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?

FFS there are lots of idiot tories here.

1. Having children IS a job- if I don't look after my children, the state has to pay someone to do it (a foster carer, an orphanage, etc), and if I don't do it full time, again the state pays 70% of someone doing it for me (childminder, nursery, nanny, whatever). If it wasn't a job, those people would do it for free. The genetic similarity between people doesn't make something less work- or are you saying carers don't work if they care for people they're related to?
2. Having children isn't a choice for everyone. Haven't you ever heard of unplanned pregnancy or rape? Do you want forced abortions on people in those circumstances? Are you really that psychotic?
3. Having children isn't 'a lifestyle'- do you think a woman living on a shit council estate having been beaten up by her ex-partner has the same lifestyle as Madonna? WTF? Get a grip.

Yes, I think parents should be paid if they are looking after their children full-time. In fact I think this should be part of a citizens income, as proposed by the Green Party and the SNP, which is a more practical and less wasteful form of welfare state than the current system.

Also wtf at people wouldn't work if they weren't 'forced'? Anyone can go on the dole, you know, but most people want to get off it. Most people want to work. This would merely be recognition that SAHPs are working too. Which they are- and indeed there is evidence that for children under three, a SAHP is better than nursery. I say this as someone who has worked while having young children, so if I can admit it was what I wanted to do rather than me being some kind of Economic Activity Superhero, then so can all you fuckers.

Wibbly, the state doesn't pay 70% of childcare costs for all working families. Get your facts right.

I work to fund my own family. Why should I work to fund your choice to stay at home?

Oh, and I am not a Tory.

Wibbly - Agree, agree, agree. Why is childcare only a job when anyone who isn't the parent does it? (rhetorical - we know why domestic labour is unrecognised) Foster parents get paid for doing the exact same job. Big prob with Wages for Housework because it means biology is (economic) destiny for women

^1. Having children IS a job- if I don't look after my children, the state has to pay someone to do it (a foster carer, an orphanage, etc), and if I don't do it full time, again the state pays 70% of someone doing it for me (childminder, nursery, nanny, whatever). If it wasn't a job, those people would do it for free. The genetic similarity between people doesn't make something less work- or are you saying carers don't work if they care for people they're related to?

1. Having children isn't a choice for everyone. Haven't you ever heard of unplanned pregnancy or rape? Do you want forced abortions on people in those circumstances? Are you really that psychotic?^

Applauds Wibbly

I would also like to say for all those who see rasing another human life as "doing nothing" I imagine you extend your logic to childminders, nursery workers and just about anyone else in childcare.

The difference is that some adults choose to raise children.

People who work as cleaners and childminders and offering their services to other people in return for payment. That's what a job is. Doing something that someone else wants you to do and is willing to pay you for.

Has anyone said it is 'doing nothing'? I doubt it.

Yes someone said futher up

^"I am totally against rewarding people for doing nothing."

Oh ffs its nothing to do with being a Tory. And the issue of why childcare isn't a job unless it's outsourced elsewhere has been covered in detail.

To sum Up: if I want to become a childminder, I have to meet certain standards, get myself registered and be good enough at it to attract and retain customers. If I want to work in a nursery, I have to train, be good enough to get a job and then meet certain standards. If I stay at home, I can churn out as many children as I like and bring them up with high quality care or badly- and people are seriously suggesting I should be paid for this??! By other parents who may be doing a better job of parenting AND holding down a job too? Ha ha ha ha ha

People know what a job is.I have worked with children for over a decade so Im quite clued up.

Its the issue of caring for children is "doing nothing" that makes me cross.

Especially as someone who has cared for children in both paid roles and as a parent

Of course it isn't 'doing nothing'.

However most parents would not want the state to step in - they would choose to do it themselves. The state taking over parenting is not the default position. That is why it is a 'job' when they do it, not when a parent does it.

Raising a human life isn't doing nothing.
That doesn't automatically mean the govt should pay people for it!

Two entirely separate issues

As for the argument that 'if the parents don't care for the child then the state will' - well, I suppose that might hold water for people who have no sense of responsibility whatsoever. Yeap, if I have kids and abandon them, the state has to pay to take them into care. And the point is? Some kind of warped blackmail: 'if I don't look after my kids then tough shit, you tax payers , I'll stick them in a home and then you'll have to!"
Erm....nice mindset [nice]

Ok ... so you get paid.

But you then have to stick to the government rules just as you would if you were in paid employment. They would be able to tell you what to do, expect standards, annual reviews, meetings etc.

Oh and they could probably limit how many children you had.

And presumably there would only be so much time in the year you would not be in sole charge of them.

Because a 'job' is not defined by the fact it takes 'work'-that's true of being a champion clogwearing pole vaulter, it's defined by the fact the employee tends to do something for someone elses's benefit that they wouldn't otherwise do. Foster parents are not paid, either, they are typically given expenses to cover the additional costs of children not their own.

I really think in some ways you have to move beyond 'work' in its loosest sense, since this is neither employment nor a hobby but something in between, something that all parents do and that is intellectually and physically demanding, but that some parents choose to do personally. A lot of working parents who feel that continued recognised economic activity outside the home is the best choice not only for them but for their children, who have the same responsibilities, would in effect be being asked to pay people for making different parenting choices. The only justification for this would be to tell them they are substandard parents. I'd rather ask what it is that damages SAHPs, and how if at all it could be changed.

What I find especially odd is that the OP wants the government to pay, but I've yet to meet any SAHP willing to make their own partner see it as 'employment' (it's all 'he supports me') or a contribution to his income.

Government can of course basically state that a two-parent partnership with one at home is ideal, it makes all kinds of moral choices. It's just I'm not wild about a bunch of old Etonians telling the caring classes how valuable they are by giving them a small top-up to their income, just enough to show you care, just enough to 'value', but not enough to enable them to kick your kids off the Etonian waiting list, or even to fuck with a system which says Old Etonian=PM; woman from Malborough=ornamantal womb (and her sister's arse is nice too).

Adela

I have not once said the goverment should pay. Most posters can recognise Im a neutral and this is a debate (the op is very clear),one of which I can see both sides of the argument ; but am not commited to either.

Fabulous post adela

woman from Malborough=ornamantal womb (and her sister's arse is nice too).

Huh?

Coco,

I think we're talking about Kate and Pippa Middleton.

COCO-
You have taken the "doing nothing" comment out of context. I didn't mean doing nothing at all. I meant doing nothing to help themselves to build the life they want, which of course involves getting a job. The full quote is here:

"Orm-
"if it really is impossible to go out to work because there is no afforable childcare, and a parent is being forced to stay at home,"

I agree that's a problem, but disagree that throwing more money at the problem is a good idea. Affordable childcare is a problem that should be dealt with. For example, tax deductible childcare and I mean all of it and not the cap that now exists on childcare vouchers would be a good start.

Then more people who want to work could. I am all for helping people who want to help themselves but can't. I am totally against rewarding people for doing nothing."

Wibbly-
"and indeed there is evidence that for children under three, a SAHP is better than nursery"

This is not true. Some studies support your claim. Others refute itIt is my view that being a WOHM is just as good for my children, even better, than a SAHP is for his/hers.

Hmm.... not convinced,sorry

I actually feel really sorry for any parent who thinks that caring for their own children is the same as providing paid childcare for someone else's children. Surely the love that you have fir your own kids makes it entirely different altogether. I don't deny that there is work involved, but it is a labour of love, and therefore quite different from a job.

Which part of whose post confused you?

Interesting strix - I hadn't realised that issue of 'doing nothing ' had been carefully taken out of context.

As for the 'evidence' that having a sahp is 'better ' than nursery- agree strix that there is no conclusive evidence, just a range of different views , and people who try to claim there IS conclusive evidence one way or the other are just insecure in themselves and cant cope with the fact that the whole world does not agree with them.

Why?

I have worked with children for over a decade. Was it the high pay and glamour that attracted me?

No it was the love and care I felt for these children. Of course I dont love them as my dc, but there are many children that will always hold a special place in my heart. Thats why people do caring jobs!

WibblyBibble

1. Yes, I agree, it a worthwhile job. But apart from child benefit, the government should not be paying for people to bring up their children. Yes, unless you are well-off, you have to make sacrifices for children, and it is a financial strain, but I do not think a salary from the government is the answer. Some people would just have child after child, for a continuous salary. Your comment - If I dont look after children state would have to, is utterly parasitic, and depressing. Family and friends do look after children and help out for free. Its when its other people children, that money comes into it.

1. I agree having a baby is not always a choice, but keeping the child is a choice (whether by adoption or abortion).

1. Re having children isn't 'a lifestyle'. My mother spent part of her childhood in a council house, and was not unhappy. You do not need money for a 'lifestyle'. We live in N Wales and usually take children to park, woodland walk, paddle in river - anything that is free at weekend! Camping holidays, gifted clothes and books, second hand pushchair etc. We are working class, in that we both work.

No, I do not think parents should be paid for looking after their children full-time. It would be crippling.

We need to reduce the expenditure of the government, not increase it.

Cocoflower - if the government isnt going to pay SAHM's a salary - who the hell do you propose would do so?

Can't believe this thread is still running. OP states that she is neutral, on the fence, but is clearly not since despite hundreds and hundreds of post that say "no", OP is till coming back with questions, arguments, rhetoric, and indignation.

I posted earlier that the OP can not sit on the fence, there is no fence. i.e. this is a hypothetical proposition (suggested by the OP). It's not a fence, it's not even a debate, it's a pile of rubbish (or a journo doing research, or someone trying to wind people up).

Underneath all this, there is an interesting question abut how do we better value parenting. But this thread is not it.