Do some mums just not like working?

[Dragontooth]

I know this sounds awful, and judgey but I'm trying to understand. I am not a benefit basher and I used to be on benefits, also a single parent.
I'm on a lot of 'being skint' forums, I was on UC but now I have quite a lot of experience in various things so I like to try to help.
There are a number of mums who were previously on legacy benefits who are terrified by UC and the work search appointments. Lots who are unemployed and some who do very part time jobs, 10 hours or less.
I don't understand why they are so resistant to finding work or better paid work. Having been on benefits, it is a horrible existence. I was paid £850 per month. Clearly it would only take a MW part time job to make me so much better off. And they pay for childcare/ holiday club.
It literally changes your life. You can pay for things to have a better, easier life like driving lessons. Not only that but you are back in the work place so it's not such a shock when your children leave home.
I feel these women are so anxious, they can't see how their lives could look with more money/ options. Not only that but a lot of them have their heads in the sand about retirement, will we even get a state pension? Then there's the fact that it's so much harder getting back into employment after five or ten years out, I think that's what UC wants to avoid. I'm not saying it's a kind or person centred system but in reality is taking years out of the workplace really in these women's best interests either?
Disability/ disabled children obviously excluded.

High earners - and out of them, they're paying barely anything because so few people don't work. It makes up less than 1% of the welfare bill.

It's such a small amount of our welfare bill it's almost not worth discussing it - yet it's all anyone focuses on

Unemployment benefit is over a billion a year.

Great idea no jobs for anyone- take a flask - very sociable I am sure. Personally I think a lot of anxiety and mental health problems are already exacerbated by being in the home.

I think most people wouldn't want to work, unless you love your job and it's a positive thing in your life. If you asked anyone if they won a big lottery, would they continue to be a slave to the grind? Most if not all will say no, even if they have worked their way up and are an expert in their field.

Being a SAHM was the norm and still is in many cultures. Now roles have changed and there is an expectancy for women to work as well but they have been enabled with benefits, especially SMs, but with the system changing it can't be expected to get a council and UC without contesting now.

With the development of online technology, the process of benefits is more demanding, with the aim to ensure those living off them are genuine and check on efforts to look for work, as it is there as a buffer, not a permanent source of income. This of course doesn't apply to disabled.

Hence, the question you asked, the answer has always been, no some people don't want to work and have lived in a circle of generations on benefit. This was easier for them but not for younger generations do perhaps that's why it's become more apparent to all, rather than just the groups they stayed in.

I can understand how stressful must be and these young people who haven't achieved a good education being forced to be accountable. There are a lot of funded courses to help with confidence, parenting etc, ehich really can help.

Than there really just are a minority who feel entitled and lie.

There’s a difference between winning the lottery and being a SAHM though. Some wouldn’t work if they won the lottery but would rather work than be a SAHM.

Winning the lottery also means financial independence which often isn’t the case as a SAHM.

Yes, sorry, went off at a bit of a tangent! Both parents working full time is difficult and the costs of childcare high so many go back part time, some choose to be a SAHM. It all depends on personal circumstances. I think many of us are torn; yes the idea of not having to get up extra early, drop DC off at nursery is bliss, whereas getting out of the baby environment and being amongst colleagues and using your brain is more desired. Xx

I just find it odd that some people are fine with their tax paying towards someone else to hire a childminder etc but those same people have an issue with helping parents do it themselves. Just cut out the middle man and let parents look after their own children until no childcare is needed

that's ridiculous. And potentially spans years and years. I had children in primary school for about 14 years and they're reasonably close in age.

And as a single parent who claimed a small fortune in tax credits, DLA etc but who managed to work full time with an absence of support (practical or financial) from the ex and no family support (no siblings, parents long gone), I take absolute exception to people not pulling their weight. For a good number of years, I probably received way more in tax credits than I paid out in tax and NI but that hasn't always been the case as I managed to progress my career as my children got older. I would have loved to look after them myself - but the absolute right thing to do was to work and support my kids as best I could. Now I have some pension on top of what I hope to receive as a state pension and most importantly, I have teens who, having seem me work hard (and their father do fuck all) have a work ethic and are excelling in jobs whilst studying. I am desperately proud of them and everything we have acheived together, despite the difficulties of the early years and the bitterness about the ex's lack of contribution that we all carry.

I will happily pay a childminder or nursery to help someone work. It is not fair that people like me sacrifice our time with our families in the workplace whilst others make no contribution when their health and circumstances are such that they are able to do so. Indeed, paying a childminder or nursery means they too pay tax and NI and make an absolutely essential contribution to society by way of their job.

I would never vote Tory but fucking hell, expecting to just not work for years and years and be supported to do so because you managed to have a few children is beyond ridiculous. You want children, support them. Get out and work. If your work doesn't bring in enough, then claim what you're entitled to - that I would never begrudge - but you can't just do nothing and expect people to be happy about it.

Yes but as a comparison, state pensions cost £111 billion a year. As a percentage of the welfare bill, unemployment is so tiny (under 1%) it's not worth discussing

I think most 'people' would prefer to not work.... surely?

But needs must, keep going!

@notbelieved

Raising children isn't doing nothing. It's a shame that being at home with your own children has been reduced to doing nothing by you and others.

And yet thousands of working parents manage to raise their children as well as working.

Stay at home - I did myself when I had a husband - but don’t expect anyone else to pay you to do that. Especially when they’re missing out on time with their own kids,

Yeah, unfortunately the country is looking for ways to raise cash, not spend it.

No, you're right, you said you wanted to be the one raising them. You talked about outsourcing it.

Totally different.

Glad you can see it's very different.

Childminders, nanny's, nursery workers etc become very familiar to children so I'd never describe it as 'being raised by strangers'. My own child was in childcare until I became a SAHM, I wasn't unhappy with the quality of care, I just hated missing things and all the added rushing, stress etc.

And yet thousands of working parents manage to raise their children as well as working.

They do raise their own kids, but they will in general spend less time with their children so gave less input.

Stay at home - I did myself when I had a husband - but don’t expect anyone else to pay you to do that. Especially when they’re missing out on time with their own kids,

I did stay at home, after initially going back for a while. Ive already said that we supported ourselves through my partners income, savings and properties we owned and rented.

I just believe there is value in a child having a parent at home if they wish and I support parents who choose to do that...or who choose to work.

Being a SAHM was only the norm for the well off. Nobody in my family has ever been one, not my grandmother nor great grandmother.

It depends what not working means. A massive lottery win? Maybe. Staying at home with children and relying on someone else financially? No thanks.

My visa doesn’t allow work. We were only meant to be here in America a few years while my husband studied for PhD, but we’ve ended up being here 20 years. At no point have I had a work visa as I am just a spouse on his visa. I also developed severe mental health issues over the years which have left me really struggling with the idea of returning to work. Staying alive is taking up a lot of my physical and mental energy right now. It’s complicated.

You're assuming that these women actively care for and raise their children. As was said previously in this thread, the reason that the unemployed get childcare is for the benefit of their children - i.e. to get them away from their parents and into 'normal' society.

Most of us don't like that aspect of working while raising children.

Do you suggest all families have one parent stop working? So a massive part of the workforce just ceases to go in? What would that do to society? Who would fund it?

The country would grind to a halt.

Most of us don't like that aspect of working while raising children.

Do you suggest all families have one parent stop working?

No, that's not what I've suggested at all if you actually read my posts.

Exactly this. I have always worked FT (and more) as a single parent because I had to support myself/my child. Not always in well paid work. That was my choice

Lifeofthepartay · 10/09/2024 21:22
When you say "they pay for childcare" who are they? A lot of people making MW will not get childcare paid for if they have a live in partner. A lot of people just don't want to work even if they are in theory better off, because working full time comes with so much stress and expense of arranging childcare, while being stressed with work as well, these people get much more help than just the payment they get for not working (UC or tax credits or whatever is called these days), they get help with uniforms, school meals (even during school holidays- they get vouchers) if there is any discretionary funding in schools this goes to low income families (this means free outings, trips), if there are any council or federal government t grants these will invariably go to low income families too. I honestly think I if you are in less than £25k a year it makes little sense to work if you have 2 or more kids. Yeah, the pension thing is another issue but guess what? People that have nothing (no house to their name, no savings and no private pension) because they got by on working 8 hours a week and being "topped up" are the ones that will get help in the future too, they will get government pensions, council houses, and free care in their elderly years and help with fuel payments, whilst anyone currently working 40 hours a week on a 30k + job and scraping by because we have to pay into our private pensions, student loans and pay for our ridiculous mortgages will get nothing, no government pensions , no help, and they will make us sell our houses to pay for our own care.

Couldn’t have put it better myself 👏🏼

In my experience, it’s really not in education btw! Not to be argumentative - just providing some balance and positivity.

I have had conversations with colleagues and such who share my view that some children can really benefit from an attentive parent at home (IF possible and IF desired by the parent) - in the Early Years I’ll add, in my view at least. They are a critical period. Of course for other children, nursery will be the best place for them. Whatever works best for your family.

@HappenstanceMarmite I have worked for a number of years pt on around £1500 per month. I have three kids. My husband earns just slightly more than that figure.
For me, personally, I chose to work because I feel it is my duty as a mother to provide financially for my children. It is not solely the responsibility of my husband, nor is it the responsibility of the state. I chose to have them!

@PrettyAsAVine Yes because by staying in work you contribute to society as well. It costs for a childminder than to fund someone's whole life/housing etc and then fund them while they struggle to get back into the workforce. The childminder is also paying taxes etc and earning which enables them to contribute to society. By staying in the workforce you have the chance to climb the ladder and better yourself. 20 years ago ago I need tax payer help towards childcare as a lone parent. Within 10 years I didn't need that any more and now pay in more than I get back. I've also built up a pension etc, thus easing the burden on the tax payer when I retire. I'm healthy, my kids are healthy without additional needs. There is absolutely no need for the state to subsidise me sitting at home being lazy and expecting handouts for doing nothing. You also missed my point about setting a good example for children and raising them to work hard and be self sufficient and have some bloody pride in themselves.