Should SAHP be paid for their role by the goverment?

[Cocoflower]

Should SAHP be paid for the role they do by the goverment? If not by the goverment then who?

According to which study you read SAHP work is valued at 30-70k a year. Infact you can now even get life insurance based on being a SAHM which demonstrates a worth surely?

Is it not time we started valuing and recognising one of the hardest jobs out there 24/7 hours of work and no holidays through offical payment as being regarded as a public worker? Is raising future generations and caring for human life worth any less than any other type of work?

Now people may argue; if you have kids you pay for them, why should the tax payer foot the bill?

However if both parents work then the tax payer is footing some of the bill through tax credits anyway to cover childcare. Why not pass this straight onto the parents?

Now, I know many people work for more than just money,and many would stay in employment anyway even if they could be paid to stay at home.

But there would be many people would choose to stay at home if they could afford it and feel valued by getting paid for this? Would this be good if means freeing up thousands of jobs for people who need the jobs in the state the country is in?

Would this system just encourage people to have children they dont really want? Or should we say unlikely as having children is such a big thing to take on and its likely you would get paid more in a job anyway?

Someone may have said this already, but perhaps if SAHPs/carers were financially recompensed, then the status of SAHPs/carers would rise, more men would feel able to do it, more women would be able to go back to work after children (if they wanted to). Generally leading to more equality and a reduction of the pay gap?

I'm not saying that women who are SAHMs are not able to go to work, just that given the gender pay gap, a woman is statistically likely to have a lower paypacket than a male DP. ONE of the many reasons why SAHPs are more likely to be female. Also I do know SAHDs who have made a positive choice to do stay at home with their children, not just for financial reasons. But given how much our society values money, reducing the financial penalty for being a SAHP might reduce the significant stigma that many SAHDs feel.

Good post Ziptoes

Also for those who do choose to SAHP for some time, then return to work- many seem to worry about their 'gap' on their CV.

If attitudes where changed maybe everyone would actually value this period and not feel ashamed for it , and employers would see it as worthwhile period not a negative factor

ziptoes
Not disagreeing but the reality would be that the Daily Mail etc would start banging on about huge new benefits being made available to SAHP, our taxes, cbeebies, fruit shoots, blah, blah and the status of SAHP would actually go down.

And yes reducing the stigma for SAHDS is a good point

Perhaps Child benefit should be increased and then people could use it to SAH or for childcare. Hopefully more people could do what they want to whether it be work or SAH.

You're probably right about the daily mail stigma. Have the DM ever kicked up a stink about "benefits" for carers? Caring for a dying relative probably deserves pay even more than bringing up children. At least with kids you can say "this too will pass" (my favourite mumsnet mantra), whereas caring for someone with MND or MS is a slow awful decline. I have a feeling that respite care is considered benefit scrounging by some of our lovelier journalists.

Norwegians get 18 months mat leave to share between a couple (I think), and (I think) they consequently have more SAHDs. (anyone know the actual stats?)

DH (SAHD) was bloommin delighted when I told him he was worth 30-70k to our household. Cocoflower, can we get a link to those surveys to wave in front of show his parents (avid DM readers)?

www.legalandgeneral.com/life-cover/confused-about-life-cover/articles-and-guides/value-of-a-mum.html

Only thing is says it a bit sexist and says value of mum!

Yeah but it does say dad's do less around the house. Wonder if they have taken amount of time in the house into consideration?

homedad.org.uk/?p=22

I think the article should be value of stay home parent really! I think the figure can apply to men or women, dont see why not.

dads not dad's. Argh.

Because women who work do more housework than men who work? This study from Stanford University for instance. I particularly like this study as it concludes one way over the gender pay gap is to pay dual career couples to have a cleaner. Eat that daily mail!

Sorry too lazy to read the whole thread but I think that it's up to you to have children if you want to and can afford it. I don't expect the state to help pay for my children and I don't think it's reasonable that I should pay for other people's children

it's bloody annoying that people get help with nursery fees if they choose to work

SAHPing is not a job that could be paid for by a government because governmental pay would have attached to it rules, regulations and inspections that are incompatible with the subtleties of parenting.

The things we do of value with our children would not fit neatly into a governmental framework of tick boxes, transparency and accountability.
Can you imagine it? "Sorry Mrs Jones, we are rating you as satisfactory on this inspection as your children's ears could be a little cleaner." "Mrs Matthews, your tone of voice while reading books needs a bit of work." "Mr Smith, nice choice of playgroup but you did forget to pack the wipes this time."

What we need, really, is to place a higher value on parenting. It's not a lifestyle choice like spending your money on skiing in the alps, smoking, having a pierced belly button. WOHP do not do the same job as parents who SAHM and vice versa. We working mums do not do as much in the few hours at the end of a working day in terms of being there and being in tune with our kids, tough shit ladies. How in God's earth can what you do in a few hours a week equate to a full-time occupation carried out by another person? That sort of sneering "logic" really devalues the worth of what SAHMs actually achieve in being constantly there for their kids. I say that as someone who is NOT a SAHM and who doesn't even want to be one, but I feel that it's hugely antifeminist to reduce the value of mothering/parenting to that of a hobby.

At the same time, it's not a career either. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

I am reading a book about this called "Maternal Desire". I haven't read enough to launch into a review of it, but there are key points being made that I nod my head vigorously when I read some of what it says about how polarised the WOHM/SAHM debate is. It argues that we need space to think about what each of us as individuals actually wants from mothering/parenting and to realise that configuration truly can be very different for different people, without casting individual choices as "good" or "bad" in ways that seek to devalue one choice to validate another. We need to think about what we want as women and fight for society to allow for choice, without marginalising what we want as mothers, too (be that career or home).

Great posts swallowedfly and working9

Good to see a wider selection of opinions

seek to devalue one choice to validate another.

Yes 100%

incredible the black and white images sahms and wohms have of each other

And yes again

WankSock, the point I am making though is that they could, but it is to their extreme detriment. And how does that help anyone? The family dynamic suffers, women end up diagnosed with PND, depression...which it may well be, but it's generally a response to the sheer frustration, the tedium, the boredom, the lack of support, little or no adult contact/conversation, the way in which they have been told all of their lives to be educated, get a brilliant job, be as good as your contemporaries in your field (even the men )....then boom
Biology strikes

There is a very big difference between a carer and a SAHP. I am, for official purposes a carer. A carer for DS. However for the most part I stay t home with both DC's so effectively I'm a SAHM.

I get £53 per week (roughly) to care for DS, mainly claimed due to the NI contributions that CA gives. But, I do believe that being a SAHP is not a job in a full time capacity. That is not to undermine the role of a SAHP, as it isn't easy, DD needs a lot of education/entertainment now she is in full toddler mode.

However, I distinguish merely due for the purposes of Carers. Being a carer is in a different league to being a SAHP. As I carer, I have had all types of medical training (albeit for the purpose of parent/carer administering treatments rather than HCP). I have had to learn a lot about intravenous lines, administering intravenous meds via pump and pulse method, PEG tubes, pumps and a whole host of other things that I'd rather not know about. Plus I am genuinely on call 24/7 often administering feeds and medication or treatments during the early hours (as is evident by my appalling posting most of the time!).

It's not that I want to undermine the role of a SAHP, but whilst the role of a carer is still vastly undervalued, I feel it would be a waste of resources to spend money from the public purse on SAHP, rather than Carers who may need it more. Plus, if a SAHP were automatically given the same value I would feel affronted as a carer, as I put much more work into my role as a career than I would as a parent.

I know, as I genuinely didn't think there was as difference between the parent of a child with special needs than a parent with an NT child. That was until I had my second child. DD is so much easier. And DS's needs have increased.

My role to DD is important but my role to DS (with additional needs) is vital. There is a distinction. Whilst we are under financial constraints as a country, I feel that those who are vital should be priority. Those who aren't, unfortunately, shouldn't get a mention. Just yet.

(I am very aware that at this stage in the discussion I am not adding anything useful, as Bibbity will point out but I wanted to add this in case the point the issue from Carers has not been fully validated).

I work FT and have done since dd was five months old. The state has never paid towards the cost of my childcare, other than the free nursery hours to which all children are entitled. My taxes already help to pay for the tax credits which help some parents to stay at home. Why should I pay out more than this so that SAHPs can have a salary?

If someone offered me a decent salary to stay at home, then yes, of course I'd quit my stressful job in an instant. For me personally, life would be infinitely easier if I were at home. But why would anyone want to pay me to do that? What benefit would there be to society if I walked out of my job tomorrow?

Surely the main beneficiary of a SAHP is the working parent, and so if anyone should be paying a salary, it should be the SAHP's partner and not the state - just as I paid a nanny to look after dd for four hours per day. Personally, I wouldn't want to reduce my marriage to a business transaction, and I detest the idea of one partner being the employee of the other, but if people are keen to be paid for the work they do, this seems the only logical approach.

I do think that tax allowances should be transferable between couples, and I definitely think that caters should be paid a proper wage for the fantastic work that they do. But a salary for staying at home with your own kids? I honestly struggle to believe that anyone would seriously consider this. Surely people care for their kids because of love, not money!!

Carers, obviously - not caters!

Great post reindeer my job with children and being with my own child the whole time couldnt compare to the work you do as a carer to one of your own with a disability/sn. Any money that is available should be poured in to families like yours imo.

You only get 53 pounds and that is ridiculous. Same as the carers that would look after your child if you were unable would probably get 6 pounds an hour. It is very unfair

Great post reindeer

Working9 - I could not disagree more with your judgemental comment that a WOHP is so fundamentally different to a SAHP . Being a parent, creating an environment in which to raise your children, is far more than just literally being in the same building as them- it extends far beyond that. And even if you do want to reduce it to 'hours spent directly interacting with children', I think you'll find studies have shown that WOHP actually spend pretty much the same amount of time per week doing that.

Also, the reality is very few parents literally spend every minute of the day actually directly interacting with their children. How about a fairly typical situation where a parent drops their child at playgroup for a couple of mornings a week,and goes for a coffee. And then maybe pops the telly on cbeebies while they zip around with the hoover. And maybe Granny has the kids once a week. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this scenario btw- perfectly normal routines- but you would effectively be paying an adult to drink coffee, clean their own house etc...

At the end of the day, if you place a monetary value on parenting you would have to pay it to ALL parents whether working f/t, p/t or not at all. And that is never going to happen. In reality there would be uproar - why should a reduced number of working people pay more to enable others to not work? And it would be a reduced number- let's face it, much as I enjoy my p/t job, if the govt offered to pay 'me to spend my days oragnising my days exactly as I want - because that's the truth of it- most SAHP do it because THEY want to, they are the main beneficiary and in probably most cases it's easier than having the same responsibilities but also holding down a paid job. Not easy, but easier.

Magic mummy - completely agree

Are people without children expected to pay for all of this? We are already expected to work until we are 67 - 70 to pay for everything while the rest of you 'superior' humans get to hang out in your own homes for up to 20 years. Even when we retire we will pay our own ways getting precious little help from anyone else

And remember, many of us part timers have had Experience of both full SAHP parents sections of the week, and WOHP sections. I have worked 3 days since having my boys, so for a number of years now I have had a routine of working 3 full days, then 2 days at home. My home days have always been far easier. I could leave the boys in pjs all morning if I wanted a 'slow day'. Pop on a DVD. Invite a friend over so we could chat while the kids play. On my working days I probably spent as much time actually playing with, reading to etc my boys - it was just fitted into the end of the day. And meals etc don't go away when you're working- the only difference was on a work day id be up at 6 am prepping dinner rather than doing it at 4 pm while the kids pottered around my feet. The person who benefited mainly from being at home was 'ME- its easier than having the same amount of work to do but fitting in a job too!