AIBU to think staying at home with children is undervalued?

[Amby99]

I’m not ignorant of the fact that staying at home isn’t financially possible or desirable for everyone, and I don’t think children who go to nursery are disadvantaged whatsoever . There are brilliant nurseries, brilliant working mums, and plenty of happy, healthy children being raised that way (and fulfilled and happy mothers)
However, I do wonder whether society (or the government) has become so focused on measuring “productivity” through paid employment that we’ve started to undervalue the work involved in raising a child.
Badenoch saying that the government doesn’t want to “punish working parents” in relation to childcare costs … it made me wonder why being a SAHM is so rarely viewed as valuable or productive in its own right.
Preparing my baby’s first solids, BF him, reading, playing, taking him outside, talking to him, letting him explore and generally being available. It feels like important work, yet because it isn’t paid it often seems invisible.
There are of course many advantages to nursery, and that work can be important for a mother’s identity, finances, career and mental health.
But why does the conversation seem to focus so heavily on encouraging parents back into paid employment, while choosing to provide that childcare yourself is rarely encouraged or valued in the same way? I’m not talking about mothers that sit at home all day feeding their child McDonald’s and claiming every benefit under the sun. I get why they may be encouraged back into the workforce and their children would be better off at nursery. BUT I’m sick of having to feel guilty of my choice to stay home. Every parent I know who was a parent in the 90’s stayed at home and it wasn’t so frowned upon.

I just think it should be seen as a worthwhile and valuable choice rather than something that needs to be justified because you’re “not working”.

But I agree with her, though I'm in the minority. If, instead of free childcare hours being given to a nursery or childminder, they could be given to a parent. Mum or Dad, then there would be that choice.

I don’t

There are lots of reasons why society should not make returning to work financially disadvantageous for women.

Those same reasons do not translate into paying women who want to stay at home to do so.

Beyond that, I believe everyone should have the choice and I believe everyone should do what works for their family/themselves as individuals.

A thought that just occurred to me, so not fully thought through yet - but additionally, why couldn't people use the free childcare hours to pay a grandparent to do childcare? The grandparent might reasonably want financial remuneration to make taking on the work and responsibility worthwhile, and who better to look after a child than their own grandparent? Especially with nurseries (apparently) being so crowded these days.

this costs a lot more though.

The exact same amount of money given to a parent to choose, doesn't cost more.

Agree 😊

How will taxpayers benefit from that?

It does. If the money goes to the childcare settings some of it will go back to the government in payroll taxes relating to the employees at the settings or corporate income tax from company profits.

My husband, who is a tax payer, receives no benefits, and has already made personal financial sacrifices supporting me to stay at home, would benefit from his share staying with me rather than supporting another family who already have 2 incomes, and a much higher combined annual income than his!

The children will benefit.

And the parent isn’t generating any money or using the childcare funding to keep a job which you gamble on them staying in and thus continuing to generate tax/growth long after childcare is over.

I disagree with state support for family choice regarding getting paid to look after your own children.

Children don’t not benefit from having two working parents

It's money over the future tax payers every single time. The worship of money on here is horrendous.

££££

100% agree. So happy I’m raising my children to be as anti-materialistic as me. Strong values being modelled daily!

Tax payers benefit more from two working parents in a family v one

Again, that comes down to the question of evidence. What is the evidence that shows the added value of having a SAHP which would justify the additional cost to the taxpayer?

Genuinely, why should my husband pay tax for kids of dual higher earner couples to attend nursery/a childminder for free? We don’t use any of that stuff. Pay for it yourselves with all your money! It’s a damned cheek!

I disagree with state support to people who have children and want money for other people to watch them all day.

Not only that, but parents with more money will inevitably spend it - on local businesses, activities for the children, and bills. So presumably the money would still go back into the economy?

££££

What added cost? The tax payer is paying nurseries.

The evidence is not clear cut. It depends largely on the quality of the childcare and how long they spend in it. Studies focused largely on “stress” in young children, but often this was linked to centre based childcare (vs eg a childminder or a nursery with good ratios etc). Arguably also the quality of care the stay at home parent provides (one of the reasons preschool is offered to everyone for early years provision).

She’ll be wanting taxpayers to fund her cleaners, gardeners and window cleaners next! Either do what I do, which is look after my own kids, clean my own house, do my own gardening, wash my own car, clean my own windows, wrap my own presents, or yes, you should jolly well pay for somebody else to do it yourself! People are beyond entitled and cheeky!

It really is. I don't understand it, myself.