Fair division of household responsibilities vs. income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what the 'dh earns $3m' pp is not saying is that income is not salary. Virtually no one has a $3m salary. It's either that the dh is some kind of equity partner or is in tech where RSAs are in play or it's bonused or he has his own biz. All of which are not static and can easily fluctuate (no way has pp's dh made that income for more than 2-3y running) so the reality is that they aren't just saving bc they have 'ambitious retirement goals', they are saving and pp is still working bc the dh's income is not carved in stone. Our HHI is $750-$1m depending on year and we also do all our own chores for this reason. Once you are at high earning threshhold, until your net worth is at x and is x% liquid, you have to keep being frugal.

If those high levels of income are uncertain year to year then it is even more insane for you to be doing menial household work instead of outsourcing whatever you can. Time is money. Assuming your combined work week is 100 hrs or 5000/yr your hourly time is worth $150-200 just in direct income. That's what you are paying to scrub toilets and sweep floors when you or your spouse do it yourself. It's astounding that such highly laid professionals don't get such a simple concept.

That’s… not how it works.

That's absolutely how it works. If my time is.worth $200/hr then that's what it is worth. If I choose to do menial household chores rather than hire them out for $25 an hour I need to also understand that I am paying $175/hr to wash dishes.

It's called opportunity cost look it up. You must work for the government where productivity doesn't matter and in fact is frowned upon. Probably a.school teacher.

Again, it doesn’t work that way. Certainly there is an opportunity cost - as there is anytime you do anything with your time over something else. But he isn’t getting paid by the hour - he isn’t going to make more money by taking an hour on Sunday to work instead of doing chores. There may be a cost in that he didn’t get to relax or didn’t get to do something else more enjoyable, but there is no “$1000 lost.” I’m not sure how you are logically reaching your conclusion - truly baffled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is it that there are so many people on DCUM who work so hard that they are in the top 5% of wage earners yet still have enough time to post on DCUM at all hours of the day?

What is even more baffling is how they are such morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what the 'dh earns $3m' pp is not saying is that income is not salary. Virtually no one has a $3m salary. It's either that the dh is some kind of equity partner or is in tech where RSAs are in play or it's bonused or he has his own biz. All of which are not static and can easily fluctuate (no way has pp's dh made that income for more than 2-3y running) so the reality is that they aren't just saving bc they have 'ambitious retirement goals', they are saving and pp is still working bc the dh's income is not carved in stone. Our HHI is $750-$1m depending on year and we also do all our own chores for this reason. Once you are at high earning threshhold, until your net worth is at x and is x% liquid, you have to keep being frugal.

If those high levels of income are uncertain year to year then it is even more insane for you to be doing menial household work instead of outsourcing whatever you can. Time is money. Assuming your combined work week is 100 hrs or 5000/yr your hourly time is worth $150-200 just in direct income. That's what you are paying to scrub toilets and sweep floors when you or your spouse do it yourself. It's astounding that such highly laid professionals don't get such a simple concept.

That’s… not how it works.

That's absolutely how it works. If my time is.worth $200/hr then that's what it is worth. If I choose to do menial household chores rather than hire them out for $25 an hour I need to also understand that I am paying $175/hr to wash dishes.

It's called opportunity cost look it up. You must work for the government where productivity doesn't matter and in fact is frowned upon. Probably a.school teacher.

Again, it doesn’t work that way. Certainly there is an opportunity cost - as there is anytime you do anything with your time over something else. But he isn’t getting paid by the hour - he isn’t going to make more money by taking an hour on Sunday to work instead of doing chores. There may be a cost in that he didn’t get to relax or didn’t get to do something else more enjoyable, but there is no “$1000 lost.” I’m not sure how you are logically reaching your conclusion - truly baffled.

You have to be a government employee with your transparently non entrepenurial attitude. No it is not about hours worked. It is about understanding that the marginal value of a high earners personal time is worth even more than the hourly value. Unlike a government drone who thinks the very best use of their spare time in the evening is taking out the garbage. Because doing extra work will never result in more value it has zero marginal value so in that case working for minimum wage IS a better use of YOUR time.

But the guy who makes $3000000 makes that kind of money because he does things which leverage the value of his time. It doesn't tha e to be doing his job. It could be almost anything which resulted in future value creation.

What do you think is a better use of Warren Buffets time,washing dishes,or playing bridge(one of his hobbies)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what the 'dh earns $3m' pp is not saying is that income is not salary. Virtually no one has a $3m salary. It's either that the dh is some kind of equity partner or is in tech where RSAs are in play or it's bonused or he has his own biz. All of which are not static and can easily fluctuate (no way has pp's dh made that income for more than 2-3y running) so the reality is that they aren't just saving bc they have 'ambitious retirement goals', they are saving and pp is still working bc the dh's income is not carved in stone. Our HHI is $750-$1m depending on year and we also do all our own chores for this reason. Once you are at high earning threshhold, until your net worth is at x and is x% liquid, you have to keep being frugal.

If those high levels of income are uncertain year to year then it is even more insane for you to be doing menial household work instead of outsourcing whatever you can. Time is money. Assuming your combined work week is 100 hrs or 5000/yr your hourly time is worth $150-200 just in direct income. That's what you are paying to scrub toilets and sweep floors when you or your spouse do it yourself. It's astounding that such highly laid professionals don't get such a simple concept.

That’s… not how it works.

That's absolutely how it works. If my time is.worth $200/hr then that's what it is worth. If I choose to do menial household chores rather than hire them out for $25 an hour I need to also understand that I am paying $175/hr to wash dishes.

It's called opportunity cost look it up. You must work for the government where productivity doesn't matter and in fact is frowned upon. Probably a.school teacher.

Again, it doesn’t work that way. Certainly there is an opportunity cost - as there is anytime you do anything with your time over something else. But he isn’t getting paid by the hour - he isn’t going to make more money by taking an hour on Sunday to work instead of doing chores. There may be a cost in that he didn’t get to relax or didn’t get to do something else more enjoyable, but there is no “$1000 lost.” I’m not sure how you are logically reaching your conclusion - truly baffled.

You have to be a government employee with your transparently non entrepenurial attitude. No it is not about hours worked. It is about understanding that the marginal value of a high earners personal time is worth even more than the hourly value. Unlike a government drone who thinks the very best use of their spare time in the evening is taking out the garbage. Because doing extra work will never result in more value it has zero marginal value so in that case working for minimum wage IS a better use of YOUR time.

But the guy who makes $3000000 makes that kind of money because he does things which leverage the value of his time. It doesn't tha e to be doing his job. It could be almost anything which resulted in future value creation.

What do you think is a better use of Warren Buffets time,washing dishes,or playing bridge(one of his hobbies)?

You should better utilize your time and visit a psychiatrist for a formal diagnosis…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it that there are so many people on DCUM who work so hard that they are in the top 5% of wage earners yet still have enough time to post on DCUM at all hours of the day?

What is even more baffling is how they are such morons.

My husband makes $3000000 a year. He is a brilliant business genius. He must fold the laundry because that is obviously a better use of his time then relaxing and quite possibly having a brainstorm which he can then develop over time into his next idea so he can continue making $3000000 a year.

Albert Einstein should have been washing the dishes and folding laundry not scribbling stupid equations in his notebook after finishing up at the patent office job. What s misogynist he thought winning nobel prizes was.more important than splitting all the chores 50/50

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what the 'dh earns $3m' pp is not saying is that income is not salary. Virtually no one has a $3m salary. It's either that the dh is some kind of equity partner or is in tech where RSAs are in play or it's bonused or he has his own biz. All of which are not static and can easily fluctuate (no way has pp's dh made that income for more than 2-3y running) so the reality is that they aren't just saving bc they have 'ambitious retirement goals', they are saving and pp is still working bc the dh's income is not carved in stone. Our HHI is $750-$1m depending on year and we also do all our own chores for this reason. Once you are at high earning threshhold, until your net worth is at x and is x% liquid, you have to keep being frugal.

If those high levels of income are uncertain year to year then it is even more insane for you to be doing menial household work instead of outsourcing whatever you can. Time is money. Assuming your combined work week is 100 hrs or 5000/yr your hourly time is worth $150-200 just in direct income. That's what you are paying to scrub toilets and sweep floors when you or your spouse do it yourself. It's astounding that such highly laid professionals don't get such a simple concept.

That’s… not how it works.

That's absolutely how it works. If my time is.worth $200/hr then that's what it is worth. If I choose to do menial household chores rather than hire them out for $25 an hour I need to also understand that I am paying $175/hr to wash dishes.

It's called opportunity cost look it up. You must work for the government where productivity doesn't matter and in fact is frowned upon. Probably a.school teacher.

Again, it doesn’t work that way. Certainly there is an opportunity cost - as there is anytime you do anything with your time over something else. But he isn’t getting paid by the hour - he isn’t going to make more money by taking an hour on Sunday to work instead of doing chores. There may be a cost in that he didn’t get to relax or didn’t get to do something else more enjoyable, but there is no “$1000 lost.” I’m not sure how you are logically reaching your conclusion - truly baffled.

You have to be a government employee with your transparently non entrepenurial attitude. No it is not about hours worked. It is about understanding that the marginal value of a high earners personal time is worth even more than the hourly value. Unlike a government drone who thinks the very best use of their spare time in the evening is taking out the garbage. Because doing extra work will never result in more value it has zero marginal value so in that case working for minimum wage IS a better use of YOUR time.

But the guy who makes $3000000 makes that kind of money because he does things which leverage the value of his time. It doesn't tha e to be doing his job. It could be almost anything which resulted in future value creation.

What do you think is a better use of Warren Buffets time,washing dishes,or playing bridge(one of his hobbies)?

You should better utilize your time and visit a psychiatrist for a formal diagnosis…

I'm sure you know quite a few of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it that there are so many people on DCUM who work so hard that they are in the top 5% of wage earners yet still have enough time to post on DCUM at all hours of the day?

What is even more baffling is how they are such morons.

It’s the internet.

Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What many of these responses seem to miss is that there is a fundamental difference between doing a household chore like washing dishes and doing a child-focused "chore" like feeding a baby, reading books to a toddler, helping an elementary kid with homework, overseeing a kid while they help with dinner, etc.

You can outsource a household chore and it has no impact on your relationship with your kids. If you bring someone in to cook and clean, offer them fair wages and treat them respectfully, this should not impact your relationship with your kids one way or the other.

If you bring someone in to do all your child-focused chores, even the ones that occur after you are done workin for the day, you are robbing your kids of important relationship-building with you. I'm not saying it's not okay to ever have a nanny help with feeding or teaching or spending time with kids. Of course they can, and especially with multiple kids, doing so might enable you to spend more quality time with your kids.

But the idea that just because someone is making a certain income, they should be able to outsource ALL parenting-related tasks? That's a really f***ed up view of parenting. The idea that making the money that pays for a child to be fed, clothed, comforted, taught, etc., exempts you from every actually doing those things in person? It makes you little more than a sperm (or egg) donor and benefactor. Parenting is much more about doing than paying. Paying is a baseline requirement for being a parent, but it is not "parenting." If you don't do any actual parenting, you aren't really a parent. You're just a paycheck.

The people who put their kids in daycare all day ARE outsourcing being parents already. Or most of it.

If you really believed what you just posted you would advocate for lower paid spouse to quit work entirely when kids are young and be a full time sah parent for a few years. You can't have it both ways--claim you want to be a parent then stick the kid in daycare when it's not an absolute financial necessity for both parents to work. And for these high income people it's not. Typically they are.just insanely greedy or the lower income spouse is on an ego trip.

I'm the PP and I did SAHM when my kid was little and still only work PT. That's what worked for me and we're lucky we could afford it.

My DH still does a lot of child-related "chores" because he's a parent and that's parenting. And he did them when I SAHMed too. I obviously do more than he does because I don't work a full-time job so obviously I'm doing more childcare and household stuff. But on days he works from home, he does drop off and often also packs lunch (while I get breakfast and get DC ready for the day) and in the evenings we divide and conquer between dinner and parenting tasks. At that point in the day he's spent a full day working but... so have I. Just because my work is split between a paid job 9-2 and then childcare 2-6 does not mean I did less or should be solely responsible for our evening routine.

Parents parent. It doesn't matter if you make 50k or 500k. Yes people will negotiate different divisions of workload depending on work schedules, preferences, abilities, etc. But the idea that if one partner makes a lot more than the other, they can just skip out on all the parenting stuff is ridiculous. If you don't want to be a parent, don't. But if you have kids, you should expect that you will be spending time taking care of them.

Really. So military people in active duty and deployment should not have children. Foreign service officers posted on assignments without their families should not have children. Single moms should have their children taken away since the father is not around.

Got any more "logic" on this topic?

I mean, in all of those cases I think if you know that's going to be the issue going in, you should really think hard about whether this is the time for kids. I do think the kids of active duty military have it very tough unless the home front parent has a really good support system. Even then, those people get home leave and when they do, I'm guessing they change diapers and help with homework and stuff. If they don't, I have no problem saying they should not have had children.

Same with FS officers. I actually know a bunch of these and if you understood the rates of divorce and alcoholism in that field, you might also suggest someone in the FS really think hard about having kids, especially if they are in an area where assignment to an embassy where they can't take kids is likely. The FS officers I know with happy home lives all made career sacrifices to make that happen.

A single mom is obviously doing tons of parenting. She has no choice but to hire childcare while she works, but she is of course spending tons of time with her kids outside that. After the early years, kids are in school anyway.

The question was whether you can outsource ALL parenting responsibilities if you have enough money, and my argument is that if you do, you aren't really a parent. If you don't want to spend time with children and do mundane things like change diapers and help with homework, DO NOT BECOME A PARENT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what the 'dh earns $3m' pp is not saying is that income is not salary. Virtually no one has a $3m salary. It's either that the dh is some kind of equity partner or is in tech where RSAs are in play or it's bonused or he has his own biz. All of which are not static and can easily fluctuate (no way has pp's dh made that income for more than 2-3y running) so the reality is that they aren't just saving bc they have 'ambitious retirement goals', they are saving and pp is still working bc the dh's income is not carved in stone. Our HHI is $750-$1m depending on year and we also do all our own chores for this reason. Once you are at high earning threshhold, until your net worth is at x and is x% liquid, you have to keep being frugal.

If those high levels of income are uncertain year to year then it is even more insane for you to be doing menial household work instead of outsourcing whatever you can. Time is money. Assuming your combined work week is 100 hrs or 5000/yr your hourly time is worth $150-200 just in direct income. That's what you are paying to scrub toilets and sweep floors when you or your spouse do it yourself. It's astounding that such highly laid professionals don't get such a simple concept.

That’s… not how it works.

That's absolutely how it works. If my time is.worth $200/hr then that's what it is worth. If I choose to do menial household chores rather than hire them out for $25 an hour I need to also understand that I am paying $175/hr to wash dishes.

It's called opportunity cost look it up. You must work for the government where productivity doesn't matter and in fact is frowned upon. Probably a.school teacher.

Again, it doesn’t work that way. Certainly there is an opportunity cost - as there is anytime you do anything with your time over something else. But he isn’t getting paid by the hour - he isn’t going to make more money by taking an hour on Sunday to work instead of doing chores. There may be a cost in that he didn’t get to relax or didn’t get to do something else more enjoyable, but there is no “$1000 lost.” I’m not sure how you are logically reaching your conclusion - truly baffled.

You have to be a government employee with your transparently non entrepenurial attitude. No it is not about hours worked. It is about understanding that the marginal value of a high earners personal time is worth even more than the hourly value. Unlike a government drone who thinks the very best use of their spare time in the evening is taking out the garbage. Because doing extra work will never result in more value it has zero marginal value so in that case working for minimum wage IS a better use of YOUR time.

But the guy who makes $3000000 makes that kind of money because he does things which leverage the value of his time. It doesn't tha e to be doing his job. It could be almost anything which resulted in future value creation.

What do you think is a better use of Warren Buffets time,washing dishes,or playing bridge(one of his hobbies)?

You’re getting closer to making a coherent argument, because you completely changed what you said before!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what the 'dh earns $3m' pp is not saying is that income is not salary. Virtually no one has a $3m salary. It's either that the dh is some kind of equity partner or is in tech where RSAs are in play or it's bonused or he has his own biz. All of which are not static and can easily fluctuate (no way has pp's dh made that income for more than 2-3y running) so the reality is that they aren't just saving bc they have 'ambitious retirement goals', they are saving and pp is still working bc the dh's income is not carved in stone. Our HHI is $750-$1m depending on year and we also do all our own chores for this reason. Once you are at high earning threshhold, until your net worth is at x and is x% liquid, you have to keep being frugal.

If those high levels of income are uncertain year to year then it is even more insane for you to be doing menial household work instead of outsourcing whatever you can. Time is money. Assuming your combined work week is 100 hrs or 5000/yr your hourly time is worth $150-200 just in direct income. That's what you are paying to scrub toilets and sweep floors when you or your spouse do it yourself. It's astounding that such highly laid professionals don't get such a simple concept.

That’s… not how it works.

That's absolutely how it works. If my time is.worth $200/hr then that's what it is worth. If I choose to do menial household chores rather than hire them out for $25 an hour I need to also understand that I am paying $175/hr to wash dishes.

It's called opportunity cost look it up. You must work for the government where productivity doesn't matter and in fact is frowned upon. Probably a.school teacher.

Again, it doesn’t work that way. Certainly there is an opportunity cost - as there is anytime you do anything with your time over something else. But he isn’t getting paid by the hour - he isn’t going to make more money by taking an hour on Sunday to work instead of doing chores. There may be a cost in that he didn’t get to relax or didn’t get to do something else more enjoyable, but there is no “$1000 lost.” I’m not sure how you are logically reaching your conclusion - truly baffled.

You have to be a government employee with your transparently non entrepenurial attitude. No it is not about hours worked. It is about understanding that the marginal value of a high earners personal time is worth even more than the hourly value. Unlike a government drone who thinks the very best use of their spare time in the evening is taking out the garbage. Because doing extra work will never result in more value it has zero marginal value so in that case working for minimum wage IS a better use of YOUR time.

But the guy who makes $3000000 makes that kind of money because he does things which leverage the value of his time. It doesn't tha e to be doing his job. It could be almost anything which resulted in future value creation.

What do you think is a better use of Warren Buffets time,washing dishes,or playing bridge(one of his hobbies)?

I don't make 3mm a year, but I make a lot of money. I'm guessing you don't make a lot of money because you don't seem to understand how it works.

The truth is, even if you outsource, there is a lot to be done around the house. Outsourcing is often more hassle than it is worth. And even for wealthy people who earn a lot, it is often the case that the "imputed" income of doing your own work is higher than what you might earn in those hours if you could find hourly work for a few hours a week.

But all aside, it comes down to respect and fairness. I don't think my wife should work endlessly at housework because I can and do make a lot of money. I'm glad that she was willing to leave her job to take care of the home front. She does most of the house work, by far, but I'm not going to put my feet while she works around the house just because I can make a lot of money while I'm working. Maybe that means that I value helping my wife more than I value my free time, but that's just the reality. And in a family, I don't think it's fair to make everyone else do all the non-earning work just because I work and make money.

[Anonymous]

You can't afford a nanny? Really?

Even without a nanny, outsource what you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can't afford a nanny? Really?

Even without a nanny, outsource what you can.

I don't want my kids raised by a nanny, nor do I want a stranger hanging around my house while I'm home.

[Anonymous]

What these posts suggest to me is that some people are better off not getting married or having kids. If life is all about monetizing your time, then do not get married and certainly do not procreate. Several posters seem to have taken an econ class or two and then attempted to apply to it married life. Maybe if you're worth $200/hour and spending an hour to wash dishes to make your wife happy is literally not worth it to you, but you should probably take into account losing 50% of your assets in the case of divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What these posts suggest to me is that some people are better off not getting married or having kids. If life is all about monetizing your time, then do not get married and certainly do not procreate. Several posters seem to have taken an econ class or two and then attempted to apply to it married life. Maybe if you're worth $200/hour and spending an hour to wash dishes to make your wife happy is literally not worth it to you, but you should probably take into account losing 50% of your assets in the case of divorce.

I'm sure my wife would be happy to wash dishes for $200/hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what the 'dh earns $3m' pp is not saying is that income is not salary. Virtually no one has a $3m salary. It's either that the dh is some kind of equity partner or is in tech where RSAs are in play or it's bonused or he has his own biz. All of which are not static and can easily fluctuate (no way has pp's dh made that income for more than 2-3y running) so the reality is that they aren't just saving bc they have 'ambitious retirement goals', they are saving and pp is still working bc the dh's income is not carved in stone. Our HHI is $750-$1m depending on year and we also do all our own chores for this reason. Once you are at high earning threshhold, until your net worth is at x and is x% liquid, you have to keep being frugal.

If those high levels of income are uncertain year to year then it is even more insane for you to be doing menial household work instead of outsourcing whatever you can. Time is money. Assuming your combined work week is 100 hrs or 5000/yr your hourly time is worth $150-200 just in direct income. That's what you are paying to scrub toilets and sweep floors when you or your spouse do it yourself. It's astounding that such highly laid professionals don't get such a simple concept.

That’s… not how it works.

That's absolutely how it works. If my time is.worth $200/hr then that's what it is worth. If I choose to do menial household chores rather than hire them out for $25 an hour I need to also understand that I am paying $175/hr to wash dishes.

It's called opportunity cost look it up. You must work for the government where productivity doesn't matter and in fact is frowned upon. Probably a.school teacher.

Again, it doesn’t work that way. Certainly there is an opportunity cost - as there is anytime you do anything with your time over something else. But he isn’t getting paid by the hour - he isn’t going to make more money by taking an hour on Sunday to work instead of doing chores. There may be a cost in that he didn’t get to relax or didn’t get to do something else more enjoyable, but there is no “$1000 lost.” I’m not sure how you are logically reaching your conclusion - truly baffled.

You have to be a government employee with your transparently non entrepenurial attitude. No it is not about hours worked. It is about understanding that the marginal value of a high earners personal time is worth even more than the hourly value. Unlike a government drone who thinks the very best use of their spare time in the evening is taking out the garbage. Because doing extra work will never result in more value it has zero marginal value so in that case working for minimum wage IS a better use of YOUR time.

But the guy who makes $3000000 makes that kind of money because he does things which leverage the value of his time. It doesn't tha e to be doing his job. It could be almost anything which resulted in future value creation.

What do you think is a better use of Warren Buffets time,washing dishes,or playing bridge(one of his hobbies)?

I don't make 3mm a year, but I make a lot of money. I'm guessing you don't make a lot of money because you don't seem to understand how it works.

The truth is, even if you outsource, there is a lot to be done around the house. Outsourcing is often more hassle than it is worth. And even for wealthy people who earn a lot, it is often the case that the "imputed" income of doing your own work is higher than what you might earn in those hours if you could find hourly work for a few hours a week.

But all aside, it comes down to respect and fairness. I don't think my wife should work endlessly at housework because I can and do make a lot of money. I'm glad that she was willing to leave her job to take care of the home front. She does most of the house work, by far, but I'm not going to put my feet while she works around the house just because I can make a lot of money while I'm working. Maybe that means that I value helping my wife more than I value my free time, but that's just the reality. And in a family, I don't think it's fair to make everyone else do all the non-earning work just because I work and make money.

OP and her husband are outsourcing their kid for 10 hours a day.

Seems to me if you've decided that's acceptable then you can outsource just about anything else.