Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Should SAHP be paid for their role by the goverment?

823 replies

Cocoflower · 08/06/2011 12:10

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?

OP posts:
Ormirian · 09/06/2011 10:03

OK I have changed my mind a bit. Assuming that we all accept it isn't actually viable, in principle I can see that SAHP could be compensated for the losses they may suffer for leaving the workforce due to the lack of affordable childcare. If we assume that having a child is a social good and benefits humanity as a whole, those who do so, but suffer financial loss and damage to their career prospects, should be compensated.

I would only take issue with it if the payment was seen as a reward for certain behaviour - ie being a SAHP was in some way more worthy than being a WOHP.

Is that an acceptable compromise? Wink

Ormirian · 09/06/2011 10:11

I still find it hard to comprehend that there are people that are forced to SAHP because they can't afford to work. I know it's true - I've read enough posts, I've been told it's the case - but it seems counterintuitive to me.

I was precisely the opposite - I had to work. I earned a huge amount more than DH - still do, althought the gap is much smaller now. I was OK with that first time as I knew no different. Second time round it quite simply broke my heart - don't care if that sounds dramatic. i wanted someone to wave a magic wand. They didn't. I ended up with severe depression which has come and gone over the years and I am as sure as I can be it was being forced to go back to work when my DD was 3m old when I knew what I would miss, when I knew that I'd not see her milestones, share the things that she did every day. Now, I am pleased I did - I earn a good whack, I have a good job that I love - but still not sure it was worth the desolation I experienced at the time.

And that is despite being aware of how mind-numbing spending all day with babies and toddlers can be!

jugglingwiththreeshoes · 09/06/2011 12:23

It's really good to see the last two posters seeing things from a variety of perspectives. So often these debates can get overly polarised, whereas in fact most mothers know what it is like to be at home with children, and what it is like to go out to work. Most people do both in a variety of combinations.

jugglingwiththreeshoes · 09/06/2011 12:28

And I'm sorry to hear you've found the juggling difficult at times Ormirian

  • As you might guess from my name, I've found it tricky too.
  • In fact I think I've just dropped one ball as I heard on Monday that I've lost my P/T job as a TA in a school ( my contract not being renewed next year)
Good to hear that you now have a good job that you love - I hope that will be me one-day !
feckwit · 09/06/2011 12:28

I don't think sahps should be paid but they should be able to make that chooice and not forced to return to work f they feel their place is at home.

It makes me md that the government say they want to make people ore supportive of one another but then make it so hard for a parent to remain in the home.

So we need more affordable housing - you can get shared ownership as a ftb but what about people wanting a bigger house but unable to bridge the gap?

We need more flexible working options.

We neeed more flexible and affordable childcare.

And more respect for those who choose one wage earner and become in turn, unpaid childminder/cook/cleaner/gardener/taxi...

jugglingwiththreeshoes · 09/06/2011 12:31

juggling ball - or shoe !

Kewcumber · 09/06/2011 12:34

"incredible the black and white images sahms and wohms have of each other" - but do you really think this is true in real life? I don't find that to be the case at all. In real life other women don;t seem to care much what I do and haven't treated me any differently whether I was working full time, part time or not at all.

In many ways the most difficult one for me has been full time becasue practically you don't get to know the other mums and your child isn;t invited to play dates after school so much.

I have been incredibly fortunate that I have been able to take time off as DS started school so I have made some links now and hope that when I go back to work it will continue.

The government pay for a mother to stay home for up to (is it 9 months now or a year) - that should be extended to either parent IMO but expecting all other wage earners to pay enough tax to support something like one in five households in the UK to have a stay at home parent just isn't going to happen. Many households would be worse off as tax would have to increase so dramatically.

aliceliddell · 09/06/2011 12:49

Juggling - you are not alone; loads of TAs and surestart staff are being cut or hours reduced. Guess what? virtually all those part time public sector workers are women. So all the support with childcare is gone, and jobs. Women will just help kids to eg read at home. Unpaid. Circular system of women picking up the slack. Fabulous! If only we could get them to blame each other....

oohlaalaa · 09/06/2011 12:52

YABVU. Why should someone who chooses not to have to children pay for SAHM. It is not as if the country is underpopulated. It is a lifestyle choice.

oohlaalaa · 09/06/2011 12:53

P.S. The country already has far too much debt.

swallowedAfly · 09/06/2011 13:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

swallowedAfly · 09/06/2011 13:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

likale · 09/06/2011 13:23

Swallowed- Its because deliberate Government policy in recent times has been to push property prices through the roof and frankly wages have no chance of catching up.

working9while5 · 09/06/2011 14:13

lynehamrose I most certainly don?t want to reduce being a parent to hours spent directly interacting with children, but I do think that hours spent in the presence of your children makes a qualitative difference to their raising, particularly in the early years when some of the more abstract benefits of working out of the home don?t hold much currency with the young, wilful egotistical toddler.

I don?t believe for one second that a WOHP can do?as much? interacting with a young child or toddler in the evening as a parent who has been with them all day, even if all day they have hung about in their pyjamas and that mum has been online or doing the vacuuming or whatever. Interacting, if you think about it, is just about how two things act in relationship to eachother. A parent sitting in the same room as a child or even cooking dinner in another room while ?keeping an ear out? for their child is still in an interaction with that child: the child will behave differently when their parent is there; even if it?s so much nods and glances, even if everything is silent. If you are not in the same house as your child, or responsible for their care, you are not interacting with them at that point in time. It doesn?t mean that what you are doing isn?t valuable, but the value of what you are doing at work can?t change the fact that interaction is not something you can condense into a shorter time frame: it?s either happening or it isn?t. You can come home and read books and bounce them in the air and kiss them and engage them and they can get all sorts of wonderfulness from that, but it doesn?t change the fact that when you are there you are in some sort of interaction and when you are not, you are not. However, the difference between a and b does not have to be about whose way is ?better? or ?right?: it can be seen just as difference on an experiential level, which can be more or less good or bad depending on individual circumstance.

What my point really is, and where these arguments go wrong time and time again is that appreciating that there is a qualitative, fundamental difference between parenting as a SAHP, or a WOHP or even a part-time WOHP or a Working at home parent does not have to be about placing a moral or value judgement on that difference. It is possible to see differences without bringing in judgements like which is ?easier? or more ?beneficial? to a child as though it were about industriousness or product, or something quantifiable. The difference can be examined descriptively rather than inferentially, if that makes sense?

For me, I don?t see why it has to be about ?judging? or about saying one path is right while another is not. They are just different. I can see that if I was at home with my son, he would have different experiences to those he has while spending three days a week at nursery.

I?m going to try to give an example of what I mean. When I am out at work, my 18 month old son is in nursery. Recently, he?s been ?in trouble? a number of times because he has ?hit? people with objects in the face. At nursery, this means he gets put into time out. I have seen him do this in our local library and to me, there?s a clear cause for it: he?s trying to interact with the child so he hovers around them for a bit, not really sure what to do, then he goes to get a toy/book, comes back and brings the book/toy up close to them. Because he can?t hold up the book very well, it tends to come crashing down in their face.

I see this differently to nursery for a number of reasons. I am his mum, so when I am watching a group of children I am exclusively focused on him mostly and as a mum of one, I have the luxury of being attuned to him in a very intense, specific way. I also have spent most of my adult life reading about how young children learn how to socially interact so I know that what he is doing is a common strategy for initiating interaction at his age and stage of development. So my response is different to the nursery?s response, who just see that a child has been hit and need to deal with it in a fairly fast and efficient manner. My response would be to try to get in there and prevent it by modelling either how to show the book more effectively or getting attention a different way. I would have to do this lots and lots to get this across to him, no doubt. It might take months, let?s face it.

This is not something everyone would do, but it is something I would like to be able to do. Not because nursery are ?wrong? because they?re not, or because I?m ?right? because I?m not.. but because as my son?s mother I just wish I could be there to do it our way while he is little. If I could be a SAHM, I could feel more assured that the values and behaviours modelled to my son matched my own values and those of my family (both immediate with dh, and wider) and community and culture. This doesn?t mean that they would necessarily be better - I came from quite a dysfunctional home and very probably a lot of that would be repeated. However, there is an instinct there, on an almost primeval level, to want to be the one with my son caring for him in moments like this, shaping this sort of behaviour.

I think a great many women have a strong biological desire to want to shape the behaviour of their young children in ways that match their own emotional, instintive reactions to things.. I hear many women say that they feel terrible longing that they can?t do it, even if they decide that they really couldn?t stay at home all week and they really, truly want to return to their careers for very many valid reasons. Even if they do that full time.

None of that means that if you stay home that you have a life of luxury or that if you go out to work you are deprived of something that?s fundamental or necessary. I love my work. I am obsessed with it. I get huge amounts out of it.#

It?s hugely ambivalent for many of us.

What I want is to be able to work at full-throttle all week long and also, simultaneously, be with my son all week long. I want one of those magic thingamajiggies that Hermione Grainger has in Harry Potter. To bilocate.

Everything else invoves trade-off. Everything. So I was not being judgey. I can just see that there is a difference between one and the other and pros and cons to whatever choice we make.

working9while5 · 09/06/2011 14:14

Oops. That was long. It didn't look so long in Word.. Smile

JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar · 09/06/2011 14:38

yy, the cost of living (and more specifically housing).

It is a shame that so many parents are forced to work FT. In an ideal world we'd be able to cut our hours - either parent one giving up work entirely or a more shared approach - if we so wished.

But yes, our obsession with house value inflation being a good thing (wtf?), the continual long-term lack of investment in council housing, scrapping rent controls, I could go on...

sometimesinthefall · 09/06/2011 15:49

Um, don't we have more pressing causes to fund than the recognition of SAHM? Properly helping carers would be one, for instance.
I am a FT working mother of two. This probably makes me a dire mother, but it also means that my ridiculous childcare bill - £2000 at the moment - contributes to funding a number of jobs. Oh, and apart from childcare vouchers and the soon-to-be-axed child benefit, I receive zero financial help or incentive from the government.
Believe me, I'd love my hard work and dedication to be recognised too...

lynehamrose · 09/06/2011 16:26

Working9 - that last post makes a lot more sense, and I agree with a lot of what you say.
However, I also think that the practice is rather different to the theory. In real life, numerous interactions take place between the child, parents and all the hundreds of other individuals the child will encounter. In reality a SAHP is very likely to be attending toddler groups, sending the child to playgroup, getting on with other things... I am not saying the interaction is not happening, just that I disagree that the levels of interaction are hugely different whether a parent is working or not. All children recognise the parental relationship as fundamentally 'special' and the mass of evidence shows that the parents are the biggest influences on a child: not school, or nursery or grandparents etc. This is the case where a parent works long hours as well as where they don't. Most men for example work full time, but shape their childrens experience and behaviour as much as the mother.
So I really don't see this huge difference that's talked about.
And although my childrens experience would have been a little different if I had been home full time, it wouldn't necessarily have been BETTER, or WORSE- as you rightly say, you can't place a value judgement on it anyway. It would just have been different - a little. Whereas I CAN say categorically that I was the main beneficiary - I found my days at home easy and enjoyable (not that my work is bad I hasten to add- but it demands things of 'me which being at home does not) and particularly when my boys reached play group age etc then actually there were periods of time I was home and not actually having to interact with my children at all because they weren't there.

Its actually an interesting discussion- though the original point about paying people to stay at home is unworkable and will never happen.

Strix · 09/06/2011 16:46

Of course SAHP should not be paid! Lots of working parents would rather spend more time with their children. But they choose to go to work to support the children. Now you want them to pay more tax which means they have to work longer and see less of their own children so you can see more of yours.

What a truly selfish proposal.

The government does not own my children. They are mine. And so I pay for them.

Let's talk about making all childcare tax deductable to alleviate the burden on those paying the bills of those who have chosen not to work and conribute to the pot similarly. And I stress the point of those who have chosen not to work; and not those who are unable to work.

Cocoflower · 09/06/2011 17:02

Of course SAHP should not be paid! Lots of working parents would rather spend more time with their children. But they choose to go to work to support the children. Now you want them to pay more tax which means they have to work longer and see less of their own children so you can see more of yours.

Does it not occur to anyone as a WOHP though that if such a payment exsisted then you could stay at home?

Sorry to pick on this post I dont mean it just to the poster, but It seems people are outraged as they they are a WOHP without occuring to them that if possible for the payment to exsist it opens an option up for them to er, not be a WOHP!

OP posts:
lynehamrose · 09/06/2011 17:11

Agree completely with strix

And the bottom line is, if you are even going to consider the proposal of paying Sahp as a recognition of the value of parenting, it could ONLY work if there was some sort of quality control. How on earth could the govt justify paying public money to parents who would stick their kids in front of the telly half the day and feed them a rubbish diet? While paying nothing to working parents who nurture their Children, interact positively with them etc? Ok those may be extreme examples, but the whole point is, parenting includes a whole spectrum of good, poor and indifferent experiences. Who would set the tariff? And judge who is up to scratch?

lynehamrose · 09/06/2011 17:13

Coco- and the obvious response to that is: who pays for this when hundreds of thousands of currently working mums and dads jack it in to get paid to be at home? Oh silly 'me, childless people of course Hmm

swallowedAfly · 09/06/2011 17:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

working9while5 · 09/06/2011 17:26

lynehamrose, I think we think quite similarly actually.

My interest is currently about that "maternal desire" that I am reading about: not what is "right" or what is "good" but in what women want.

I don't disagree with you that a child's experiences will be shaped wherever they are and whoever they interact with, whether you are there or whether you are not. That influence may be positive or malign in ways that have nothing to do with time spent together etc.. sometimes lack of attention can be most severe when a parent is there but not responsive or present etc, while a sensitive and responsive parent can be only physically present for a short period of time. The examples I refer to are my child being at the library, in stay and play etc, so I also recognise that it is not about sitting in the house just "being". However, I still see it as different in that when I am present with my son I can discuss and shape and know who he is and what he's at and so, all things being equal, I see that it would be different if I were at home with my son. I sense a major difference in my own experience if I am actually physically present for these things.. and no, it may not be "better" but I wish I could do it, rightly or wrongly.. I long for it. And yet I am not heading to work as some sort of slave to the financial system, I want to work too. I just want it all, while recognising that is a physical impossibility.

I think there is value in being a SAHM, though.. even though it's not for me. I respect that some women really do feel that it would be too much of a sacrifice to give that up, even though for me the balance tips differently. It's not something we should pay for, but perhaps something that shouldn't be seen as a luxury or a lifestyle choice or for vain, idle women who like wiping snot and whose brains don't stretch beyond repetitively singing the wheels on the bus.

Cocoflower · 09/06/2011 17:29

As I stated many times the idea is of course hypothetical,of course I do not know in reality how this would be funded and I think it a hugely complex question to realistically expect an answer from.

The question was more of on principle is it right?

But my point was why do people seem to miss the benefit of the choice this idea enables and I was wondering why it didnt occur to them that they wouldnt have to be WOHP if they had choice

I dont think the 'childless' people is as flippant as you write- there are thousands of unemployed people wanting work. In a utopian world those who wanted to be at home with their children and not be penalised finacally could do so, freeing up jobs for core groups such as recent graudates. Also I doubt evey parent would stay at home anyway,especially if the payment did not match a wage.Wether freeing up jobs for the current unemployed would balance the system by removing those on JSA for example again is far to complex for me to even guess at.

OP posts: