne Rooney on £300,000 a week

Good point.