NYT: Forget Pancakes. Pay Mothers.

[Anonymous]

Divorce lawyer here. Post nups are not enforceable in many states. NY being notorious for throwing them out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That approach won’t work.

But a significantly increased tax credit or stipend per young child (0-5) based on need beyond the poverty level might work.

Of course, it might also create a perverse incentive to have more babies. A possible solution might be a cap on benefits.

The reality is most sahms don’t need to be paid. Heck, many have hired help.

So why not look at models in every other developed country? It's not about paying women to clean their own houses; it's about providing support to families based on the belief that caring for children and family, especially in the very early years, is important to society and that work has value. This support could be needs-based or use some other cap since, this is the United States after all, and we would apparently rather everyone suffer than accept the idea that a small percentage of people might "take advantage" of the system.

The world is already over populated. Don't have kids if you can't afford them. Governments don't need to provide you with stuff to support you having kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reads like the essay of a high school sophomore. No, society and taxpayers don't owe you a paycheck because you chose to have a kid.

+1. So tired of entitlement in this country. Everyone makes their own choices.

Just watch the birth rate continue to decline as more millennial and gen Z women realize that having kids is often an unwinnable situation when childcare and the overall cost of living is too expensive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reads like the essay of a high school sophomore. No, society and taxpayers don't owe you a paycheck because you chose to have a kid.

+1. So tired of entitlement in this country. Everyone makes their own choices.

Just watch the birth rate continue to decline as more millennial and gen Z women realize that having kids is often an unwinnable situation when childcare and the overall cost of living is too expensive

Yup. I'm the PP who mentioned Japan. Even though this will lead to economic stagnation, it's what our society is choosing, along with the oligarchy of course. Because....bootstraps and personal responsibility.

[Anonymous]

I think a better route would be paid maternity leaves and jobs that are easier to get back if you take a year or two off. Universal 3 year old program and pre-k. And then work hours that match daycare and school hours. Reduce work day to 7 hours and increase schooling. 8-3:30. A lot of us would willingly take a salary reduction even for hours that match our schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reads like the essay of a high school sophomore. No, society and taxpayers don't owe you a paycheck because you chose to have a kid.

+1. So tired of entitlement in this country. Everyone makes their own choices.

Just watch the birth rate continue to decline as more millennial and gen Z women realize that having kids is often an unwinnable situation when childcare and the overall cost of living is too expensive

Yup. I'm the PP who mentioned Japan. Even though this will lead to economic stagnation, it's what our society is choosing, along with the oligarchy of course. Because....bootstraps and personal responsibility.

Nah, the coronavirus will even things out for us

[Anonymous]

Alimony won't fix the issue of population decline. Alimony is primarily an issue of wealthy women. The whiny and entitled author aside, it shouldn't be conflated with general support for families. It is largely not a society-wide benefit (if anything, it probably has an overall negative benefit).

However, UBI, family leave, and childcare support for working parents would help with the issue of population decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a better route would be paid maternity leaves and jobs that are easier to get back if you take a year or two off. Universal 3 year old program and pre-k. And then work hours that match daycare and school hours. Reduce work day to 7 hours and increase schooling. 8-3:30. A lot of us would willingly take a salary reduction even for hours that match our schools.

Yes, this would help and are feminist issues. Alimony won't (and is not a truly feminist issue).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am conflicted about a payment specifically for housework and child care to women. It’s great as an idea but implementing it is not easy. Some countries provide monetary support per child, other countries subsidize maternity leaves for parents. Economists are toying with the idea of universal income. To me these would be more palatable than paying women for housework. On one hand it returns housework back squarely to women as a duty and responsibility: “You get paid to cook and wipe butts”, on the other, how amounts be decided for women who stay at home vs those who work and still do a big chunk of housework and childcare, and 2 parent households who both work, what about grandparents and others? What about stay at home childless spouses? Do they also get paid something? I think it’s more straightforward to either provide support per child or just go for the universal income.

But when one woman decides to work out of the home, some other woman IS paid to "cook and wipes butts" in her home. So why not she herself? The worst line in that article was the author saying she worked out of the house and paid others to work in her house "out of a need to feel like a full human being." In other words, she viewed the women who worked in her house as less than full human beings. What a terrible person!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am conflicted about a payment specifically for housework and child care to women. It’s great as an idea but implementing it is not easy. Some countries provide monetary support per child, other countries subsidize maternity leaves for parents. Economists are toying with the idea of universal income. To me these would be more palatable than paying women for housework. On one hand it returns housework back squarely to women as a duty and responsibility: “You get paid to cook and wipe butts”, on the other, how amounts be decided for women who stay at home vs those who work and still do a big chunk of housework and childcare, and 2 parent households who both work, what about grandparents and others? What about stay at home childless spouses? Do they also get paid something? I think it’s more straightforward to either provide support per child or just go for the universal income.

But when one woman decides to work out of the home, some other woman IS paid to "cook and wipes butts" in her home. So why not she herself? The worst line in that article was the author saying she worked out of the house and paid others to work in her house "out of a need to feel like a full human being." In other words, she viewed the women who worked in her house as less than full human beings. What a terrible person!

I am the PP from earlier in the thread who worked as a house cleaner, and I completely agree with this. I am surprised that people in this thread are praising her. She strikes me as a truly awful person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That approach won’t work.

But a significantly increased tax credit or stipend per young child (0-5) based on need beyond the poverty level might work.

Of course, it might also create a perverse incentive to have more babies. A possible solution might be a cap on benefits.

The reality is most sahms don’t need to be paid. Heck, many have hired help.

By that "logic" CEOs don't need to be paid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That approach won’t work.

But a significantly increased tax credit or stipend per young child (0-5) based on need beyond the poverty level might work.

Of course, it might also create a perverse incentive to have more babies. A possible solution might be a cap on benefits.

The reality is most sahms don’t need to be paid. Heck, many have hired help.

By that "logic" CEOs don't need to be paid

Gimme a break!

If Joe earns enough for his wife to be a SAHM, why should my taxes pay her to stay home? We all know sahms with a cleaning service btw.
Having said that, I would be in favor of a big tax credit or significant cash benefit for families with young kids (0-5) to offset child care costs. I would pay a bigger incentive to married couples (to incentivize marriage), and I would cap the benefit at 2 kids. I wouldn’t limit it to low income families. I would extend it to households up to $250k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That approach won’t work.

But a significantly increased tax credit or stipend per young child (0-5) based on need beyond the poverty level might work.

Of course, it might also create a perverse incentive to have more babies. A possible solution might be a cap on benefits.

The reality is most sahms don’t need to be paid. Heck, many have hired help.

By that "logic" CEOs don't need to be paid

Neither the CEO nor SAHM should be paid by taxpayers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am conflicted about a payment specifically for housework and child care to women. It’s great as an idea but implementing it is not easy. Some countries provide monetary support per child, other countries subsidize maternity leaves for parents. Economists are toying with the idea of universal income. To me these would be more palatable than paying women for housework. On one hand it returns housework back squarely to women as a duty and responsibility: “You get paid to cook and wipe butts”, on the other, how amounts be decided for women who stay at home vs those who work and still do a big chunk of housework and childcare, and 2 parent households who both work, what about grandparents and others? What about stay at home childless spouses? Do they also get paid something? I think it’s more straightforward to either provide support per child or just go for the universal income.

But when one woman decides to work out of the home, some other woman IS paid to "cook and wipes butts" in her home. So why not she herself? The worst line in that article was the author saying she worked out of the house and paid others to work in her house "out of a need to feel like a full human being." In other words, she viewed the women who worked in her house as less than full human beings. What a terrible person!

People say this alll the time on this website, with the same implication, and no one ever says boo about it in those wohm vs. sahm threads.

Y'all are a bunch of hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Nannies should learn from this and start charging a minimum of $25/hr for one child and $10/hr for each additional child. If you can't afford this, don't have kids.