3 ms·

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 ful

by 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.

by gdubs 7y ago

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.