Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God you people are so dumb. The article is not arguing that people "should" be paid for this work, like getting groceries.

The point is that the time and effort spent on getting groceries is something that is almost always overlooked and it is a necessary task. You can't function in life without food. Someone has to shop for and cook it. Usually that person is not paid for doing and usually they're not even thanked.

The point is that tasks like these should NOT be overlooked. Is that really something you disagree with?

I think people think it is dumb because everybody gets groceries, everybody. They don't consider it unpaid work. It's necessary, everybody does it, not just non working people. It's done by everybody so it's a silly thing to count.

It's one tiny example among many. We're only talking about it because some idiot brought it up on page one. So now every single page in this thread is going to be dedicated to discussing whether grocery shopping is something that counts, which is sooo not the point.

Did you even read the article?! Because if this is what your'e using to discount the idea that unpaid caretakers deserve recognition, you're a fascist. Or an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God you people are so dumb. The article is not arguing that people "should" be paid for this work, like getting groceries.

The point is that the time and effort spent on getting groceries is something that is almost always overlooked and it is a necessary task. You can't function in life without food. Someone has to shop for and cook it. Usually that person is not paid for doing and usually they're not even thanked.

The point is that tasks like these should NOT be overlooked. Is that really something you disagree with?

I think people think it is dumb because everybody gets groceries, everybody. They don't consider it unpaid work. It's necessary, everybody does it, not just non working people. It's done by everybody so it's a silly thing to count.

Just because everybody does it doesn’t mean it isn’t unpaid work, how is this hard to understand?

It's a silly thing to count. Some people pay somebody to drive them to work.. Uber/taxi/metro, so should a man that drives himself count that as unpaid work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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:God you people are so dumb. The article is not arguing that people "should" be paid for this work, like getting groceries.

The point is that the time and effort spent on getting groceries is something that is almost always overlooked and it is a necessary task. You can't function in life without food. Someone has to shop for and cook it. Usually that person is not paid for doing and usually they're not even thanked.

The point is that tasks like these should NOT be overlooked. Is that really something you disagree with?

I think people think it is dumb because everybody gets groceries, everybody. They don't consider it unpaid work. It's necessary, everybody does it, not just non working people. It's done by everybody so it's a silly thing to count.

Just because everybody does it doesn’t mean it isn’t unpaid work, how is this hard to understand?

Anonymous wrote: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'm a sahm and dh does all the grocery shopping, so....

Anonymous wrote:

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:God you people are so dumb. The article is not arguing that people "should" be paid for this work, like getting groceries.

The point is that the time and effort spent on getting groceries is something that is almost always overlooked and it is a necessary task. You can't function in life without food. Someone has to shop for and cook it. Usually that person is not paid for doing and usually they're not even thanked.

The point is that tasks like these should NOT be overlooked. Is that really something you disagree with?

I think people think it is dumb because everybody gets groceries, everybody. They don't consider it unpaid work. It's necessary, everybody does it, not just non working people. It's done by everybody so it's a silly thing to count.

Just because everybody does it doesn’t mean it isn’t unpaid work, how is this hard to understand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God you people are so dumb. The article is not arguing that people "should" be paid for this work, like getting groceries.

The point is that the time and effort spent on getting groceries is something that is almost always overlooked and it is a necessary task. You can't function in life without food. Someone has to shop for and cook it. Usually that person is not paid for doing and usually they're not even thanked.

The point is that tasks like these should NOT be overlooked. Is that really something you disagree with?

I think people think it is dumb because everybody gets groceries, everybody. They don't consider it unpaid work. It's necessary, everybody does it, not just non working people. It's done by everybody so it's a silly thing to count.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God you people are so dumb. The article is not arguing that people "should" be paid for this work, like getting groceries.

The point is that the time and effort spent on getting groceries is something that is almost always overlooked and it is a necessary task. You can't function in life without food. Someone has to shop for and cook it. Usually that person is not paid for doing and usually they're not even thanked.

The point is that tasks like these should NOT be overlooked. Is that really something you disagree with?

I think people think it is dumb because everybody gets groceries, everybody. They don't consider it unpaid work. It's necessary, everybody does it, not just non working people. It's done by everybody so it's a silly thing to count.

Anonymous wrote: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:

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:God you people are so dumb. The article is not arguing that people "should" be paid for this work, like getting groceries.

The point is that the time and effort spent on getting groceries is something that is almost always overlooked and it is a necessary task. You can't function in life without food. Someone has to shop for and cook it. Usually that person is not paid for doing and usually they're not even thanked.

The point is that tasks like these should NOT be overlooked. Is that really something you disagree with?