3 ms·

Every human being can value traditional female work (or, more broadly, human obligations to each other) more than money. But we seem to want to be paid. It's

by Digory 6y ago

Every human being can value traditional female work (or, more broadly, human obligations to each other) more than money. But we seem to want to be paid. It's interesting that socializing the payments seems to strike people as more freeing than just social obligation. This seems like the kind of thinking that eventually requires payments to give up the thrill of killing each other.

ncallaway 6y ago
> But we seem to want to be paid. It's interesting that socializing the payments seems to strike people as more freeing than just social obligation. It's not that we _want_ to be paid. It's that we _need_ to be paid, because in order to raise a child you need a stable source of critical things for many years: - food & water - shelter (and heat) - clothing - waste disposal If I wanted to take several years entirely away from work to raise a child, I would still have to have those things. How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid? It's not about valuing _being paid_, it's about valuing the things that are necessary to raise a child. You tell me how to acquire those things without being paid, and then we can analyze while people value being paid more than the social obligations.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  > How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid? From savings or by having another family member work? Combinations of that worked for a very long time in human history.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    Sure, but that's just shifting who is getting paid or when. The person I was responding to said that people were obsessed with getting paid versus the social obligations. I was explaining why people who would want to stay at home might be obsessed about payment. It's a question that must be answered. You provide some potential answers, but for the vast majority of young Americans these days having enough savings to raise a child by themselves without working is not in any way realistic. Even for the "have another family work" plan, for many a single income isn't enough to support 2 adults and raising a child. The economy just doesn't make that viable for a large swath of the country.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      If you’re in the latter situation, find work that can done entirely compatibly with raising your family. Open a family daycare for other nearby 2-income households to use. It helps them and helps you. If that violates the premise of “without being paid”, so be it; I’m trying to be pragmatic not pedantic.
- Digory 6y ago
  The traditional way of solving this problem is to assume stronger social obligations -- to a spouse, and to family, and sometimes community. I realize some people won't do that. But we're talking about tech CEOs, so these are people who have some control over their lives. If we re-normalized those social obligations, I think it would be better than transactionalizing it. And it's not all-or-nothing. I've tried to arrange my life so that I can make enough money, but also spend a lot more of my time doing the things I value more than money.

by Digory 6y ago

ncallaway 6y ago

> But we seem to want to be paid. It's interesting that socializing the payments seems to strike people as more freeing than just social obligation. It's not that we _want_ to be paid. It's that we _need_ to be paid, because in order to raise a child you need a stable source of critical things for many years: - food & water - shelter (and heat) - clothing - waste disposal If I wanted to take several years entirely away from work to raise a child, I would still have to have those things. How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid? It's not about valuing _being paid_, it's about valuing the things that are necessary to raise a child. You tell me how to acquire those things without being paid, and then we can analyze while people value being paid more than the social obligations.

sokoloff 6y ago
> How can I afford those things if I am not getting paid? From savings or by having another family member work? Combinations of that worked for a very long time in human history.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  Sure, but that's just shifting who is getting paid or when. The person I was responding to said that people were obsessed with getting paid versus the social obligations. I was explaining why people who would want to stay at home might be obsessed about payment. It's a question that must be answered. You provide some potential answers, but for the vast majority of young Americans these days having enough savings to raise a child by themselves without working is not in any way realistic. Even for the "have another family work" plan, for many a single income isn't enough to support 2 adults and raising a child. The economy just doesn't make that viable for a large swath of the country.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    If you’re in the latter situation, find work that can done entirely compatibly with raising your family. Open a family daycare for other nearby 2-income households to use. It helps them and helps you. If that violates the premise of “without being paid”, so be it; I’m trying to be pragmatic not pedantic.
Digory 6y ago
The traditional way of solving this problem is to assume stronger social obligations -- to a spouse, and to family, and sometimes community. I realize some people won't do that. But we're talking about tech CEOs, so these are people who have some control over their lives. If we re-normalized those social obligations, I think it would be better than transactionalizing it. And it's not all-or-nothing. I've tried to arrange my life so that I can make enough money, but also spend a lot more of my time doing the things I value more than money.