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?

Sorry but I think its very naive to think that all the currently unemployed would neatly fit into all the jobs (including those which require specialise skills, years of training etc) .

The bottom line is, there isn't a neat equation to balance up those currently unemployed and those who might give up work to stay at home.

Also, although I think working9, your posts are intelligent and insightful, you still seem to conclude that the main driving force for women to stay at home is the womans own desire- therefore it seems logical that women are the main beneficiary. So you're not paying an adult in recognition of the 'job' of parenting- you are paying one gender to do what they want to do- regardless of whether they do it well.

I never actually said they would 'neatly fit'. I said in a "utopian world" and and "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"

Dont forget people who would leave may be replaced by those one rung below them, creating promotions with the new employed fitting any empty rungs etc- it wouldnt be a case of matching like for like as such with A neatly replacing B, it would involve far more dynamics.

sahp isnt work.its a lifestyle choice
no one should get a financial remuneration for being at home not working

individuals who stay at home undertake tasks to their own specific standards and time eg childcare

commercial paid childcare is regulated and has minimum expectations and checks and balanced externally imposed by state eg crb, knowledge of development and play, assessment of environment, provision of suitable diet. commercial childcare generates at least 2 maybe 3 wages.wage of 1 childcare worker and 1/2 wage/s of the working parent. this returns tax and ni to the state which is redistributed to all

looking after your own children is individual act that unless you come to attention of statutory agencies govt and/or la dont intervene. so no crb,no regulation. a private individual arrangement, and as such not a job requiring salary. sahp benefits that individual family,and returns 1 wage and ni from working parent.the sahp isnt working nor contributing tax and ni.

if you want paid for looking after your own children why did you have them ,then" as a tidy wee earner for getting up the nelly?

anyhoo why pay some of the folks on here, who fanny aboot on mn all day.now that would be money for old rope

you want paid?go get a job

But thats exactly it- utopian!
How about a world where we all get to be remunerated for doing what we like, whether its working, staying at home, working on days when we feel like it ... And whether we are positive citizens who have a good influence on others or whether we're not!

Although the thread has sparked interesting discussion, no one has actually answered the question of what SAHP would be paid for

Because being a parent carries intrinsic worth? Ok then, pay all parents. But hang on, what about the truly crap parents who don't deserve to have children at all- those who abuse or kill them? And what about those who aren't harming their kids but are mediocre and don't raise their children in a particularly enlightened or nurturing way?

I'm really not sure what the payment would be for.

Lynehamrose I never said they should be paid, merely not denigrated or the choice devalued. I explicitly said it woukdn't and couldn't work. I don't like the view of it being about product and beneficiaries, though.

would sahp agree to regulation,checks amnd balances.external inspection to see the housewifery meets required standards.non payment for inadequate parenting

if you demand a salary you have to demonstrably show worth and benefit.sahp is individual act it doesn't benefit all

all working parents financially contribute for all via tax and ni
sahp dont finaciallycontribute

People want the government to pay for every single thing these days.

FFS.

no way!

Possible Cons

• How would we pay for this?
• Should the role be regulated, if so how?
• How about parents who don't deserve a payment and what is the criteria
• How would it work to be fair to WOHPS
• Encouraging unwanted children?
• Unnatural- should be about vocation and love- not career

Possible Pros

• Add value and respect for the role
• A paid role for the CV when people wish to return to work
• To elevate the status and the own self-worth of the SAHP
• To allow an option of SAHP or WOHP for any parent
• To compensate for those who wish to work but cannot afford to
• To compensate for those who wish to work but circumstances stop them
• Not entirely dependent for income on partner, especially for those in controlling realtionships

Working9 - the op is about remuneration for staying at home.

If we are talking about valuing and not denigrating the role of SAHP then what exactly do you feel the problem is, and what needs to be done about it? How should that 'value' be demonstrated if we're talking about non monetary methods? I valued my two days a week as a SAHP. My dh valued it- he was happy to make the necessary sacrifices for us to manage on a reduced income. I dont denigrate that role. I don't know anyone who does- apart from occasionally SAHP themselves, who seem to want something from the rest of us. I don't think it should be about external recognition. If you choose to have kids and give up work, surely you should get your validation from that. Not from strangers or the govt patting you on the back and saying well done!

All above is a summary of the discussion.

Being a very interesting and thought-provoking debate all in all!

what a woolly post.could put it in a field and call it dolly

improve self worth
elevate status
my god thats socialsciencetastic chuff

X posts there. No, I still don't see why remuneration is necessary for someone to value staying at home. And the issues of tax credits etc has already been covered. It is in fact far easier to stay at home or work very part time , eg 16 hours a week , than it has been at any time in the past. I know people on very low incomes who have almost their entire childcare bills paid for and probably have more disposable income than middle earners.

Wooly.

I think thats rather dismissive of people on here who struggle with their own self-worth in being a SAHP and rather insensitive to them.

Nothing 'wooly' about anyone wanting status & self worth in any aspect of life, infact its vital for normal functioning to any human psyche

salary comes from adherence to prescribed task,usually undertaken in timely,safe manner

so what of the lizzie bardshaws et al of this world...would you really pay a salary?for what

the flaw in any sahp payment is the regulation and adherence to prescribed expectations.hw would one set and benchmark thsis?how would it be enforced

sahp should seek approbation from what they do, without seeking others to financial validation and cosseting of their sahp choices

so in rl, i pick kids up afetr work.do i get paid for that. does working parents undertaking domestic tasks after work command a wage too ?

Agree with your last sentence coco. Totally disagree that self worth and status need to come from being paid to do something.

In fact, I would separate the two issues completely. My self worth comes from, mainly, being a good mother and partner, and also from having achieved well professionally. The fact that I get paid for the second of those things, is a different issue - I get paid because I am doing a job which needs doing, to a standard which meets specific criteria. I do not get my self worth from the pay slip- that pays the bills- I get it from the role

struggle with self worth?well thats human condition
we all do to greater or lesser extent
doesnt mean sahp salary ameliorates how a sahp may feel about self
self worth and self esteem is intrinsic and internal,doesn't wholly come from a salary

there are numerous courses, book groups, volunteering etc that anyone can access without need for salary and which may improve self worth.but essentially self worth and self esteem is internal and well that person has to address it

lol,are you incorrectly correcting my spelling
its woolly as in sheep, loosely formed idea, ill considered thought
as you were

Im not saying I have this issue. Im thinking to people like Threelittleducks who I believe has a support thread somewhere.

I personally as someone who is part time working and part time SAHM take self esteem from both roles.

why cite someone else in support of your idea
i imagine other posters can determine whether or not their self worth is impaired without you bringing it up,to prove your point
bit cheeky

No Im just crap at typing! I actually orginally typed wholly and thought Id corrected it but was too eager to post it seems!

I agree scottishmummy.

I don't see how being paid govt money to be at home is going to instil a sense of self worth if you haven't got it. Benefit claimants receive govt money... Does that instil feelings of self worth? Hardly. It enables them to eat, keep warm etc but providing self worth? Get away!

If a SAHP genuinely feels their self esteem is low by virtue of not working, then I would seriously urge them to think about getting back to work, because it cant be the best thing for children to be with someone who feels bad about themself directly because of peforming that Sahp role. And thats where my earlier point comes in, because working tax credits, free hour of childcare at 3 all combine to make working more accessible than in the past

The post was a summary of the thread! Of everones ideas.

I said all through this thread I had not informed an opinion and wanted to see other peoples ideas- as someone said the thread was a thinking tool. So I was simply summarisng a list of every argument I by no means thought of them all!

Like in an essay when you consider all arguments then get to your conclusion based on the evidence.

Still havent got to my personal conclusion!

May I add my pennyworth?

I am a SAHM with a small business.

I don't think I should be paid by the government or by anyone else.

I'd just like a bit more respect for the sacrifice of creating a civilised (hopefully someday) pair of children who will be good members of society...

Now I'm going to say something a bit scary - don't flame me....just info...

In the US, there have been articles in the business press wondering why it is worth educating women to such a high degree when the trend is now for women to give up work 5-10 years post degree to be SAHM's (just when their career is hotting up to something exciting)...very, very scary stuff IMO.

So....sacrifice..you bet. Pay me. Nope. It was my choice (sort of).

Some positive PR for mums would sugar the pill.....

Lynehamrose, for me it's less about thinking external validation of the choice is needed than it is about thinking that choice doesn't need to be trivialised or devalued by commentators who say it's anti-feminist or reduce it to infantilism or buffoonery to even want to be around kids in their early years by talking about how it's all wheels on the bus and repetitive drudgery etc, as though only the needy or the idiotic could or would choose to stay at home even in their children's infancy. I don't think payment or governmental intervention can change the scoffing that this choice invokes but I do wish the desire to do a particular type of hands-on mothering wasn't viewed as something warranting shame and apologym