Gallup: Stay-at-home moms report more anger, sadness, depression than women who work
posted at 7:12 pm on May 18, 2012 by Allahpundit
Good thing “Julia” was a working mom or else we’d probably have to pay for her antidepressants too.
Second look at the blue social model?
My gut reaction: Of course stay-at-home moms are stressed, they live in poorer households than women who work do. This result is simply an artifact of worrying about money, not having to take care of kids. Right? Actually … no. Says Gallup:
Stay-at-home moms fare worse than employed moms at every income level in terms of sadness, anger, and depression. On the other items Gallup measures — laughter, enjoyment, happiness, worry, stress, learning something interesting, and having a high life evaluation rating — middle- and high-income stay-at-home moms for the most part do as well as employed moms.
However, low-income stay-at-home moms do worse on all of these items than their employed counterparts.
In other words, yes, of course being poor is adding stress to the load for lower-income stay-at-home moms, but that doesn’t explain why equally poor working moms are a bit happier on balance. The numbers for families earning less than $36,000:
You would think that having to worry about kids and work would mean more worry and stress for lower-income working moms, but there you go. My hunch here is that many/most working moms who live in households that earn this little are probably single mothers and therefore the sole breadwinners for their families, and paradoxically that responsibility may add up to less stress. When you’re this close to dire poverty and homelessness, knowing that you have it in your power to put food on the table for your kids may be something of a psychological relief; if you show up every day and do your job well, you stand a fair chance of holding down a steady paycheck. If, on the other hand, you’re a SAHM married to a man who’s earning less than $36,000 a year, the only thing standing between you and dire poverty or homelessness is his ability to show up every day and do his job well. And the painful truth is that not every husband is going to do that. Simply put, financial independence may mean less worry in the aggregate even if it means more responsibilities.
The other wrinkle here is that lower-income moms who stay home probably are being forced by circumstances to do so, which is bound to add some frustration no matter how much they enjoy spending time with their kids. Poor families need as much money as they can muster so if mom’s passing on the chance to earn a second income, it’s likely because (a) she simply can’t find work, or at least work that pays well enough to justify giving up some of her household responsibilities, or (b) there are enough little ones at home that they require all-day attention. Either way, she’s compelled to forego an income stream that the family could really use, which means their financial situation is more precarious. Result: Worry and stress.
That explains the problem for lower-income SAHMs but, as noted up top, it doesn’t explain why anger, sadness, and depression are higher for stay-at-home moms than for working moms across all income levels. Here’s where you come in, HA commenters: Why is that? Any theories? Could be that modern expectations that an educated woman should have both a career and a family are weighing on even rich SAHMs and making them question their choices, but beyond that I’ve got nothing. How about it, ladies?
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
House Judiciary Committee to Justice: Explain snooping on AP, please
British troops told not to wear uniforms outside bases after yesterday’s attack in London
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Probably because the vast majority – if not all – of those being asked have no wealth of their own.
So what do they care?
catmman on April 18, 2013 at 5:24 PM
And what happens to a nation when the takers outnumber the makers??
redshirt on April 18, 2013 at 5:24 PM
“Fair” is not a word an adult uses.
tom daschle concerned on April 18, 2013 at 5:24 PM
Eh.
I think there’s a lot less to panic here than you might expect. The first mistake is the “redistribution” tag. The question asks if the respondent thinks wealth should be distributed more evenly. Well sure, that sounds good, just like generic criminal background checks for buying guns sounds good.
However, I think if you were to ask the question: “Should the government have the right to redistribute the wealth of its citizens?” I bet those numbers would crash through the floor.
In short, it’s all about the wording of the poll question.
Doomberg on April 18, 2013 at 5:25 PM
Late Roman Republic
The politicians have to grease the population to stay in power. The voters have benefactors…Dems and stoopid Republicans.
Next Emperor Obama.
Oil Can on April 18, 2013 at 5:27 PM
That’s why we are a Republic.
People can’t vote themselves the property of others.
The Constitution doesn’t allow it.
Indeed, when it comes time after the ashes to draft Constitution 2.0 we need to make sure that everything that caused 1.0 to be undermined and subverted is made impossible.
IE: no right to vote for non tax payers so that no political party can ever rise to power promising to steal from the public treasury to buy votes.
wildcat72 on April 18, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Tell me how you feel about private property and I’ll tell you how American you are.
beatcanvas on April 18, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Majority of Americans are atter moronic fools.
They brung/kept a Fool, who’s Chief.
Schadenfreude on April 18, 2013 at 5:29 PM
Sure, everyone has the opportunity to succeed.
But, you gotta work for it.
RovesChins on April 18, 2013 at 5:30 PM
So Romney was actually giving America more credit then it deserved talking about the 47%. Tipping point reached. Game over.
Rockshine on April 18, 2013 at 5:30 PM
Another thing that should be Unconstitutional (and it can be argued that it IS under the due process and equal protection clauses) is charging people different tax RATES based on income.
IE: Shamiqua the welfare breeder has to surrender 10% so should everyone else.
wildcat72 on April 18, 2013 at 5:30 PM
I totally agree. Everyone should work hard and be productive so all that wealth gets to more people.
kim roy on April 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM
I consider swell dames to be “wealth.”
Seth Halpern on April 18, 2013 at 5:32 PM
I believe that if you own it or worked for it, it’s yours, and no one but YOU should decide how it’s distributed, if distributed AT ALL!
Anyone who disagrees with that is a communist, a thief, and a Traitor to the Republic.
wildcat72 on April 18, 2013 at 5:32 PM
They often bought off the mobs of Rome with “bread and circuses”.
wildcat72 on April 18, 2013 at 5:33 PM
Maybe the President would share some of his wealth with me and others in my economic position. For that matter, maybe Bill Clinton will share, redistribute, some of his wealth also. Let’s make sure that they redistribute their fair share because they don’t need all that money for themselves.
Pardonme on April 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM
― Robert A. Heinlein
I don’t think I can improve upon that quote in any way.
wildcat72 on April 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM
Well, now it`s over.
ThePrez on April 18, 2013 at 5:35 PM
Hmmm….looks like the ‘have nots, and don’t care to work for it’ are beginning to outnumber the ‘have and who do work for it’.
So what happens when the vast majority are ‘have nots? Who will they steal from them? Each other?
GarandFan on April 18, 2013 at 5:35 PM
I think this could also be interpreted a few different ways. I would answer that due to current administration, union, and liberal activities that wealth is going to corrupt, greedy, people. For example, minority set asides, green energy grants, etc where normally market loosing ideas are funded with funds looted from the taxpayer. This is Obama wealth redistribution….
I would have liked to see more details to determine the context of respondents. I think wealth distribution is unfair because of government intervention in free market forces where success and wealth creation is penalized and people who take the easy road get their kids sent to college for free, housing and food assistance and free healthcare paid for on the backs of the people who take the risks, work their tails off and overcome adversity. These are the wealth looters….
If that is not wealth redistribution what’s is…..
triumphus04 on April 18, 2013 at 5:35 PM
There is a problem with the wording of the question. I don’t think the concentration of wealth is “fair”, but life isn’t fair. The question is how do you address the inequality if you do at all.
DFCtomm on April 18, 2013 at 5:36 PM
They also found clear majorities in favor of heavy taxation on the rich in the same poll, the highest on that metric in a number of years. This is the natural outcome of an upwardly distributionist economy.
libfreeordie on April 18, 2013 at 5:36 PM
Until they come for their wealth…
ojfltx on April 18, 2013 at 5:39 PM
1. Believing the rich and poor should be closer together isn’t believing you have the right to take money from the rich and give it to the poor;
2. Let them. “Majority of Americans say wealth should be distributed more evenly” — let them distribute their money more evenly.
Axe on April 18, 2013 at 5:39 PM
When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.
CurtZHP on April 18, 2013 at 5:40 PM
1. How about acknowledging that we live in a class segmented society for one thing. This is something conservatives used to claim did not exist, that there “were no classes” in the United States.
2. Then you identify the myriad ways the state violates the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution by facilitating the distribution of wealth upwards.
Now what you do after that point is up for debate of course.
libfreeordie on April 18, 2013 at 5:40 PM
And why multi-millionair Elizabeth Warren can cry about “cuts” to social security because her brother depends on his $13,000/year from the public coffers.
gwelf on April 18, 2013 at 5:41 PM
We could the poor in “job sharing” positions in the executive suites of Fortune 500 companies. That should fix the wealth disparity in America until the inevitable bankruptcy. It’s only fair, don’t ya know.
SpiderMike on April 18, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Top 10 dumbest things ever posted here.
tom daschle concerned on April 18, 2013 at 5:42 PM
It’s also the natural result of a people who lack morals (the 10 Commandments cover this, “thou shalt not steal”, “thou shalt not covet” etc).
Guess what, when the mobs of Looters get done stripping the productive of their property they’ll eventually get around to stripping the Liberal ruling class bare too.
You are only entitled to that which you own and work for. No more, no less. And no one else is entitled to what is yours.
If you believe anything else than YOU BELIEVE IN SLAVERY.
wildcat72 on April 18, 2013 at 5:42 PM
Every time I see your name, I know I’ll be nodding my head in agreement.
DrMagnolias on April 18, 2013 at 5:43 PM
I remember the first job given to me by an impoverished sloth…
tom daschle concerned on April 18, 2013 at 5:43 PM
There are two classes where socialists rule:
1. Socialists
2. The Masses.
Socialism is for the masses not the socialists.
Even the USSR had mansions, luxury, cars, special stores, etc for The Party.
wildcat72 on April 18, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Everyone supports unicorns, too.
The problem for people on the pragmatic>liberal>Left>Socialist>Fascist>Communist continuum has never been getting the great unwashed mass to support their goals in the abstract. Everyone who isn’t highly literate in the topic supports them in the abstract. Heck, even most conservatives when they aren’t paying attention.
The problem for them is getting the public to support their goals when their goals, in point of fact, are detrimental to the public, and they aren’t able to obfuscate that. That’s the problem for liberals: reality gets a vote.
The perfect case in point is Obamacare. It was overwhelmingly popular! Before people started talking about it in specifics. Still, it’s managed 40-45% popularity. Until people experience it.
The same thing with this question. People support wealth “being distributed” because they don’t understand that such policies mean less wealth to go around. But that’s not an opinion, it’s a fact, and when that fact hits home, liberals find out what’s the matter with Kansas.
Of course, on the third hand, what people support and don’t support are irrelevant next to how they vote, so the Democrats have been doing just fine on that score. I don’t recall “I’m going to pass an amnesty, ban single-action weapons and register your guns” being on the DNC convention platform, but that’s too bad for voters.
HitNRun on April 18, 2013 at 5:44 PM
Class segmented society? Here we go on the marxist theory of society which has been discredited time and time again. Our country – currently and in the past – has more “class” mobility than any nation in history. Redistributing wealth or anything else is not going to get rid of class. Every society that has tried top-down solutions to the “class problem” have ended up just created a new rigid class system with decreased mobility and opportunity and made the society poorer as well.
And anyone who claims that the Constitution enshrines instead of repudiates egalitarianism shows you don’t know anything about the Constitution and the founders.
gwelf on April 18, 2013 at 5:44 PM
How can wealth be “redistributed?”
It wasn’t “distributed” in the first place. It was earned.
iurockhead on April 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM
I don’t think the idea or belief that America’s wealth should be more evenly distributed can be translated into Americans’ wealthy should be redistributed.
People can support the idea of there being less income variance without also believing that some should be taxed to increase the wealth of others.
Charlemagne on April 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM
These people will be happy to know that fairness is coming. In fact, it will be here sooner than they think…
My collie says:
CyberCipher on April 18, 2013 at 5:48 PM
No. This comes from a progressive political, media and education complex which has lied about the wonders of “taxing the rich”. These low information voters and poll responders have been lead to believe the lie that taxing the rich will make society more just, that they will somehow personally benefit from it (it’s amazing how much of the redistribution of government ends up in the cronies hands and spent on bureaucracies) and that if only the rich would pay a little more the government can provide you with “free” health care, retirement and all the rest of it. It’s a lie pushed by progressives. The rich don’t have enough money to pay for it.
And while were on the topic of upward redistribution why don’t you take this opportunity to denounce ObamaCare which is forcing poorer young people to pay for richer old peoples healthcare?
Or social security which is the same racket?
Look at the major programs meant to “redistribute” wealth back to the people and you’ll find the young and poor being fleeced of money and opportunity in order to fund the retirement of older richer people.
Obama’s own “investments” with public funds were large payouts to his cronies. If the liberal messiah of Obama can’t even get “redistribution” right then no one can.
gwelf on April 18, 2013 at 5:50 PM
Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more
Ten Years After
I wouldn’t take such polls too seriously.
pat on April 18, 2013 at 5:51 PM
Strongly agree. You can frame a question to get most any answer you want.
av8tr on April 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM
She lost me on the road example. If she was ever a real estate developer, aka a “dirt” guy, she would know that every real estate developer is held up for “road improvements” in just about every jurisdiction in the nation and we did our own streets in housing subdivisions, platted them on the record, named them, posted bonds, let contracts, ran sewer and utility lines, unless she is talking highways….where the state and feds do their thing for long distance travel.
The fly is that even on highways, how many people pay NO taxes? And that is legal but don’t act like some business owes the whole country!
I’m wondering how she feels since she was never in the service. We should pass a law for vets to collect some of her her money from the enormous, tax favored, Harvard endowment.
IlikedAUH2O on April 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM
Just try to explain what that means.
DanMan on April 18, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Harvard didn’t build anything and didn’t pay taxes on it.
IlikedAUH2O on April 18, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Dirty Secret.
The big problem is net worth since most voters have none and if they don’t become capitalists, they probably never will.
And when we finally we sink capitalism, then nobody except our Dear Leader will have a net worth.
IlikedAUH2O on April 18, 2013 at 5:59 PM
Libfree I will give more money to the government if you quit stalking 16 year olds…. you tired freak.
CW on April 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM
Let’s make the poor poor in order to make the rich less rich. Yeah, sounds fair to me.
/s
Rich H on April 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM
Thomas Sowell totally destroys your arguments.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342221/how-measure-social-mobility-thomas-sowell
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343011/dogma-multiculturalism-thomas-sowell
And for good measure:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344021/wealth-and-inequality-youtube-dustin-siggins
gwelf on April 18, 2013 at 6:01 PM
In other news, The Twentieth Century Motor Company of Starnesville, Wisconsin has declared bankruptcy.
MichaelGabriel on April 18, 2013 at 6:02 PM
A better question is if they think government should do the redistributing. I think people should get paid well enough for what ever work they do, and I do not mind redistributing my money to those who do things for me. Restaurant, server, lawn care, house sitter…
I too think the distribution of money in America is too slanted towards a certain group, and I also think those groups benefit from government actions that help them make much of the money they do. From regulations to contracts to where they build roads and military bases arbitrarily benefit certain people.
astonerii on April 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM
Fun should be distributed evenly.
Buddahpundit on April 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM
From the headline thread:
gwelf on April 18, 2013 at 6:06 PM
“Who is John Gault?”
rottenrobbie on April 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM
sorry, “Galt”
rottenrobbie on April 18, 2013 at 6:08 PM
According to libfreeordie the Constitution demands egalitarianism so everything must be evenly distributed.
gwelf on April 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM
Look at what a great job Obama has done in redistributing our wealth to help the masses.
He won’t allow the economy to improve or business to grow but he will put you on food stamps and permanent disability.
And he’ll promise to tax your children by borrowing to funnel billions to his friends and other well connected cronies.
gwelf on April 18, 2013 at 6:11 PM
Precisely what I was thinking. I’d give this question a “yes,” but if they followed by saying, “Should government do this through wealth transfer to a greater or lesser extent than it is doing so already,” I’d say, “lesser.”
calbear on April 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Violating the spirit is a lot different than violating the letter.
I may not agree with massive corporate subsidies and bailouts, but I don’t think they’re un-Constitutional.
By the way, both of those things are pretty bi-partisan. It seems like everyone hated the bailouts, GOP and Dems, but they happened anyway because enough people got scared that “too big to fail” really was too big to fail.
Meanwhile, everyone lurves them some subsidies (their own oxen), but dislike other subsidies.
Good Solid B-Plus on April 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM
Gallup did ask that question, or more specifically:
Steve Eggleston on April 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM
Great quote wildcat.
I’m a big fan of Heinlein. He also had another saying from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress: TANSTAAFL!
It means: There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Meaning: everything costs something. There are no gravy trains, and sandwiches you get for free mean the drinks cost twice as much.
Probably beyond the understanding of any progressive.
itsspideyman on April 18, 2013 at 6:20 PM
I told my kids I intended to spend every penny I ever made and if they want to be wealthy…Work for it like I did!
belad on April 18, 2013 at 6:21 PM
duh
WryTrvllr on April 18, 2013 at 6:22 PM
Given 29 is the new 40, your collie is more right than he knows.
Steve Eggleston on April 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM
This country is gone, we will never recover from the nightmare that is Obama. It’s too bad, because I’d love to make a comment like ‘maybe we should redistribute all the Ivy League endowment money’ but my side has lost, and we’re not getting back to where we were, ever. Cheers.
St. Regis Philbin on April 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM
Has anyone made the point that many conservatives believe that a less constrained capitalistic system creates a more even distribution of wealth?
I could very easy have answered that I believe that wealth should be more evenly distributed, and I would follow that up with the fact that implementing more conservative fiscal and regulatory policies is the way to make this happen.
blink on April 18, 2013 at 6:34 PM
Rob hard-working Americans of their salaries, their property and their investments…put more people into the government poor house…then more will give up on the idea that they can be prosperous as well so they’ll be all for “wealth redistribution”.
Of course, “wealth redistribution” will never ever come-never has, never will.
But these punks on the Hill and in all state capitols will have more leeway as they get bolder in robbing us.
Libs…the rich will stay that way. Wake the hell up.
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 18, 2013 at 6:35 PM
Sure, but was Obama the actual cause or just a symptom of what’s wrong with this country.
This spouting off about America being the greatest, most awesome country on earth is wearing thin. It used to be, but just saying that it is, “love it or leave it” and all that jazz is just whistling in the graveyard.
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 18, 2013 at 6:37 PM
That’s an urban legend. Many European countries now have greater class mobility. You can Google for the specific research.
However the country is heading toward having some of the greatest income inequality in the world. A little redistribution from the middle class to the top started when Bush lowered upper income tax rates and then cut the cap gains rate in half.
http://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-and-income-inequality-in-america-2013-4?op=1
bayam on April 18, 2013 at 6:40 PM
Edited for clarity.
That is what socialism is all about and that is its appeal.
Ask them if they think their wealth/income should redistributed and you will get a very different poll result.
farsighted on April 18, 2013 at 6:43 PM
You’re way behind the curve.
It all started with Ronald Reagan, don’t you know that?
You gotta keep up with the correct progressive spin buddy.
itsspideyman on April 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM
Swap earned with distributed and I am on board.
Seeing how I just paid a 13K tax bill…..yeah. earn those freaking food stamps.
Start with a drug test.
RealMc on April 18, 2013 at 6:54 PM
If you took all the wealth in the world and distributed it evenly among everyone, there would be wealth inequality in three years.
1/4 of the population would squander their share in 6 months.
Liberals biggest fallacy:
They believe humans don’t behave like humans.
MichaelGabriel on April 18, 2013 at 6:56 PM
Two things about this poll.
1. Polls are so corrupt anymore I seriously don’t believe ANY of them. They all seem completely agenda driven.
2. RE: Americans want wealth distributed more evenly?
THEN GET OFF YOUR LAZY OBESE ***** and get freaking busy doing something about it.
PappyD61 on April 18, 2013 at 7:07 PM
If you distributed all the wealth equally, it wouldn’t be long before those that were wealthy would be wealthy again and those that were poor, would be poor again.
Axion on April 18, 2013 at 7:08 PM
I think that the effects of redistribution of wealth should be studied.
Let’s take a small sample… say, any Democrat in government and any public figure supporting Democrat policies (entertainers, Warren Buffet, etc.), and strip them of any wealth above the national mean, and redistibute that wealth to the rest of us.
Any attempt to hide wealth from this experiment, of course, would be a felony punishably by mandatory jail time.
malclave on April 18, 2013 at 7:08 PM
Started with Bush’s tax cut?
You’re insane for even attempting to make this claim.
And your link show no such “start….”
Another classic bayam fail. You need to cut-and-paste from better sources of talking points.
blink on April 18, 2013 at 7:10 PM
Everyone should have a cell phone and flat screen tv.
Fleuries on April 18, 2013 at 7:11 PM
Go back and read the links I posted. You’re wrong.
gwelf on April 18, 2013 at 7:22 PM
There’s also the fact that our purchasing power makes “income inequality” arguments mostly irrelevant.
gwelf on April 18, 2013 at 7:28 PM
You do have a point. How exactly did Harry Reid “earn” his millions?
I don’t see a solution as long as voters continue to reelect Democrats and the associated corruption. Sure, there are bad Republicans as well, but corruption is not as integral to the GOP as it is the Democrats.
malclave on April 18, 2013 at 7:33 PM
The the majority of Americans are parasites that covet the wealth of others.
rplat on April 18, 2013 at 7:34 PM
Hey man, just google it.
gwelf on April 18, 2013 at 7:38 PM
Do we know who the money is going to be distributed to? We know the money’s coming from the ones who got the education & payed off their student loan without expecting the government’s assistance, or the ones who risked all their assets & family life to invest in an idea or bsiness. Our government has been so eager to come to the rescue, that we have grown a new generation of dependents who sit by and wait for the someone to appear & absolve their obligations. Each time the wind picks up FEMA mobilizes.
RdLake on April 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM
My very first thought, exactly. Yet, when I look at the utter stupidity running around disguised as people….
..I weep.
This country is chock-full-O-imbeciles waving degrees around who haven’t the slightest clue how wealth is created and sustained.
98ZJUSMC on April 18, 2013 at 8:01 PM
That is because the new breed of Americans are worthless, lazy azzes, thanks to the federal government handing out money like it grows on trees. I have no use for a worthless, lazy individual, and at this point, I refuse to support such an individual with my hard earned, stolen by the government, money. What kind of human wants to TAKE what is not theirs? A worthless POS, that’s who. It makes you feel good to make something of yourself, so get off your azz. I’m ready to start letting able bodied adults die in the street if they have no moral code.
F_This on April 18, 2013 at 8:02 PM
Damnit, AP – quit with this f*cking poll crap. You know folks can get a poll to say any damn thing they want, yet you keep pumping this crap like it means a damn thing.
IT DOESN’T.
Midas on April 18, 2013 at 8:07 PM
We should start the redistribution with the college professors since they make more than 95% of the US population.
RickB on April 18, 2013 at 8:15 PM
No surprise, the President has been the spokesman for it for years now.
thedude on April 18, 2013 at 8:47 PM
A little redistribution might not be so bad. Let’s start with the Kennedy trusts, George Soros, Warren Buffet and all those trusts that are always named at the end of PBS shows. After we see how that works out we could see about expanding the program.
trigon on April 18, 2013 at 10:49 PM
This is a question about income distribution. This is NOT a question about having the government redistribute the wealth.
These are two very different concepts.
Freddy on April 19, 2013 at 6:43 PM