3 ms·
It's not some one-for-one trade where Mom A shows up at Family B's home for her shift as nanny, while Mom B does the reverse. In reality Mom A is a nurse, and
by Rule35 6y ago
It's not some one-for-one trade where Mom A shows up at Family B's home for her shift as nanny, while Mom B does the reverse.
In reality Mom A is a nurse, and cares for 20+ people in a day, and Mom B is a school administrator, both provide more than one-day-of-mothering value per day worked, so it's actually in everyone best interest that they leave their kids at daycare, consuming 1/6th of a less-talented person's day, enabling their professional output. Even the daycare worker multiplies their output by watching multiple children.
- bopbeepboop 6y agoRight, I understand the theory. What I’m saying is striping out “mom” work into “preschool”, “restaurant”, and “laundromat” leads to inefficiencies that don’t come back at scale — for most families. Rich families have always had maids, etc. precisely for the reasons you state: it makes economic sense. We’re making that up in decreased quality: your family gets worse childcare, food, and laundry plus some extra lost time to transit in exchange for mom spending her day doing those things for other families. (Eg, McDonalds or Denny’s or preschool or a maid.) The on-the-books increase from “nurse” and “school administrator” aren’t due to increased efficiency, but rather, due to off-the-books losses, like the value of homemakers.