Would you be a SAHP to pre-schoolers if you were financially independent?

[Kitchenette]

Not super-rich but say you had enough capital to pay yourself an income for life equal to your full time earnings.

I’m always interested in SAHP threads on here and the various very reasonable objections people raise to it- that you’re making yourself vulnerable financially while also putting too great a strain on the paid working partner. But say we took money out of it- would you prefer to stay at home or go to work? For the purposes of the poll it’s a binary choice (of course IRL the best answer for many of us would be to work PT).

YABU- I would prefer to be in paid employment
YANBU- I would prefer to be a SAHP

Me- I’ve had periods of SAHM, FT and PT work since my children were born. Binary choice with pre-school children and no money worries-I’d be at home, no question.

@Botw1 if there is evidences that this kind of set up in the early years is what is best for the children to flourish should the government not help parents make the choice that is best for the children?

@motherofqilins

Is there evidence that mums not working is the ideal?

Im sure there's evidence that working less is better for everyone

Do you support a universal income?

@Botw1 this is in response to your response to the pp who did I assume did give a good reason if it is true children flourish best.

Every parent does what they see as working best for their family but it would be nice if parents were supported in making a decision that is best for them.

As for your question about universal income. That is not the issue here on this thread. We are discussing if the government should be supporting families to make a choice that is best for the development of the children.

@motherofqilins

My original question that they responded to was why should the govt fund women not to work.

Pp suggested having a parent a home in the early years allowed children to 'flourish' (whatever that means)

So they didn't actually answer my question.

The research would have to be very conclusive for me to agree funding parents not to work as a lifestyle choice was the right use of public money

The potential negative effects would have to be massively outweighed by the alleged benefits

It’s a complete no brainier for me. I loved being a sahm when my kids were small and feel very fortunate that we could afford it.

I suppose I wasn’t technically financially independent it never felt like that as I took care of all of our finances and still do even though dh earns significantly more than I do. It was also great to have lots of time for my hobbies and to see friends.

That being said, I don't regret going back to work now the kids are older. We could comfortably afford for me to stay home (I often think dh would prefer it) but it’s not the same now the kids are constantly busy with school/clubs/friends. Work gave me a brand new focus at a time when my family life was changing.

Yes. I was a SAHM for 7 years and it was wonderful. However, I really didn't see the point in continuing when both children were in school. I also got really bored and was desperate to get back to work after those 7 years.

For those asking for research for outcomes of children with SAHPs in the early years (most of the research focuses on SAHMs for obvious reasons), there is plenty. Google is your friend. Here are a couple of links.

www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/675070

www.babygaga.com/studies-show-babies-of-stay-at-home-moms-think-differently/

To the pp who said I hadn't answered the question about why the government should fund women to stay home with their children, I don't believe they should. I believe, as I previously stated, they should allocate flexible funding per child under 5 which could be used to enable a parent to stay home, as well as for paid childcare.

Personally I believe that it is best for a child to be at home with a primary caregiver who is happy (and this is crucial!) to be a SAHP. Obviously if you are bored and miserable as a SAHP then it's better to go out to work, and clearly many can't afford it either, which I completely understand.

@TrinaLowsln the second link you provided says...

"However, a recent study conducted by Harvard involving more than 100,000 children in 29 countries discovered that children of working moms tended to be more well-adjusted than those whose mothers stayed at home."

I don't think the research is conclusive in either direction TBH certainly not enough to justify government subsidy of SAHMs

@TrinaLowsln

Your first link seems to be pay per view of a1998 study about older kids ad your second is an opinion piece which states it doesn't prove having a sahp is better?

@Botw1 it did mention that if there was a stah parent in the very early years (i assume 1-3) that the child would find the transition of the parent returning to work easier.

@motherofqilins

So?

That stilll doesn't say having a sahp is better

And anyway you can have a parent at home and both parents work.

@Botw1 of course both parents can work like I said o assume each family does what works best for them. That does not negate there is evidence that there are some benefits for the child big or small (even if it is just that the adapt to the change of being in full time care faster or feel more secure)

And there are benefits of having their mother work.

@KievsOutTheOven I am sure there are which is why I said different set ups work for different families.

@motherofqilins

Some benefits big or small is not the same as better.

No, I didn’t want to. And it wouldn’t have been better for me or my child, so I didn’t. Happy days.

The first one you need to sign up to see the full study. The 2nd one has contradictions.

I don’t think if a sahm is happy it’s better either. Many maybe happy, that doesn’t mean they are good or capable parents. That goes working parents too.

These studies are almost impossible to do. Because there’s too many variables. Quality of parenting is subjective. It’s also subjective to each child. Many families have one child that thrives and one that doesn’t, even if there is no clear reason why. Kids are individuals. Parenting is best adopted to meet the child. Which isn’t easy to do whilst still remaining ‘fair’ to all children in the household. Parenting each child slightly differently can cause childhood resentment that goes into adulthood. Income also impacts outcomes, but also how much disposable income. Then there’s the level and quality of input towards the children that will also impact the outcome. On top of that there’s the extended family and friends that could hugely impact outcomes. Wether there’s a trauma at a young age, through no fault of anyone involved. The list goes on.

That’s why I ask to see the research. Because the claim that it’s better for one parent to be at home, doesn’t have any more basis than me saying ‘ children have a better outcome if both parents work’. It’s an opinion. And neither side can prove it as factual.

I worked. One of my kids an adult and fantastic. She has had many challenges, including with her sexuality (another factor to consider - challenges no one causes) and grown into a fantastic young woman who I admire greatly. That’s not because I worked. It may not be down to much I did at all or it might have loads to do with me. Who knows what the outcome may have been I do I made different choices. Could be worse, could be better.

I don’t see the issue with simply saying ‘I chose to do x, it suited us best at the time’. It’s when either side starts putting in ‘I chose do x because it’s a fact that x is better for children’ it becomes a problem because it’s not factual and can’t be proven either way.