5 ms·

I think there is a huge and completely rational gap between social valuation and family valuation. Homemakers provide most of the direct value to the household

I think there is a huge and completely rational gap between social valuation and family valuation. Homemakers provide most of the direct value to the household. Your firefighter, doctor, ect provide their value directly to those outside their household. My neighbor might be a great cook and parent for their child, but I am much more thankful to plumber, who benifits me directly.

paxys 2y ago
Sure, but someone still needs to raise the firefighters and doctors and plumbers. One's success at age 50 is directly tied to their family dynamic and financial situation at age 0-18. Saying you value a doctor but not the circumstances that made them a doctor isn't quite rational.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think that is double counting. I don't pay both the butcher and the pig farmer for my bacon.
K0balt 2y ago
Here I’m talking primarily about effects in society in the form of child rearing outcomes. The gap between outcomes where there is a stable division of a full time breadwinner and homemaker during formative years vs those where there is heavy involvement of daycare services is a very stark chasm. But the economic stability has to be there as well, as this breaks down significantly in poverty. Moving both partners in a domestic life into the workforce also creates strong downward pressure on wages, since it supplies an extra 30% or so employees into the workforce. All in all the breakdown of a stable domestic workforce has been good for corporations but bad for children, employees, and stable home relationships. And if we look at the current state of affairs of partnering, it’s been bad for just about everyone.
- lapcat 2y ago
  > Moving both partners in a domestic life into the workforce also creates strong downward pressure on wages, since it supplies an extra 30% or so employees into the workforce. By this argument, wouldn't having children and thereby increasing the population also supply extra employees and drive down wages?
  - K0balt 2y ago
    Population increases consumption increasing demand for production in proportion to the expansion of the workforce - so no, that analogy does not follow.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      No, population increases don't automatically increase consumption or demand, because those require money. Babies have no money. Economic consumption can occur only if someone gives you money, in most cases either an employer or a relative (such as a parent or spouse). However, an expanded workforce is more productive and thus can allow for more overall consumption (as long as money is distributed somehow to consumers), which is why the addition of women to the workforce is not a negative. And there's actually no limit to an individual person's consumption, as long as they keep acquiring the money for it. Thus, a working parent may end up spending more money than a nonworking parent, which increases economic demand. Of course, the compensation for specific jobs can vary dramatically, depending on localized supply and demand. In some cases there's an oversupply of labor, but in other cases there's an undersupply. Filling an undersupply of labor can certainly be a net positive. The devil is in the details. Theoretically, roughly speaking, more labor is always good overall, but needless to say, the distribution of income is not even close to equal, which can create localized situations where more labor available in a specific area is not beneficial to the existing labor in that area. I'm ignoring the negative environmental consequences of increases population, which I normally wouldn't do. I just think it's very odd to argue that the addition of parents to the workforce is a negative while the addition of their children to the workforce is a positive.
      - K0balt 2y ago

paxys 2y ago

Sure, but someone still needs to raise the firefighters and doctors and plumbers. One's success at age 50 is directly tied to their family dynamic and financial situation at age 0-18. Saying you value a doctor but not the circumstances that made them a doctor isn't quite rational.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think that is double counting. I don't pay both the butcher and the pig farmer for my bacon.

K0balt 2y ago

Here I’m talking primarily about effects in society in the form of child rearing outcomes. The gap between outcomes where there is a stable division of a full time breadwinner and homemaker during formative years vs those where there is heavy involvement of daycare services is a very stark chasm. But the economic stability has to be there as well, as this breaks down significantly in poverty. Moving both partners in a domestic life into the workforce also creates strong downward pressure on wages, since it supplies an extra 30% or so employees into the workforce. All in all the breakdown of a stable domestic workforce has been good for corporations but bad for children, employees, and stable home relationships. And if we look at the current state of affairs of partnering, it’s been bad for just about everyone.

lapcat 2y ago
> Moving both partners in a domestic life into the workforce also creates strong downward pressure on wages, since it supplies an extra 30% or so employees into the workforce. By this argument, wouldn't having children and thereby increasing the population also supply extra employees and drive down wages?
- K0balt 2y ago
  Population increases consumption increasing demand for production in proportion to the expansion of the workforce - so no, that analogy does not follow.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    No, population increases don't automatically increase consumption or demand, because those require money. Babies have no money. Economic consumption can occur only if someone gives you money, in most cases either an employer or a relative (such as a parent or spouse). However, an expanded workforce is more productive and thus can allow for more overall consumption (as long as money is distributed somehow to consumers), which is why the addition of women to the workforce is not a negative. And there's actually no limit to an individual person's consumption, as long as they keep acquiring the money for it. Thus, a working parent may end up spending more money than a nonworking parent, which increases economic demand. Of course, the compensation for specific jobs can vary dramatically, depending on localized supply and demand. In some cases there's an oversupply of labor, but in other cases there's an undersupply. Filling an undersupply of labor can certainly be a net positive. The devil is in the details. Theoretically, roughly speaking, more labor is always good overall, but needless to say, the distribution of income is not even close to equal, which can create localized situations where more labor available in a specific area is not beneficial to the existing labor in that area. I'm ignoring the negative environmental consequences of increases population, which I normally wouldn't do. I just think it's very odd to argue that the addition of parents to the workforce is a negative while the addition of their children to the workforce is a positive.
    - K0balt 2y ago