Are stay at home mums “unemployed”

[Protectmydaughter]

I only ask as my daughter is getting divorced and her husband’s lawyer has referred to her as unemployed rather than acknowledge her homemaking role; this feels so belittling. Are we being over sensitive? What do others think?

I mean there are nicer ways to phrase it and I'm not saying being a SAHM isn't hard work (I absolutely could not do it), but the basic dictionary definition is 'not employed'.

Omg - no you don’t! Someone else is picking up the job of having the kids during the day (unless they are all at school and you do all school runs?)

This! The amount saved on childcare and the fact that the wage earner can take up more opportunities in work is valuable

I think the definition of unemployed is to be looking for work.

I guess taking the childfee comment she could be employment-free

I wouldn't personally use the term "unemployed" for a mum that was at home with small children, but I think it's probably fair enough once the kids are at school.

I guess it also depends a bit on whether the decision for her to SAH was a mutual one. If her ex never really agreed with her being at home, then I guess from his perspective, she would be unemployed. If they agreed between them that that's how they wanted to split things, then there wouldn't be any expectation on his part that she should be looking for work.

It’s classed as home maker. The money saved on no nursery / childminders for 3 kids as was my household was more than my previous income

She could change it to retired! (Early retirement!)

If I remember the form the "not working" box had various options. It was something like -
Home responsibilities (ie SAHP/Homemaker).
Retired.
Medical/Disability Reasons.
Which are all "not working" but different.
If that makes sense.

Surely that depends on how much the SAHP would have earned by staying in work?

It wouldn't have been valuable for me to SAH because my earnings were significantly more than the cost of our nanny and DH and I were both able to work flexibly enough around each other to be able to take opportunities in work that came up.

The situation is going to be different for every family, but the value of having a SAHP will depend on what opportunities they would be giving up in order to do that. For low earners, it is often cost effective to stay at home. For high earners, it tends to be much more expensive to stay at home. We have no idea what the situation was with the OP's dd, of course.

Surely it depends on whether there are children, and if so what age they are? If a mother is full time looking after pre-school children then no she’s not unemployed. If she had a job then the household would need to pay for someone else to do that

Well technically if someone is not in paid employment or earning money through self employment the yes, they are “not employed”

That doesn’t mean they are not active or lazy, they could be:
volunteering in charities
studying
raising children and looking after the home
sick and unable to work
disabled and unable to work
seeking work at that point

They are contributing financially. At minimum, SAHP 'earn' for the family the cost of the childcare they would otherwise need. How much that is depends on the age of the child(ren).

Just because society can't recognise any work that isn't compensated with money coming in (as opposed to preventing it from leaving) doesn't mean you have to be equally as ignorant.

She is absolutely ‘unemployed’. I think the only reason you’re viewing it as you are is because of societies negative connotations with unemployment. She hasn’t got a job, no one is ‘employing’ her so she’s unemployed. A homemaker, housewife, stay at home parent isn’t a job.

Yes. She is obviously not in paid work.

I have been a SAHM and have no problem saying I was unemployed. I was not employed by anyone. Was I busy? Hell yes! Is it a tough gig? Hell yes! But was I employed? No.

She isn't employed by anyone so is therefore unemployed. It doesn't mean she isn't doing anything all day.

If you aren't employed then you're unemployed. Though I do think it applies to those more with school aged children.

"Unemployed" and "Not in paid employment" are different things.
They really are.

Yes unemployed in my eyes.

In that case, they are also losing the family money if they were to earn more than half of childcare fees due to giving up their salary, earning potential, career progression, pension etc.

This is going to be a juicy read !!

I don’t think an economist’s definition of unemployed is particularly relevant to the lawyer’s phrasing. The lawyer was using that word to convey that she isn’t employed (either by an employer or self-employed), which is accurate.

I think you are being over sensitive. Why does she need her ‘honemaking role’ acknowledged by a lawyer? I wouldn’t care what I was referred to as. I’m unemployed, a carer, a homemaker and disabled - people can take their pick I’m not fussed

Maybe she could counter it by selling a drawing to a friend and claiming she is self employed as an artist.

Of course they're unemployed. They don't have an employer unless their children are paying for their care.

Nobody is saying being a stay at home parent isn't hard work. But it's not a job.