Incentives for SAHMs - anyone read Fiona Phillips today?

[bohemianbint]

Link here

I think if you can get past the slightly guilt-inducing title, what she is basically saying is quite interesting. It's the first thing I've read in a while that doesn't write SAHMs off as useless bovine idiots.

Obviously don't want to start the old fight of working vs sahm, but what do we think about some kind of incentive for mums to stay at home?

FWIW I have recently become a SAHM by accident after stupid sexist boss forced me out of my job - I am taking him to a tribunal. I am looking for work but am pregnant so not sure how that'll go down with potential employers! I'd like to work PT ideally but I feel really under pressure from everyone around me to get a job and stop being a "boring" SAHM.

Ahhh, Gotcha now.

Crikey, am agreeing with madamez again.

If I'm not careful the fundy-police will be after my membership card...

why should someone be paid receive financial renumeration to stay at home with their own children?it is a private personal choice, but not one the state should financially reward

i work FT receive absolutely no state benefits - so why should someone be paid to be at home with the kids. latte money most probably

SAHM

• No statutory minimum standards
• No Governing regulatory body
• No appraoisakls/reviews to be attained
• Does not geneate additonal wealth/capital input to economy

-Personal choice

ScottishMummy - I expect your post will provoke uproar with some - but I can see your point. That's what I meant when I said the original article doesn't EXPLAIN why some people should be paid to stay at home. Who pays them? How does it work? Why stop at parents of young children? If staying at home is maybe what the parent wants, and not necessarily for the benefit of the child, then how do we justify it? Why not pay anyone who feels they would rather be at home than out working?
There are just too many questions here that the article doesnt address.

ITG you do have a point. I believe there is something called a 'carers allowance'for people who are looking after a sick/dying adult but it's not well administered (I have vague memories of someone I know giving up work to care for her terminally ill partner but recieving no state assistance because they weren't married, though this was about 20 years ago). I think the problem is there is still this lingering idea that looking after others (children, elderly relatives, the sick) is what women are designed to do for no money.

SM, but its not personal choice, until i have a qualification i cannot get a job that will make enough to cover our living expenses, so i am on benefits.

if i had a partner that could only gegt a low paid job, i wouldnt get benefits but still would not be able to cover basic living expenses, so would have to go to work as well, and probably still not be able to cover childcare for 2 under 4s!

so it would be better to be paid to be a sahm with a working partner than know i have to stay on my own and not work to recieve benefits.

I think the problem is there is still this lingering idea that looking after others (children, elderly relatives, the sick) is what women are designed to do for no money.

----------

Completely agree.

Personally, I think the tax-allowance idea is a good one. But as ScottishMummy illustrates, there is no government payback in parents looking after their own children. In pure economic terms, it is much more revenue-lucrative to have parents both work/pay tax and pay for someone else to look after their children and pay tax also.

Which all rather blows a raspberry in the face of the 'choice' idea, I would have thought. Because it's obviously only a choice for those who can afford to look after their own children.

That's why the debate rages about what is actually better for the child, and why you have all these conflicting reports about children in nursery/at home.

'I think the problem is there is still this lingering idea that looking after others (children, elderly relatives, the sick) is what women are designed to do for no money.'
Totally agree. That's what I meant in my earlier post about the days when girls were not really expected to achieve educationally, or be trained for a profession, because the expectation was that they would simply get married and become carers - of husband, children, plus any elderly dependent relatives. Life has moved on from that (thank god) and its about time society rid itself of this lingering idea.

ITG, you don't think it would be more helpful to actually raise the status of those who are carers, in whatever capacity?

I'm still puzzled at where the incentive is for both parents to work. If we both worked then by the time we'd shelled out for childcare we would end up with little more than we have now, and have our DS brought up by strangers. That's no incentive for us. We have therefore made the choice, for the benefit of DS, to get by on one below average income and DH is a SAHD.

But assuming the Government's current agenda is to have both parents working, my comment would be that the only reason both parents have to work is because that has become the norm. House prices have sky rocketed because households with two incomes can afford to pay more, which leaves those of us with only the one income really struggling.

BTW, I get very very annoyed when all these articles refer only to working v stay at home mothers.

I think it would be helpful to raise the status of all sorts of people who are providing a service. The shelf stackers in my local supermarket, the people serving in my local cafe..... The question of how you go about doing this is the tricky one. Usually it needs to be related to pay - it tends to be badly paid jobs which are badly thought of. This becomes particularly tricky when you're talking about something like caring which isnt necessarily providing an economic benefit. Had I wanted to stay at home full time when my children were young, who exactly would have been benefiting from this? - not the rest of society, as I wouldnt have been providing a service as a teacher and paying tax. My children? - well, I don't see that they are in any way disadvantaged by having been at nursery and with a CM, so no direct benefit there either. Me? - well, no actually, because I was always pleased to be teaching at least part time.
That's why I feel this is a more complicated issue than simply 'raising the status'. For many SAHM, they choose to do it because THEY want to, not because it's necessarily better for their children, so in effect, to pay them for being at home is not that far removed from paying someone who simply prefers to stay at home rather than work.

I've just read Sproggers post. They're not seriously considering payments only for SAHMs are they? That's sex discrimination for one thing. And what about situations like ours where the husband's line of work (if he went back to it) is inherently unstable and irregular whereas the wife has a more stable job (albeit low paid). Are they seriously saying the wife should give up her job and put the family in even more financial jeapardy?!

"jeopardy" sorry.

Had I wanted to stay at home full time when my children were young, who exactly would have been benefiting from this? - not the rest of society

--------

I suppose this is where the constant to and fro about whether or not it is better for a parent to be the primary/fulltime care-giver to children comes in. If it could be shown that children cared for by their parents did better, then obviously the rest of society would benefit, but therein lies a controversy all of its own.

Personally, I always intended to stay at home because we believed it would be the best thing for our children that one of their parents did. Thankfully, because we'd made that decision from the get go, we never found ourselves relying on two incomes. I do feel for people who feel this is the best and don't actually have the choice because of the financial commitments they've already made.

The whole thing is a minefield, tbh. There are often so many conflicting elements with the whole choice/what is 'best'.

Same here SueBaroo. We've always worked on the principle of never committing ourselves to more than we can (just about) afford on the one income. Therefore DH's earnings (when he had them) were a bonus.

"For many SAHM, they choose to do it because THEY want to, not because it's necessarily better for their children, so in effect, to pay them for being at home is not that far removed from paying someone who simply prefers to stay at home rather than work."

Most of us do want to, but almost all of us do it because we feel it is the best thing for our children. There was no job that I thought was so important that I would be prepared to leave a six month old in day car for eight hours a day. And just so you know staying home with your children is work.

God yes PPP. I'm under no illusions that DH has it far harder at home than I do at work.

PPB sorry.

In fact, I'd say that families where both parents work have it fairly easy in some ways:

• You're all out of the house all day, so when you get home there's no clearing up to do.

• Your DC(s) have already been fed at nursery so you don't have to do that.

• So when you get home you can just play with your kids, bath them, put them to bed and then get your dinner. There's no conflict about who does what because you've both been out at work so in theory it should be equal.

Go on, tell me I'm wrong.

Paula - I'm not disagreeing with you!!! You've hit the nail on the head - many mothers FEEL it's the best thing. They don't KNOW whether it is, they can't PROVE that it is, it's a feeling. Which is absolutely fine if you and your partner agree on that feeling and you are fortunate enough to be able to live on one income. But that argument doesn't justify paying people to stay at home.
As suebaroo says-
'If it could be shown that children cared for by their parents did better, then obviously the rest of society would benefit'
absolutely! Then there would be a case for arguing that the govt should make provision for a parent to be at home. But the fact is, there is NO definitive evidence to prove that having a parent at home is beneficial. For every report that says that nursery can harm your child and make them antisocial, there's another report which says it benefits your child and makes them more confident and sociable!! So as there's no clear evidence to prove that having a parent at home is better, I don't see how you can use that as a lever for saying the state should provide for people to be SAHM.

Oh that's great - no firm evidence to say that it's a good thing for children to be looked after by their own parents. Therefore, there's no justification for supporting parents to do that. Marvellous. We might just as well farm them off to some state institution at birth then.

There may be no firm evidence that looking after children at home is better for them but there is mounting evidence that too much time in a nursery is not good for them.

There is a grey area in between where some hours in nursery are better for them than none at all but most children of SAHM mothers go to nursery for some time during the week. It is a question of finding the right balance.

It is also a question of age. I don't think a child of one year is better off being cared for by somebody other than their parents/grandparents. On the other hand a 2.5 yr old will probably do well.

Maybe the compromise is to allow longer for maternity/paternity leave - extend it to 2 years or maybe even 3.

And btw, it's got little to do with being fortunate enough to live on one income. It's to do with making a decision to sacrifice almost everything that many others take for granted.

I guess the ages of our children and at what phase of parenting we are is pretty crucial to this debate. I think when our children are younger, and we're less experienced at this whole parenting lark, then we tend to be more doubt ridden. I'm writing from the perspective of having teenage children, so they've gone through the nursery/primary school phase. I can see first hand that all 3 are confident, sociable and independent young people. They are all achieving well academically, and both dds and my ds have aspirations to go to uni and get enjoy good careers. I am absolutely sure that the fact that dp and I worked when they were little has not been a disadvantage for them in any way at all. In fact if anything, I think seeing both parents enjoy having a career has probably given them a good role model to have high aspirations for themselves. Would they have been better of if I or dp had stayed at home with them? - No. Would I have been better off if I'd stayed at home with them? - I can't see that i would. OK, I'd have had more opportunities to do things around the house, go to toddler groups etc, but in the wider scheme of things, i really dont think this would have made me a happier/better/whatever person.

I don't think that people who put their kids in day care are bad parents but I find it very difficult to believe that someone actually thinks putting very young children in daycare is better than being at home with a family member. You don't get the same amount of one on one attention. Of course they are going to suffer for that a bit.

People should have the choice to do what they feel is best for their child. How many mothers or fathers want nothing more than to be with their young children but can't because of finances.