Putting a value on sahm/d

[morethanpotatoprints]

As conservatives historically support the nuclear family and the role of parenting as raising children, how much money/ wage should a sahp receive.

Before the lynch mob arrive here saying nothing, bear in mind that at present some do receive some money in terms of WTC/FTC. and other benefits if low income.

What price do we put on the role and what amount/ standard of living would allow a wahp to leave work if they wanted to?

Why should anyone be paid to stay at home? Who should pay them?
Being a SAHP is not a job. It may be very challenging at times, and may certainly feel like hard work, but it isn't a job in the sense that no one advertises for the role, you don't apply for it and have to pass any kind of test.

It's not about not valuing the role of parenting. Parenting is a hugely difficult thing, and doing it well should be valued tremendously. But that applies whether you are a WOHP or a SAHP. You can't put a monetary value on it

And no lynch mob here, just confused as to why anyone would want to try to put a price on it

callmemrs. I think that a value should be put on it and that we should all be paid for providing child care. I feel I had to pass a test as I expect to do a good job, which imo is a full time job in itself. I think that in putting a value on all the many jobs a sahp does they will not only feel valued but recognised by society as being valued. Not all working people have applied for their jobs/roles, passed tests the self employed for example. I think you can put a monetary value on it by working out the hours spent on each activity. Housekeeping, cooking/waitressing/Portering. Childcare, personal shopper, Launderer, educator,. I just wondered how much other people valued the role!

But anyone can put a monetary price on the tasks they perform each day!! It's got nothing to do with being a SAHP! Today I have cooked, done laundry, tidied up chauffeured my dd to a club etc etc... But it's not a job. My job is what I do for money, because I have skills which an employer deems worth XXX amount of money and pays me for. People become SAHP either because they want to do it (ie it's valuable to them but not necessarily to anyone else) or because they can't afford to work.

Ps- I think you are confusing feeling valued with monetary value. If someone becomes a SAHP because they feel it's important and they have a partner willing to support them, then great, no problem. But I don't understand why you think they should be paid for that choice. Or indeed who would pay them.

Who are SAHP's providing childcare for if not themselves? Who's going to then pay you for looking after your own children?

Anybody who expects to be paid to look after their own children perhaps should think about not having children in the first place.

There are just so many flaws to your line of thinking op.
For a start, if you are going to quantify each task- shopping, cleaning, chauffeuring kids- then in fairness you would have to pay EVERYONE who does these tasks- young, old, single, married, childless... We ALL do them. It's got nowt to do with SAHP. I do all of the above- and a full time job too. Perhaps WOHP should be paid a bonus for being ultra efficient and speedy

But seriously, as we all do these things for ourselves, not for anyone else, who on earth do you think sh

Should pay us??!

You also ignore the fact that while many of us take pride in caring for our children well, doing educational activities, cooking healthy food and keeping our homes organised, some parents don't. Do they get paid too, regardless? Hardly like the real world of work where you have to perform to required standards

People gain skills through being at home as well as working for an employer, and for most sahp's they do a good job and are not rewarded for it financially. I know wahp do these jobs as well but obviously they are not doing so when working for an employer, unless they can split themselves in two. My point is childcare is valued by wohp so why is not valued the same for sahp's who do the job well. If childcare was given in monetary terms to the person providing the care then parents could choose to keep it and sah or work and pay for childcare, that way everybody wins. So many parents have to work for money but if they were supported financially could choose to sah if they wanted.

A good place to start with the analysis would be the National Minimum Wage (£6.08 per hour if you are over 21) and multiply by about 16 hours a day for 365 days per year.

Most childcare, cleaning, driving and security jobs in the economy are NMW so that would be £35,507 per annum (£6.08 x 16 x 365). Now you dont pay tax on that and you dont pay for costs of commuting etc so you could knock 30% off to take account of that.

The post tax value of being a SAHP on that calculation would be £24,855 per annum.

Of course it would actually cost nearly double that if you paid someone to do it for you because you would pay the tax and NI to the Govt.

By the way. If that all sounds a bit clinical you should try spending time round economists who work out the value of a human life.

MoreBeta, thank you so much I'm not such a mathematician.

I think that would go someway to allowing greater choice for parents regarding working arrangements. Maybe it does seem far fetched to expect a government to fund this, but I can remember the out cry when government started funding/ supporting childcare for working parents. So who knows it may be a reality one day.
I just think that a parent can do the same if not better than a childcare worker. Not to knock their ability at all, but I think parents have the same skills. People can't honestly believe that children get better care away from a parent, can they?

"People can't honestly believe that children get better care away from a parent, can they?"

Sadly, sometimes they do. And we don't want people to start having children for the money do we?

we don't want people to start having children for the money do we?

This happens already, doesn't it? £13.60 a week is enough to make some plan more children.

There are a minority of unfit parents, they will exist no matter what incentive or decentive (if thats a word) they are given.

However, my argument was that most parents have the same skills and abilities if not greater to care for / bring their children up during working hours and beyond.

I'd say it should be way more than the minimum wage though. Caring jobs often are lowly paid, because women's labour is undervalued. If a car mechanic or refuse collector gets more than minimum wage, then so should a carer. It would also need to vary depending on what 'services' are bring provided, experience, qualifications etc. I think it would be high though. There's also a lot of unsocial hours, overtime and being on call to be accounted for.

I still don't know how you think this Money would be generated op. Or how it could be monitored, as you are suggesting it's an actual wage - ie monetary reward for providing a service. You can't compare with subsidised childcare, which is providing a cheaper service to enable people to work more easily. Parenting is not a service provided for the local community. It is something we all do when we have children.

If you are serious about paying some sort of parental 'wage', awarded simply by virtue of having fathered or given birth to a child, then at least be consistent and award it to all parents. It's got nothing to do with staying at home. I do a job to earn money. It means having specific skills, keeping them up to scratch and meeting certain targets. If you want to throw money at me for being a parent too, and for doing my washing, cooking and cleaning then that's cool, though I'm still not sure where it would come from! It would be very strange though to start paying people an actual wage to not work!

I thought that the tax relief such as childcare vouchers, tax credits etc was going towards recognising what you describe, OP, but as these are seeing cuts I don't think you will see any money going in that direction, in whatever form.

Having said that, I would always want to link it with work as I wouldn't want it to become one more reason why women are "expected" to stay at home instead of working. Many many women go to work because they want to keep a profession, not because they want a "wage" or payment.

I think this is an easy question - it's whatever is charged by nurseries and CMs during normal working hours say 9-5 to quote the most regular pattern. That's the value of looking after children if someone is working those hours. No charge for outside of those hours though as that is the job of being a parent.

There is a cost of looking after your children. You either pay it directly to nurseries etc or you pay it through your list income by not working. It is not free. If I worked I could not get DC looked after for free, well unless I had GPs!

In my opinion everyone should get the same support for childcare.

I've always thought that CB should be increased and then mothers/fathers can use the money towards nursery care or to help one of them SAH (or both go p/t). That would give more people (not everyone) a choice whether to go back to work or stay home. However, I don't mind not being paid as you can look at it that you are saving quite alot of money depending on how many DC you have and what you can live on.

I think the 9-5 hours is a good suggestion SootySweepandSue, more choice whether to work or not would be the fairest way to go. I know many parents who would love to stay at home and would choose to do so for the minimum wage. I also know some that wouldn't entertain the idea, for any amount of money. Childcare vouchers are only beneficial to you if you use a service and are not any good to a sahp. Why should there be subsidised childcare to enable people to work more easily and I am part of a local community and never use this service. Don't sahp's have specific skills, keep them up to scratch and meet targets then? The ones I know do.

SAHPs meet targets?? On what planet does this happen. Is this audited perchance?

No one is saying they don't have skills op.
But the difference with a job is that someone needs you to use those skills for a purpose other than just your own family's gain. You can be the most skilled person in the world, but you only earn if you utilise those skills in a way which someone else is prepared to pay you for.

I can spend hours cleaning my house to perfection, washing and ironing my clothes, driving my children halfway round the country etc- but why should anyone else pay me to do those things?! They are just part of normal life.

And ok, so let's suppose in some magical universe people were paid just to stop working and be at home. We might all decide it would be nice and easy to get paid a wage to not work. So tell me, WHO then goes to work to pay the taxes for the non- workers to get paid from??!

Do you not think that sahp's are paying for the childcare of the working parents then? My dh pays tax, we don't use childcare, never have and I'm sorry but this doesn't gain me anything, so you must agree this would make a more level playing field? If more parents were able to choose to sah, their jobs would surely be replaced by the many unemployed so I'm sure the working population would survive.

Blue shoes.

From birth I have solely raised my children/ With dh as well. My targets have included teaching them to read and write before starting school, potty training, talking, walking, and many other things that working parents have only assisted in. This is not an insult but a fact that no human I know can be in 2 places at once. I'm sure I could think of others if i cba

Nope sorry, WOHP also potty train their children, teach them to read and are the most instrumental people in teaching them to talk etc

Sounds to me like you are determined to try to convince yourself that SAHP are doing some amazing thing which WOHP don't do, and that simply on this basis they should be paid a wage. It's most bizarre!! I have all the skills you describe, as do all the WOHP I know too. If you're going to pay people to raise their children and do housework- pay it to everyone