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.

You really don't understand this? By having a wife who takes care of everything child and house related, a man can spend more hours at the office and travel more and therefore get promoted faster, etc. It doesn't happen in every sector but it definitely exists. There is literally a PP who said this exact thing.

No. To repeat - if he had a wife who worked instead of staying home, the couple would simply outsource that domestic labor, and meanwhile the man would work the same hours and travel the same amount. This happens a lot in the DC area. Power couples who have maids and nannies, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You really don't understand this? By having a wife who takes care of everything child and house related, a man can spend more hours at the office and travel more and therefore get promoted faster, etc. It doesn't happen in every sector but it definitely exists. There is literally a PP who said this exact thing.

No. To repeat - if he had a wife who worked instead of staying home, the couple would simply outsource that domestic labor, and meanwhile the man would work the same hours and travel the same amount. This happens a lot in the DC area. Power couples who have maids and nannies, etc.

Depends on her job. If it also involves long hours and travel, that lifestyle can become untenable quickly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This.

What about the unpaid domestic work single, childless women do? And men?

This argument isn’t helpful. It makes mothers look like whiners.

When single people do these chores, they are doing it for themselves. When mothers do these chores, they are shopping, cooking, doing laundry, etc, for everyone, not just themselves! That's the difference. It's not work to do things for yourself, it's work to do something for others.

What about childless couples? And those with fur babies?

What’s the assumption that women are solely doing it? My husband does 90% of the grocery shopping.

Parenting is a choice BTW.

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.

You really don't understand this? By having a wife who takes care of everything child and house related, a man can spend more hours at the office and travel more and therefore get promoted faster, etc. It doesn't happen in every sector but it definitely exists. There is literally a PP who said this exact thing.

No. To repeat - if he had a wife who worked instead of staying home, the couple would simply outsource that domestic labor, and meanwhile the man would work the same hours and travel the same amount. This happens a lot in the DC area. Power couples who have maids and nannies, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This.

What about the unpaid domestic work single, childless women do? And men?

This argument isn’t helpful. It makes mothers look like whiners.

When single people do these chores, they are doing it for themselves. When mothers do these chores, they are shopping, cooking, doing laundry, etc, for everyone, not just themselves! That's the difference. It's not work to do things for yourself, it's work to do something for others.

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?

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.

You really don't understand this? By having a wife who takes care of everything child and house related, a man can spend more hours at the office and travel more and therefore get promoted faster, etc. It doesn't happen in every sector but it definitely exists. There is literally a PP who said this exact thing.

Anonymous wrote:The article overestimates how much work men do, and underestimates what women do. Not all DHs are created equally. Some men help a lot, some barely lift a finger. Some men are more appreciative of their wives, so the wives feel good even if they aren't paid. Other men don't appreciate their wives. Some men give their wives however much money they want, some men give their wives an "allowance". I think SAHMs should get paid. If you have to go back to work after a long gap, you don't have the years of experience your DH has accrued to put on your resume. You don't have the same salary you used to and probably have to start back at entry level.

Take any wild animal that gives birth. She can still eat for free. Human females can't.

If all it took for Iceland women to get equal pay is to go on strike for one day, why don't we do that in the US? Except that doesn't solve the problem of SAHMs taking a hit to their careers. Stay at home mom is a bad name for it anyway. It should be more like "unpaid caregiver".

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This.

What about the unpaid domestic work single, childless women do? And men?

This argument isn’t helpful. It makes mothers look like whiners.