Can You Afford a Stay-at-Home Parent? One Dad Did the Math

In April 2015, a dad from Plano, Texas, published a blog post with a provocative title: “Fathers, You Can’t Afford a Stay-at-Home Mom.” Steven Nelms was not complaining about money. He had added up what it would cost to hire people for the work his wife, Glory, did at home each week, and the total came to about $73,960 a year, far more than he could pay.

The post spread quickly across social media and was picked up by television stations around the United States. Here is what he calculated, whether the numbers hold up, and what couples can take from it today.

The story behind the post

Steven and Glory had been married about three years when their son, Ezra, was born. Glory had been working, but once they looked at the price of childcare, her take-home pay would have barely covered it. They agreed she would stay home with the baby for as long as that made sense for the family.

Steven wrote his post on the couple’s blog, We Are Glory, when Ezra was about two. He was careful to say he did not want to offend anyone or suggest that staying home was a lesser job. His point was the reverse: if he had to buy his wife’s work on the open market, his salary would not stretch that far.

He described an ordinary day of nappies, meals, play, naps and comfort, and stressed that this was only the minimum. A parent at home also gives a child constant attention and presence, something no invoice can fully capture.

How he arrived at $73,960

Steven based his estimates on online research and on asking people what each kind of work would earn. His list, in 2015 US dollars:

Role	Assumption	Yearly cost
Full-time nanny	$705 a week (national average)	$36,660
House cleaning	$50–$100 a visit, weekly	$5,200
Personal shopper and errands	$65 an hour, 4 hours a week	$13,520
Cook	$240 a week	$12,480
Household finances (budget, bills)	$15 an hour, 5 hours a week	$3,900
Partner at work events	$75 an hour, 4-hour dinners, 3 a year	$900
Laundry	$25 a week	$1,300
Total		$73,960

The arithmetic checks out: each line multiplies correctly over 52 weeks, and the sum is exactly $73,960. The cleaning line uses the top of his own price range, so it is slightly generous there, while other items (night-time care, sick days, planning and organising) are not counted at all.

What the number leaves out

Steven himself called his figure conservative, and he had a point. A paid employee earning more than $70,000 would normally get things a parent at home does not: holiday pay, sick leave, a retirement plan, bonuses and a colleague saying “good job”. Childcare also does not stop at 5 p.m.

He went further and admitted something many readers recognised. He said he regretted any time he had made Glory feel guilty for buying something for herself, as though the family income were not equally hers. In his words, her work at home was worth nearly double what he actually earned, and he would need well over $100,000 to cover both their living costs and her “salary”.

His closing line was simple: “I can’t afford you.” He also borrowed the old Proverbs image of a wife who is more precious than rubies (Proverbs 31:10).

Is it fair to put a price on parenting?

Not everyone liked the framing. One reader quoted by ABC’s Houston station argued that marriage is a partnership of equal contributions, not an employment contract. Others worried that a price tag reduces love to a transaction.

Glory’s own view was more nuanced. She told reporters the hard part of staying home was not the workload so much as losing her own pay, her job and her daily contact with other adults. She added that neither spouse has it easier: it depends on the people involved.

Economists have long struggled with the same question. Unpaid household and care work falls outside the boundary used to calculate GDP, so a parent who cooks, cleans and raises children full time contributes nothing to official output, while the same work done by paid staff does. Researchers use time-use surveys to measure it and usually value it in one of two ways: what it would cost to hire someone (as Steven did), or what the at-home parent gave up in wages. Both approaches tend to produce large numbers, and the gap between the two is a reminder that any single figure is an estimate.

Common myths about stay-at-home parents

• “Staying home is a break from work.” As the list above shows, it is several jobs at once, with no fixed hours.
• “It only makes sense if one partner earns a lot.” For many families the decision is driven by childcare costs, as it was for the Nelms family, rather than by a high income.
• “The earning partner pays for everything.” In practice the household runs on both contributions; one is simply paid in cash and the other in time.
• “It’s always mothers.” Most stay-at-home parents are still women, but many fathers now take that role too, and the same logic applies to them.

Practical takeaways for couples

• Talk about money as shared money. Agree that household income belongs to the household, and that the parent at home does not need to justify ordinary personal spending.
• Protect the at-home partner’s future. Time out of paid work can mean lower pensions and savings. Look at retirement contributions, insurance and savings in both names, and get advice from a qualified financial adviser if you are unsure.
• Plan for adult contact. As Glory pointed out, isolation can be harder than the chores. Regular time with friends, groups or part-time projects helps.
• Say thank you out loud. The real message of Steven’s post was appreciation. You do not need a spreadsheet to do that.

You can read the full essay here.

Whatever you think of the dollar sign, the post struck a nerve because it made visible work that usually goes unseen, and it reminded a lot of people to notice the person doing it.

Sources: Steven Nelms, “Fathers, You Can’t Afford a Stay-at-Home Mom”, We Are Glory (2015); ABC13 Houston; WISH-TV; Unpaid work (Wikipedia); earlier coverage via IJReview, Pulptastic and Idealist Revolution.