Is Being a Stay-at-Home Mom a “Luxury” Item, as Democrats Suggest?
Speaking at a White House Forum on Women and the Economy on April 6, President Obama said that earlier in his career Michelle Obama continued to work because “we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work.” That was FIVE DAYS BEFORE Hilary Rosen accused stay-at-home mom Ann Romney of “never working a day in her life” and tweeting that, “most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children.”
Both President Obama and this leading Democrat strategist clearly believe stay-at-home moms are mostly in upper income households, who can afford that “luxury.” But is that true? NO.
As shown in the graph below, Census data from 2011 shows that married families with children and incomes under $75,000 were twice as likely to choose to have a stay-at-home parent than higher income families (the data excludes families with a parent at home who is out of work and looking for a job). According to the data, 50 percent of married households with children with incomes under $75,000 had a stay-at-home parent, while only 23 percent of such families with incomes above $75,000 had a stay-at-home parent.
Despite what the President and Hilary Rosen may think, being a stay-at-home parent is hardly a “luxury” good. These Democrats clearly don’t know the facts about middle-class families today.