Looks like the calculation does not take into account the fact that the SAHM is receiving food, lodging, a car, and other expenses from her husband. In effect, the "unpaid labor" is what her husband is paying her to do when he provides for the family. In all likelihood her "unpaid labor" would not even pay for all that stuff if she were paid minimum wage for it.

I know everyone's going to chime in "she still does more of the unpaid work at home even if she has a full-time job" but most likely he makes more than she does and therefore it is reasonable that she do more "unpaid work" to compensate for that. That is, if we're going to reduce this to a purely economic calculation - as the NYT op ed attempts to do.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anybody is arguing that all unpaid labor be paid. But maybe we should consider a way to include it into the GDP.

Than it should be for both men and women.

Equality and all of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of this is unnecessary. I am a working single father with 100 percent custody. I have no help and my kids are preteens and one teen. First, who would pay me to do the housework in my own house? Second, some of the things SAHP's do is nice, but somewhat unnecessary at the frequency it's done. Like I do laundry at different schedules, sometimes more than others, i never wash windows, vacuum infrequently between the cleaning lady.

In short, this article is not really useful.

Interesting perspective. I am married SAHM and my DH actually appreciates the nice-to-haves that I provide. Maybe it is a SES thing and high HHI people want these nice-to-haves for themselves and their children. I don't know. I have outsourced the window washing etc. He is very much a happily married husband and involved dad and my kids have both loving parents in the house. Certainly nice to have. Dollar amount? Priceless.

On the others side of the coin, I actually appreciate the nice-to-haves that my husband provides. You sound ridiculous.

My husband does all car maintenance (actually does it, not just takes it to a shop), house maintenance (last weekend he ordered and installed a new hot water heater), he makes medical appointments and takes our son to his regular recurring appointment, he does all of the lawn care (1/2 acre lot), and a long list of other unpaid labor. He is very much a happily married husband and involved dad and my kids have both loving parents in the house. Certainly nice to have. Dollar amount? Priceless.

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone actually READ the article?

No.

I don’t think anybody is arguing that all unpaid labor be paid. But maybe we should consider a way to include it into the GDP.

Did anyone actually READ the article?

This is unpaid work but it is work. And since it is work, it gets done by someone. Marriage laws were made in societies to make sure that women got the social, emotional, financial rights of being a homemaker and a mother. There was a quid pro quo for this unpaid labor.

As a SAHM, I do not have to be paid. I am an equal partner with equal rights on the household wealth and assets. I am granted rights and protections under the law. Only foolish and ignorant people need to see these graphs and realize that there is a dollar amount associated with the unpaid work of women at home. These foolish people are not going to change their tune either. These graphs are not going to convince them.

Smart people realize that this labor is unpaid and they are appreciative of the work that women do - SAHM or WOHM. Their intelligence is rewarded by happier households and shared goals.

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?

I don't get it either. I skimmed the article and it was talking about things like grocery shopping. Is the implication that doing things that are basically just life is now supposed to be paid work? Paid by who exactly?

HAHA... they count getting groceries?

Yes, some people pay other people to do all these things. You seriously didn't see the Internet blow up over the silicon valley CEO who wanted a "wife"?

Of course they count getting groceries! It’s work, just like any other task.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think I should necessarily get paid for what I do as a stay at home mom (I don’t like the transactional nature of that idea), but I appreciate articles like this just because people undervalue and under-appreciate unpair labor. Some people (not DCUM people) think SAHMs don’t contribute because we don’t earn.

I would appreciate it if they measure all unpaid work by all people.

I don't think 1 group actually has cornered the market on unpaid work.

They focused on women because it’s international women’s day on the 8th.

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?

I don't get it either. I skimmed the article and it was talking about things like grocery shopping. Is the implication that doing things that are basically just life is now supposed to be paid work? Paid by who exactly?

HAHA... they count getting groceries?

Yes, some people pay other people to do all these things. You seriously didn't see the Internet blow up over the silicon valley CEO who wanted a "wife"?

You have to look at the salary of the SAHP. I had a masters degree but by the time we paid for a nanny who drove my child to therapies and replaced what I did, I would have owed money vs. brought anything home. It didn't make sense at that point. Likewise later on, we had an elderly family member in a bad situation live with us so we couldn't have afforded child/elderly care at the same time except if one person would have done it all which was near impossible, which is why I stopped after a year as the elderly family member would not leave the house.

There are lots of benefits to having a SAHP. Except, if you have a mom like mine and far more benefits to her working for everyone's sanity. She didn't enjoy being a mom at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of this is unnecessary. I am a working single father with 100 percent custody. I have no help and my kids are preteens and one teen. First, who would pay me to do the housework in my own house? Second, some of the things SAHP's do is nice, but somewhat unnecessary at the frequency it's done. Like I do laundry at different schedules, sometimes more than others, i never wash windows, vacuum infrequently between the cleaning lady.

In short, this article is not really useful.

Interesting perspective. I am married SAHM and my DH actually appreciates the nice-to-haves that I provide. Maybe it is a SES thing and high HHI people want these nice-to-haves for themselves and their children. I don't know. I have outsourced the window washing etc. He is very much a happily married husband and involved dad and my kids have both loving parents in the house. Certainly nice to have. Dollar amount? Priceless.

English please.

Hay una razón por la que este hombre es un padre soltero.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It would actually be better if we require SAHM to pay into social security if they plan to receive it.

Not really. We are high income and contributing to SS won't be an issue for us. I think it should not be mandatory. I am sure many households are struggling to meet ends and childcare costs will eat up the 2nd income if the mom works. I did contribute for the required number of years to SS when I was working. I will be getting SS when I reach the retirement age. I am however not depending on SS for my retirement. It is tricky. How do you redistribute wealth with some degree of fairness?

Perhaps we are better off just trying to fight for equal pay and paid maternity leave.

Social Security is not an entitlement. You pay in you get money out. It's a retirement plan. You don't pay you don't receive. Plain and simple.

If you want to create a welfare system for SAHM, immigrants, and those that just don't pay into the system, that is fine. But SS is not a redistribution system.

Immigrants actually pay a lot into it.

Some do, some don't... some SAHM's do, some don't... but those that don't should not receive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It would actually be better if we require SAHM to pay into social security if they plan to receive it.

Not really. We are high income and contributing to SS won't be an issue for us. I think it should not be mandatory. I am sure many households are struggling to meet ends and childcare costs will eat up the 2nd income if the mom works. I did contribute for the required number of years to SS when I was working. I will be getting SS when I reach the retirement age. I am however not depending on SS for my retirement. It is tricky. How do you redistribute wealth with some degree of fairness?

Perhaps we are better off just trying to fight for equal pay and paid maternity leave.

Social Security is not an entitlement. You pay in you get money out. It's a retirement plan. You don't pay you don't receive. Plain and simple.

If you want to create a welfare system for SAHM, immigrants, and those that just don't pay into the system, that is fine. But SS is not a redistribution system.

Immigrants actually pay a lot into it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of this is unnecessary. I am a working single father with 100 percent custody. I have no help and my kids are preteens and one teen. First, who would pay me to do the housework in my own house? Second, some of the things SAHP's do is nice, but somewhat unnecessary at the frequency it's done. Like I do laundry at different schedules, sometimes more than others, i never wash windows, vacuum infrequently between the cleaning lady.

In short, this article is not really useful.

Interesting perspective. I am married SAHM and my DH actually appreciates the nice-to-haves that I provide. Maybe it is a SES thing and high HHI people want these nice-to-haves for themselves and their children. I don't know. I have outsourced the window washing etc. He is very much a happily married husband and involved dad and my kids have both loving parents in the house. Certainly nice to have. Dollar amount? Priceless.

English please.