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”.

Yep.

And you are perfectly entitled to hold that view.

Whether or not a party proposing to scrap subsidised childcare door working parents is ever likely to get elected is a different matter.

You are still acting as though childcare = serious long term damage to children. The evidence suggests this is not the case.

No, I'm not doing that at all! Where on earth are you getting that from?

ETA: And what does it have to do with my comment, anyway?

why is it your husband’s tax that is paying it rather than the individual’s own tax? How about seeing it as a cost for someone to go out to work and pay taxes and so they get a rebate on their taxes to cover some of their childcare costs.

Pre school is different to paid childcare for babies 9 months old.

Which is something no one mentioned.

Wrap your own presents 😂well done.

What? Of course she isn't!

How come I never got one? I worked and paid your childcare. If you want to be so pedantic.

She looks after her own children too. Something you seem to take offence at.

Childcare subsidies to working parents help to support parents back into employment. So they support the production of value through that employment as well as the tax revenue generated by the worker. The parent being in employment also supports their long term employability, and possibly pension savings etc. Then there is the employment that is created for the childcare workers, who will also pay tax on their earnings, save for pensions, potentially claim fewer benefits etc. Plus employer NI contributions for both workers as well.

If you give the same amount of money to a SAHP, it may result in some money found back to the exchequer through VAT on spending etc. Arguably the SAHP might invest it in pensions as well, though without a matched employer contribution. But the value generated by the funding simply isn't comparable.

So yes, it would be an extra cost. Which might be entirely justiable if there was solid evidence that having a SAHP really is better for children. But the evidence isn't there, despite substantial research. So it is difficult to see how the cost to the taxpayer could be justified.

I guess there might be a case to argue that parents who are unhappy working gave poor mental health, which subsequently costs the NHS and that their poor mental health has a negative impact on their kids. However, you would need to be able to establish a solid evidence base for this which probably doesn't exist at present. Plus you'd also have to consider the impact on mental wellbeing for those forced into being SAHPs because the current level of subsidies still don't make childcare affordable. So it could get very expensive if the state needed to start paying for everything that people might want, and then I guess it would have to come back to a cost benefit analysis and how much tax the electorate might be willing to stomach.

I find it more concerning that I know people who pay someone to do this- how lazy can you get, seriously?!

"Worshipping of money" 😂.

Everything comes down to money. That's life. How else are people able to stay at home to look after their kids if they don't have someone else to pay to keep a roof over their heads?

And another part of life is your taxes paying for things you don't agree with. You're perfectly entitled to move to a country where they don't have state funded childcare.

It's VERY unlikely a party is going to be elected with policy to take away funded childcare so it's pointless arguing over it anyway.

Yes, well lots of people with jobs are busier and have more money than you. Nice that people have the choice to outsource the things they don't really enjoy so they can focus on their passions isnt it?

Nothing lazy about it - I pay for high quality services and that includes things like presents I buy are wrapped. I’m short of time and also rubbish at present wrapping.

You can recognise you need enough of something to get by, without worshipping it. It's like the difference between understanding that you need to eat and having a healthy, pleasant diet, and gorging yourself at buffets endlessly, never satisfied with what you already have.

Never read most of it. I managed fine on a part time wage with zero govt subsidies. No free childcare as it wasn't available. Though working at the time in Early Years if I had to pay for it, it would have been to a Childminder. But £££££ is your thing.

I'd happily pay someone to wrap my presents for me! Saves me a job and someone else can get a wee bit of side cash from it. Win win all round i see!

No, but if you're going to talk about models that you'd like society to adopt, then the logical next step is to consider whether the majority of people are likely to support your preferred model.

We did not ever benefit directly from state subsidised childcare. However, as a taxpayer, I am happy to contribute to this as I see it as a net economic benefit for the country as a whole. I wouldn't be happy to contribute the same costs to subsidise SAHPs as I think the benefits to families having SAHPs are primarily individual/for the couple and not for wider society as a whole.

I can tell who the posters are who would've had servants, back in the old days 😅

None of that really addresses the points that I was making.

Wrapping presents is a thing to be outsourced? I have heard it all now. Wrapping fooking presents 😂

I think these people exist in a wholly different world to me. Paying people to wrap presents? I still save wrapping paper like my Nan did and reuse it (for presents, or crafts)!

Lol