4 ms·

Women’s Unpaid Labor is Worth $10.9T

15 points by clairity 7y ago

clairity 7y ago
note that there is a huge business opportunity lurking in sectors this large yet relatively untapped. the US alone is $1.5T. this revelation also gives perspective on economics as a discipline, in that it's still in it's infancy, with vast swaths of the economy largely invisible to decision-makers.
downerending 7y ago
Dupe. Prior discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22492574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22492574
gdubs 7y ago
My wife an I discuss this a lot. There are a lot of programs designed to help offset costs for women who choose to work, but not a whole lot aimed at paying full-time stay-at-home parents for their contributions. I recently commented about the book, “The Value of Everything”. It does an incredible job at explaining the various ways in which we measure value. Today, right now, we tend to say that your value is what you earn. But it’s not the only model available, and there’s a pretty good argument that paying people for the work they do in raising the next generation could be enormously impactful for society.
- eunoia 7y ago
  What about a simple program where only one spouse works but all money is shared. My wife and I effectively get the same paycheck on the same day.
  - lvh 7y ago
    Perhaps I’m missing your point but that sounds almost indistinguishable from a joint checking account?
    - eunoia 7y ago
      That is the point. I’m curious what kind of program OP is proposing over just having a JCA.
      - gdubs 7y ago
        Universal basic income would be an acceptable approach imho.
  - gdubs 7y ago
    You’re just talking about a single earner household _as it exists today_. It sounds like a snarky reply, tbh. But it’s worth addressing regardless: this scheme simply reinforces inequality — only people fortunate enough to live off one income can afford to have one of the primary care givers stay at home full time. It implicitly begs the question of the value added by full-time parenting: in your scenario the “bread winner” is still the only one valued by society as a whole, and the caregiver is dependent on their spouse/partner’s earned income.
- chongli 7y ago
  we tend to say that your value is what you earn People who say that aren’t expressing a basic understanding of economics: the reason people have jobs is so that employers can capture the surplus value produced by their workers. Stay at home parents produce incredible surplus value. It’s just not captured by an employer, it’s captured by the children. That’s the reason we don’t pay them: children don’t have any money to pay their parents. It’s also why I think a lot of people get offended when the topic of parenting is brought up as unpaid labour. Money is a vulgar thing. If you were enjoying a delicious meal at your in-laws’ house and at the end you said “that was wonderful” and handed your mother-in-law a twenty dollar bill, you would really offend her. Anyway, instead of paying the parents for raising their kids, we pay the kids when they get old enough to work. If we were to start paying parents for the contributions their kids make to society, wouldn’t we have to pay the kids less? Don’t young people have it hard enough as it is right now? The real reason people are struggling now is because the cost of housing, education, and medical care have gone through the roof. It used to be that a single-earner household, with the husband working in a factory and the wife at home with 4 kids, could support a nice house in the suburbs with two cars in the garage and a white picket fence. Now we’ve got both parents with university degrees working white-collar jobs and they can barely afford to raise 2 kids. If we want to help new parents, we should find ways to make housing, education, and medical care affordable.
EpicEng 7y ago
I'm not sure how you can argue that women who don't enter the workforce aren't being paid for house work. They don't get a check, sure, but they get food, clothing, a home, a cell phone, etc. Seems like double dipping. If they had a day job those tasks wouldn't be performed as often and would likely be split up more equitably. I'm not sure what point the article is attempting to make. That more women should enter the work force? Sure, ok, maybe. That there is some untapped economy worth $11T? I don't think so.
- true_religion 7y ago
  That’s not formal payment. For the house especially, that sort of thing is simply owned by the person. I’m not sure what standard you are using to determine “payment” but to me, it’s so vague that you could reasonably claim toddlers are “paid” in food, shelter, and toys to entertain their parents with cuteness.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    In what way is it not payment? Money is an abstraction over goods. The toddler example is just silly for obvious reasons and neither here nor there. What I'm saying is that article tries to frame housework as something that should be paid for (by... someone?), but if those same women were working they wouldn't be doing nearly as much of it. In exchange they're receiving goods, even though they have no income. You can't have it both ways.
- telesilla 7y ago
  >would likely be split up more equitably Unfortunately that isn't how it works out. In traditional households where both parents work, the woman also does the housework and childcare on top of her work due to inherited gender roles. There was a study done where it showed gay couples are happier, precisely because the traditional gender imbalances don't apply.
ng12 7y ago
Yeah, kids are expensive. What's the value of raising the next generation of humanity?

15 points by clairity 7y ago

note that there is a huge business opportunity lurking in sectors this large yet relatively untapped. the US alone is $1.5T. this revelation also gives perspective on economics as a discipline, in that it's still in it's infancy, with vast swaths of the economy largely invisible to decision-makers.

downerending 7y ago

Dupe. Prior discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22492574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22492574

gdubs 7y ago

My wife an I discuss this a lot. There are a lot of programs designed to help offset costs for women who choose to work, but not a whole lot aimed at paying full-time stay-at-home parents for their contributions. I recently commented about the book, “The Value of Everything”. It does an incredible job at explaining the various ways in which we measure value. Today, right now, we tend to say that your value is what you earn. But it’s not the only model available, and there’s a pretty good argument that paying people for the work they do in raising the next generation could be enormously impactful for society.

eunoia 7y ago
What about a simple program where only one spouse works but all money is shared. My wife and I effectively get the same paycheck on the same day.
- lvh 7y ago
  Perhaps I’m missing your point but that sounds almost indistinguishable from a joint checking account?
  - eunoia 7y ago
    That is the point. I’m curious what kind of program OP is proposing over just having a JCA.
    - gdubs 7y ago
      Universal basic income would be an acceptable approach imho.
- gdubs 7y ago
  You’re just talking about a single earner household _as it exists today_. It sounds like a snarky reply, tbh. But it’s worth addressing regardless: this scheme simply reinforces inequality — only people fortunate enough to live off one income can afford to have one of the primary care givers stay at home full time. It implicitly begs the question of the value added by full-time parenting: in your scenario the “bread winner” is still the only one valued by society as a whole, and the caregiver is dependent on their spouse/partner’s earned income.
chongli 7y ago
we tend to say that your value is what you earn People who say that aren’t expressing a basic understanding of economics: the reason people have jobs is so that employers can capture the surplus value produced by their workers. Stay at home parents produce incredible surplus value. It’s just not captured by an employer, it’s captured by the children. That’s the reason we don’t pay them: children don’t have any money to pay their parents. It’s also why I think a lot of people get offended when the topic of parenting is brought up as unpaid labour. Money is a vulgar thing. If you were enjoying a delicious meal at your in-laws’ house and at the end you said “that was wonderful” and handed your mother-in-law a twenty dollar bill, you would really offend her. Anyway, instead of paying the parents for raising their kids, we pay the kids when they get old enough to work. If we were to start paying parents for the contributions their kids make to society, wouldn’t we have to pay the kids less? Don’t young people have it hard enough as it is right now? The real reason people are struggling now is because the cost of housing, education, and medical care have gone through the roof. It used to be that a single-earner household, with the husband working in a factory and the wife at home with 4 kids, could support a nice house in the suburbs with two cars in the garage and a white picket fence. Now we’ve got both parents with university degrees working white-collar jobs and they can barely afford to raise 2 kids. If we want to help new parents, we should find ways to make housing, education, and medical care affordable.

EpicEng 7y ago

I'm not sure how you can argue that women who don't enter the workforce aren't being paid for house work. They don't get a check, sure, but they get food, clothing, a home, a cell phone, etc. Seems like double dipping. If they had a day job those tasks wouldn't be performed as often and would likely be split up more equitably. I'm not sure what point the article is attempting to make. That more women should enter the work force? Sure, ok, maybe. That there is some untapped economy worth $11T? I don't think so.

true_religion 7y ago
That’s not formal payment. For the house especially, that sort of thing is simply owned by the person. I’m not sure what standard you are using to determine “payment” but to me, it’s so vague that you could reasonably claim toddlers are “paid” in food, shelter, and toys to entertain their parents with cuteness.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  In what way is it not payment? Money is an abstraction over goods. The toddler example is just silly for obvious reasons and neither here nor there. What I'm saying is that article tries to frame housework as something that should be paid for (by... someone?), but if those same women were working they wouldn't be doing nearly as much of it. In exchange they're receiving goods, even though they have no income. You can't have it both ways.
telesilla 7y ago
>would likely be split up more equitably Unfortunately that isn't how it works out. In traditional households where both parents work, the woman also does the housework and childcare on top of her work due to inherited gender roles. There was a study done where it showed gay couples are happier, precisely because the traditional gender imbalances don't apply.

ng12 7y ago

Yeah, kids are expensive. What's the value of raising the next generation of humanity?