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?

coco,if we all didn't post opposing pov for damaging someone self esteen,then no one would post on mn

so whilst any post has the propensity to hurt someone feelings ina discursive medium people can and do post range of views.inc sahp should not be paid

and lol i can assure you,no one asks any working mum if their self esteem is impaired when they are banging the biddulph tambourine or asking why have children if you leave em with stangers

Or vice versa. All choices should be seen as culturally and individually valuable with respect to the sahm and wohm divide.

People may choose to have children, but society -nay humanity- sort of depends on them doing so.

YANBU.

but thats not true.would sahp like to be associated or compared to lizzie bardshaw.not all are created or act equally

just as all working parents are not equal

not all contributions are equal.risible to say so

Don't know anyone who actually denigrates being at home. If you choose to have children, and you choose to stop working, then get your validation from that. Really, where are all these people who say its all wheels on the bus, coffee morning baby groups and wiping bums? I just think this is in the minds of people who perhaps don't find being home all the time as wonderfully stimulating as they'd like to, and then transfer those feelings on to others.

I know scottishmummy.

In society mothers are almost dammed if they do,dammed if they dont.

As someone who has been self employed, a student, in FT employment,in PT employment since dd was born I have had been judged postively and negativley for each position quite openly.

I have given up caring now!

society and humanity also benefit from non-parents who work,research etc
being parent doesnt automatically give anyone elevated enhanced status
nor does society or humanity benefit from all children

You misunderstand me, sm- the value to society is not the parent, but the child. Childless people make just as much or as little contribution to society as parents; but in a generation they will be gone.

Having children may be a choice, but it is a necessity in order for the human race to continue.

Not all children are going to contribute positively to society though. Let's not romanticise this. Yes, Many will, but not all. And the point would only stand up if children of SAHP statistically were more likely to succeed and do well in life. In fact, if we're going to be totally honest, the children of working parents are statistically more likely to do well rather than children whose parents don't work

As far as maintaining the population is concerned - the uk is hugely over populated

Working9 - another thought- if you are referring to the minority of daft people who make sweeping statements about SAHM losing their brain cells and just doing boring mundane stuff- well, surely that's balanced out by the minority of nutcases who refer to WOHM as heartless women who farm their kids out to strangers. So, to follow your argument, would you dole out some extra money to alleviate the attack on self esteem to WOHP? I think you're barking up the wrong tree tbh. Throwing money isn't going to make a difference. You suck up the occasional daft remarks if you feel secure in your role

Look. I am a working parent- my issue is not to do with the WOHP/SAHP debate. It is not to do with the positive or negative contributions that children will end up making to society.

I am merely responding to the hundreds of posts asserting that having children is a lifestyle choice, which completely ignore the fact that if everybody chose not to have children, humanity would be fucked in the arse.

To be fair, my point is far less sophisticated than people seem to think it is

In fact, if we're going to be totally honest, the children of working parents are statistically more likely to do well rather than children whose parents don't work

Could please link or copy and paste your statics for this statement please?

Oh, but I still think that bringing up children is a job and should be paid as such.

I see your point perfectly tethersend.

No children, no future generation. Its just a fact.

I think I should be rewarded by the Government for having a full time job AND raising a bright, articulate child (on my own).

But I'm not. In fact, they are taking away my child benefit from 2013 - which is the only money I get back from the Government.

I can live with this. But I would be appalled if SAHPs were paid to do half of what I do.

being a parent isnt a job,shouldn't be paid.utter mince

paid by whom? what rate

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

so payment - do i get paid when i stop work and collect my kids?so i get 2 wages?
one for my employment, second for being mum?

Children of unemployed parents are statistically more likely to be unemployed themselves. Fact.

Children of unemployed parents are statistically more likely to be unemployed themselves. Fact.

I would really like to see the source of that fact please

yep,socio-economic and health data demonstrably shows families that have employment are statistically healthier, have better social outcomes, achieve more at school.than those that dont have employment

hence govt and la and nhs work to address poverty,isolation and poor social outcomes associated with not working. and rightly so, a responsible society should look after citizens

Google govt statistics coco. Its all readily available - no secrecy. Of course there will be Many children of non working parents who do fine, and children of working parents who don't- but if we're in the business of trying to quantify the contribution of Children to society then its absolutely vital to have an evidence base

Are you talking about when one parent doesnt work or when both dont though?

"so payment - do i get paid when i stop work and collect my kids?so i get 2 wages?
one for my employment, second for being mum?

Good point scottishmummy. The 'at home working mummy' element for me starts at 5pm and stops very late indeed so I can catch up on all the stuff that doesn't get done while I'm at work

SAHPS don't do half of what you do, pip. They don't do half of what I do. There are the same numbers of hours in the day of a WOHP and a SAHP.

sm, in my utopia the government would pay a living wage to SAHP to bring up their children, more men would choose to stay at home and workplace inequality would disappear.

Why would there need to be any more external inspections than there already are?

As a disclaimer, I know that this will never happen in the UK. I just think it should.