NYT: Women's Unpaid Labor is Worth $10.9 Trillion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The current data we have about labor markets give us a very inaccurate picture because they don’t take into xo side ration unpaid domestic labor. Because we have a bias that says that pleases more value in paid labor.

Nobody is looking for a prize. It’s in everybody’s interest to get a better picture of how our economy functions.

How.does measuring women's unpaid labor but not mens give us a better picture?

It doesnt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never really understood this argument, and I'm a woman. Is the implication that we should get a salary for these things? There are certain tasks that are just about keeping your life up and running. Moreover, who would pay us for, say, doing the dishes or the laundry?

. +1 manufactured outrage is tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've never really understood this argument, and I'm a woman. Is the implication that we should get a salary for these things? There are certain tasks that are just about keeping your life up and running. Moreover, who would pay us for, say, doing the dishes or the laundry?

+1

The anti-capitalist newspaper now wants to bring capitalism to your bedroom...did they account for the value of sex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand this. It’s not a service to society to have kids. Or if it is, than we should be a total welfare state.

Yes it is abundantly clear that you do not understand this.

No, thank you, ass hat, I understand the point you’re trying to make. I don’t understand what purpose you think it serves or why if you actually follow through with this inane concept we wouldn’t then count children’s chores, men’s contributions, etc. That makes zero sense. It’s not as if work that is done in connection with children or by women has some different innate value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current data we have about labor markets give us a very inaccurate picture because they don’t take into xo side ration unpaid domestic labor. Because we have a bias that says that pleases more value in paid labor.

Nobody is looking for a prize. It’s in everybody’s interest to get a better picture of how our economy functions.

How.does measuring women's unpaid labor but not mens give us a better picture?

It doesnt.

Both matter. And it matters more when you are talking about women in poverty and ending poverty. This is important. Stop being a fool and making everything a mommy war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current data we have about labor markets give us a very inaccurate picture because they don’t take into xo side ration unpaid domestic labor. Because we have a bias that says that pleases more value in paid labor.

Nobody is looking for a prize. It’s in everybody’s interest to get a better picture of how our economy functions.

How.does measuring women's unpaid labor but not mens give us a better picture?

It doesnt.

Both matter. And it matters more when you are talking about women in poverty and ending poverty. This is important. Stop being a fool and making everything a mommy war.

The reason people calculate these things is because we often talk about our economy largely in terms of paid labor. But there is an argument that unpaid labor (women's and men's) should be calculated because it is valuable to society and so should be considered part of the productivity that we generate. If one person is caring for children and doing other domestic tasks that allow the other person to get a paid wage, then it is worth understanding the value (monetary) that has for our society. One reason for that is to understand the relative value of things, to give appropriate weight to the very important things people do to keep their households functioning so that paid labor can happen, and to understand how social policy can shape that dynamic. For example, when trying to determine the level of child care subsidy or whether to offer something like state funded child care, it helps to know not only the cost of out-of-home child care but the relative cost of the unpaid in-home labor required to take care of a child versus the ability that person would have to participate in the paid labor market (and broader society) if s/he could.

There's lots online about why unpaid labor is calculated - it's done around the world. This quote is from Wikipedia but there are plenty of sources out there about this if people are interested.
"According to time-use surveys collected by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), women are the main undertakers of unpaid labor globally. This uneven division of unpaid labor within households has implications for women's involvement in both public and private spheres. One common form of unpaid work is unpaid domestic work. The burden of this type of unpaid work generally falls on the women in a household. Contributing so much time to unpaid domestic work has major effects on women and their participation in the labor market, which consequently affects children, society, and the state."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current data we have about labor markets give us a very inaccurate picture because they don’t take into xo side ration unpaid domestic labor. Because we have a bias that says that pleases more value in paid labor.

Nobody is looking for a prize. It’s in everybody’s interest to get a better picture of how our economy functions.

How.does measuring women's unpaid labor but not mens give us a better picture?

It doesnt.

Both matter. And it matters more when you are talking about women in poverty and ending poverty. This is important. Stop being a fool and making everything a mommy war.

The reason people calculate these things is because we often talk about our economy largely in terms of paid labor. But there is an argument that unpaid labor (women's and men's) should be calculated because it is valuable to society and so should be considered part of the productivity that we generate. If one person is caring for children and doing other domestic tasks that allow the other person to get a paid wage, then it is worth understanding the value (monetary) that has for our society. One reason for that is to understand the relative value of things, to give appropriate weight to the very important things people do to keep their households functioning so that paid labor can happen, and to understand how social policy can shape that dynamic. For example, when trying to determine the level of child care subsidy or whether to offer something like state funded child care, it helps to know not only the cost of out-of-home child care but the relative cost of the unpaid in-home labor required to take care of a child versus the ability that person would have to participate in the paid labor market (and broader society) if s/he could.

There's lots online about why unpaid labor is calculated - it's done around the world. This quote is from Wikipedia but there are plenty of sources out there about this if people are interested.
"According to time-use surveys collected by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), women are the main undertakers of unpaid labor globally. This uneven division of unpaid labor within households has implications for women's involvement in both public and private spheres. One common form of unpaid work is unpaid domestic work. The burden of this type of unpaid work generally falls on the women in a household. Contributing so much time to unpaid domestic work has major effects on women and their participation in the labor market, which consequently affects children, society, and the state."

What about the women (including at least one earlier poster) who say that them staying home allows their husband to make more money? Isn't that taking into account the value of the stay at home mom's labor? If she worked, her husband would make $100,000. Since she doesn't work he makes $500,000. Therefore, the "value" of her unpaid labor is already being taken into account. So why would we do it twice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nonsense. My husband does an equal amount, more in some aspects. This is just another way of holding women to domestic jobs.

+1. I married a feminist man who does his fair share around the house - laundry, vacuuming, grocery shopping, general cleaning, making lunches and picking up when possible. My brother is the one who took care of both aging parents. Women, this narrative persists as long as we marry the fools who won't help out! Teach your sons to do their part!

Glaringly strange in this comment how it's not your feminist husband's job to teach the sons to do their part.

+1
Yes, and this poster blames women for not being wise enough to choose men who would help out with unpaid domestic labor after they're married. So doing all the unpaid domestic labor is not just something women are stuck doing by default, but it's also their fault that it's that way and the men are once again given a pass.

You're kind of dense. Stop giving men a pass. That's the answer. If you weren't wise enough to choose a man who would help out with unpaid domestic labor then be wise enough to change things and make them help. Otherwise, stop complaining.

[Anonymous]

What about the women (including at least one earlier poster) who say that them staying home allows their husband to make more money? Isn't that taking into account the value of the stay at home mom's labor? If she worked, her husband would make $100,000. Since she doesn't work he makes $500,000. Therefore, the "value" of her unpaid labor is already being taken into account. So why would we do it twice?

The example is ludicrous. Why would he make less if she worked? He wouldn't have a different job. He'd be doing the same thing. He chose his career path, whatever it was, before he even met his future wife. The only thing that would change if she worked is that the couple would be spending more on day care or nannies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What about the women (including at least one earlier poster) who say that them staying home allows their husband to make more money? Isn't that taking into account the value of the stay at home mom's labor? If she worked, her husband would make $100,000. Since she doesn't work he makes $500,000. Therefore, the "value" of her unpaid labor is already being taken into account. So why would we do it twice?

The example is ludicrous. Why would he make less if she worked? He wouldn't have a different job. He'd be doing the same thing. He chose his career path, whatever it was, before he even met his future wife. The only thing that would change if she worked is that the couple would be spending more on day care or nannies.

Are you serious? You can’t think of a job where you would make more money if you worked longer hours or had more flexibility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a SAHM. Staying at home allows us a better, less hectic life and there are some savings and intangible benefits too because we are outsourcing less, cooking more, childcare, enrichment etc. However, no one is paying me for my labor. Giving SAHMs seperate pre-tax retirement savings instruments from primary earners or allowing them to pay into social security may be more helpful.

Since I was also a WOHM, I would prefer just equal pay in the workplace, paid maternity and paternity leave, flex schedule, on-site daycare and pumping facility. Lets start with making the lives of working women better so that we actually have pleasant choices about if we want to stay in the workforce or not.

Unless every employee gets the equivalent of maternity/paternity leave, unpaid nap time three times every work day then no special privileges just for having a bsby! I agree with equal pay and equal respect.

Every other country has paid maternity/paternity leave except US.

With your snark about unpaid nap time I am assuming that you are childless.

I forgot what else WOHMs have to face at the workplace - bitter, childless, hopeless spinster coworkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What about the women (including at least one earlier poster) who say that them staying home allows their husband to make more money? Isn't that taking into account the value of the stay at home mom's labor? If she worked, her husband would make $100,000. Since she doesn't work he makes $500,000. Therefore, the "value" of her unpaid labor is already being taken into account. So why would we do it twice?

The example is ludicrous. Why would he make less if she worked? He wouldn't have a different job. He'd be doing the same thing. He chose his career path, whatever it was, before he even met his future wife. The only thing that would change if she worked is that the couple would be spending more on day care or nannies.

Are you serious? You can’t think of a job where you would make more money if you worked longer hours or had more flexibility?

+1. During my years as a sahm, my husband got a graduate degree, a prestigious certification, and worked how ever many hours were needed by his demanding employer. He got paid a CRAP load of money, his company paid for the degree, and used that period of his life to seriously jump start his career. He literally makes 10x what I make. So yeah, those years I cared for the kids, house, etc. was unpaid time well spent. Unless he divorces me, which seems unlikely cause I’m awesome

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The current data we have about labor markets give us a very inaccurate picture because they don’t take into xo side ration unpaid domestic labor. Because we have a bias that says that pleases more value in paid labor.

Nobody is looking for a prize. It’s in everybody’s interest to get a better picture of how our economy functions.

How.does measuring women's unpaid labor but not mens give us a better picture?

It doesnt.

Both matter. And it matters more when you are talking about women in poverty and ending poverty. This is important. Stop being a fool and making everything a mommy war.

The reason people calculate these things is because we often talk about our economy largely in terms of paid labor. But there is an argument that unpaid labor (women's and men's) should be calculated because it is valuable to society and so should be considered part of the productivity that we generate. If one person is caring for children and doing other domestic tasks that allow the other person to get a paid wage, then it is worth understanding the value (monetary) that has for our society. One reason for that is to understand the relative value of things, to give appropriate weight to the very important things people do to keep their households functioning so that paid labor can happen, and to understand how social policy can shape that dynamic. For example, when trying to determine the level of child care subsidy or whether to offer something like state funded child care, it helps to know not only the cost of out-of-home child care but the relative cost of the unpaid in-home labor required to take care of a child versus the ability that person would have to participate in the paid labor market (and broader society) if s/he could.

There's lots online about why unpaid labor is calculated - it's done around the world. This quote is from Wikipedia but there are plenty of sources out there about this if people are interested.
"According to time-use surveys collected by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), women are the main undertakers of unpaid labor globally. This uneven division of unpaid labor within households has implications for women's involvement in both public and private spheres. One common form of unpaid work is unpaid domestic work. The burden of this type of unpaid work generally falls on the women in a household. Contributing so much time to unpaid domestic work has major effects on women and their participation in the labor market, which consequently affects children, society, and the state."

What about the women (including at least one earlier poster) who say that them staying home allows their husband to make more money? Isn't that taking into account the value of the stay at home mom's labor? If she worked, her husband would make $100,000. Since she doesn't work he makes $500,000. Therefore, the "value" of her unpaid labor is already being taken into account. So why would we do it twice?

I think this example is a perfect reason for why we should calculate it and include it in the GDP. This is actually the situation my DH are in (HHI is actually 475). So by just doing a “but-for” analysis, we are looking at my labor being worth 375K. It’s not. One spouses earning ability shouldn’t factor into the value of the other spouse’s labor.

[Anonymous]

I think the Times should have actually drew some conclusion. It didn’t, it just shared data and an info graphic, so people are just extrapolating a conclusion they think follows from the article and then refuting that conclusion, which the times didn’t even make. Totally unproductive.
.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What about the women (including at least one earlier poster) who say that them staying home allows their husband to make more money? Isn't that taking into account the value of the stay at home mom's labor? If she worked, her husband would make $100,000. Since she doesn't work he makes $500,000. Therefore, the "value" of her unpaid labor is already being taken into account. So why would we do it twice?

The example is ludicrous. Why would he make less if she worked? He wouldn't have a different job. He'd be doing the same thing. He chose his career path, whatever it was, before he even met his future wife. The only thing that would change if she worked is that the couple would be spending more on day care or nannies.

Are you serious? You can’t think of a job where you would make more money if you worked longer hours or had more flexibility?

+1. During my years as a sahm, my husband got a graduate degree, a prestigious certification, and worked how ever many hours were needed by his demanding employer. He got paid a CRAP load of money, his company paid for the degree, and used that period of his life to seriously jump start his career. He literally makes 10x what I make. So yeah, those years I cared for the kids, house, etc. was unpaid time well spent. Unless he divorces me, which seems unlikely cause I’m awesome

I forgot to mention, we doubled down on his work because he works in a field FAR more lucrative than mine. So, even my lost earnings during my sahm years, were more than made up by the investment in his career. And yes, I’m earning the same general amount I would be making even if I hadn’t taken time off.