4 ms·

Call me crazy, but in my house we just get shit done because it needs to be done and we, as adults, chose to have children. We don't have time to barter or tur

Call me crazy, but in my house we just get shit done because it needs to be done and we, as adults, chose to have children. We don't have time to barter or turn the discussion of who does what into an episode of Antiques Roadshow. For all the smiley faces and show of "oh, isn't this just great", I can't help but think there are some serious issues lurking below the surface. But hey, what do I know? I've only been married for 17 years and have two kids.

rqebmm 13y ago
seeing as my girlfriend and I have tried the same trick, the "serious issues" lurking beneath the surface is likely pure, unadulterated laziness.
- jmathai 13y ago
  A pretty serious issue when you're talking about raising kids.
  - rqebmm 13y ago
    Eh, there's a big difference between lazy and irresponsible. We have a cat and a dog and they are well taken care of because we take our responsibility for their well being seriously, just as we would with a child (likely more so). However, we take our responsibility for the well being of the pile of dishes in the sink much less seriously.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  Well, every relationship is about give and take. This is just the first one I've heard of where there's a frigging ledger.
- dreeves 13y ago
  You have no idea how hard you just nailed it. :) Exhibit B: Beeminder itself, which is an almost hilariously elaborate way for us to force our lazy asses to actually get shit done.
zem 13y ago
they also get the same shit done, and they've hooked in a reward mechanism that makes it seem less like an unending grind. win/win. there has somehow spread the attitude that "being an adult" means that you have to do life's unpleasant-but-necessary chores, and make no attempt to alleviate their unpleasantness. i've also seen complaints about companies that offer things like on-site laundry services, that they are somehow infantalising their employees, or shielding them from having to grow up and live in the real, adult world where people do their own shit. no. if something is unpleasant and there is a legitimate way that you can do all three of not do it, still have it get done, and hurt no one in the process, that is clearly a better way!
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  Until you get to this point: "Daddy, why don't you want to put me to bed?" and "Daddy, why do you pay Mommy more to put me to bed than Timmy?" Edit: to address your subsequent update... "there has somehow spread the attitude that "being an adult" means that you have to do life's unpleasant-but-necessary chores, and make no attempt to alleviate their unpleasantness." There is NOTHING that can alleviate the unpleasantness of changing a blow-out diaper or dealing with a feverish, vomiting child at 3am.
  - Noxchi 13y ago
    >There is NOTHING that can alleviate the unpleasantness of changing a blow-out diaper or dealing with a feverish, vomiting child at 3am. How a robotic AI with long extending arms in every room? An act of God? Or maybe a maid... Mayhap paying your wife $20 to do it? These are all reasonable suggestions.
  - zem 13y ago
    the underlying problem there, then, is that putting the kids to bed is a chore rather than a chance to spend time with them. the basic principle is still sound.
    - aaronpk 13y ago
      I've seen them essentially submit negative bids for things when the task is something desirable. If one wants to put the kids to bed, and the other doesn't, then basically no money is exchanged because both parties agree on who should do it. It's just a much faster way to get to that conclusion than feeling each other out with words. :)
bandushrew 13y ago
Communication is hard. Any system that works well for everyone in the relationship is a good one. Married 26 years with four kids :)
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  Well, first and foremost: congrats on 26 years. And my hat's off to you for four. Until you have your second, you don't realize that the workload is not a linear progression! But in reference to the article in question: would this system work for you? If not, isn't there a chance it really won't work for these people, for the same reason? I'm pretty confident it wouldn't work for my wife and I. If you're completely spent at the end of the day, do you really want to lose a bidding war with your spouse to do some extra work? Doesn't one party risk building resentment merely because they're the poorer in the relationship? And what does this look like to the kids after a while? I agree completely with your point that communication is hard. I just think that this "solution" is merely beautiful fondant covering a possibly shaky foundation; money should never be a long-term or routine motivator in a loving relationship.
  - breadbox 13y ago
    > But in reference to the article in question: would this system work for you? If not, isn't there a chance it really won't work for these people, for the same reason? Sheesh. We all have a few things in common, but beyond that different people really can be different. Especially when it comes to how to manage family relationships. In my experience, anyway. Be careful of generalizing from yourself to folks you've never met.
  - bandushrew 13y ago
    It is clearly not a perfect system, and it does raise all the questions you have mentioned, so I am not going to defend it particularly vigorously, but here is a random array of thoughts... AFAICT what this system appears to allow for is an open and honest process of outright negotiation around how the household works. I cannot see a downside for that, and have seen (and practiced on many occasions) much more negative approaches - arguing, resentment, grudging, self-martrydom and so on. If you and your partner are both completely spent at the end of the day then you can negotiate the remaining work, neglect it, or have one person accept it. All of those are reasonable options at different times, what is important is not the individual decision, but the overall pattern and the process of communication and negotiation you use to get there. To the kids it probably looks like mum and dad are negotiating over who gets to put them to bed. Ive (sadly) had my kids listen through arguments around that at times, and many other things, and overall they appear to have survived and even done pretty well, although they are still young so who knows. I think it is fantastically easy for someone outside a relationship to look at it and go "that relationship is broken, there is no way it can work", and be completely wrong (or right). Relationships tend to be pretty unique things. Maybe theirs is in good shape, and maybe it is not, but in general I dont see a problem with any process that helps them negotiate openly and honestly about what they want. It is also fantastically easy to speculate on how badly kids will be damaged by behavior you personally dont agree with. If you scrape the surface of why they are together and what their motivations are, I doubt it is the money. The money merely provides a proxy for them to build discussions around. ....or maybe their relationship really is based on money, who knows....
Iftheshoefits 13y ago
I don't begrudge this couple their 'solution' to whatever 'problem' with chore distributions exist in their life. What I find amusing is this sort of money-as-substitute-for-all-valuations thing going on. No matter how "cute" or "novel" this idea is, underlying it all is the implicit assertion that every single thing a person does has a monetary value. I understand the appeal, and the rather strong strain of libertarianism/Jon Galt-ism that runs rampant in computer science makes this couple an unsurprising place to find such a viewpoint in practice (even if they personally don't adhere to such a view). It also absolutely does not work well with children. Children, as even these two no doubt can attest, don't value things in terms of money or opportunity cost or any other such abstraction until and unless they have been taught to do so. They have basic needs that must be met, and generally in a way that isn't compatible with the incentivised behavior models that this couple present. On a personal note, I find it a bit too "nerd cutesy." It's like they're trying too hard to be hardcore nerds about their everyday life. My first thought wasn't, "wow, that's a novel way to bring levity into the daily chore drudge." It was more like, "this reminds me of people parodied in Portlandia scenes where the main characters are having a back-and-forth about who knows who or what trendy indie publications/books they've each read." More power to them if it works, but it's not for me.
- mst 13y ago
  I think it's more 'money as a readily available proxy for fungible utility'. It's not so much a substitute as a handy scale to quantify things with.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- klochner 13y ago
  That whole "money-as-substitue-for-all-valuations" thing is an underlying assumption of nearly all of modern microeconomics. In technical terms, it's a quasilinear utility function[0], where preferences are linear in money. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasilinear_utility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasilinear_utility

rqebmm 13y ago

seeing as my girlfriend and I have tried the same trick, the "serious issues" lurking beneath the surface is likely pure, unadulterated laziness.

jmathai 13y ago
A pretty serious issue when you're talking about raising kids.
- rqebmm 13y ago
  Eh, there's a big difference between lazy and irresponsible. We have a cat and a dog and they are well taken care of because we take our responsibility for their well being seriously, just as we would with a child (likely more so). However, we take our responsibility for the well being of the pile of dishes in the sink much less seriously.
MrZongle2 13y ago
Well, every relationship is about give and take. This is just the first one I've heard of where there's a frigging ledger.
dreeves 13y ago
You have no idea how hard you just nailed it. :) Exhibit B: Beeminder itself, which is an almost hilariously elaborate way for us to force our lazy asses to actually get shit done.

zem 13y ago

they also get the same shit done, and they've hooked in a reward mechanism that makes it seem less like an unending grind. win/win. there has somehow spread the attitude that "being an adult" means that you have to do life's unpleasant-but-necessary chores, and make no attempt to alleviate their unpleasantness. i've also seen complaints about companies that offer things like on-site laundry services, that they are somehow infantalising their employees, or shielding them from having to grow up and live in the real, adult world where people do their own shit. no. if something is unpleasant and there is a legitimate way that you can do all three of not do it, still have it get done, and hurt no one in the process, that is clearly a better way!

MrZongle2 13y ago
Until you get to this point: "Daddy, why don't you want to put me to bed?" and "Daddy, why do you pay Mommy more to put me to bed than Timmy?" Edit: to address your subsequent update... "there has somehow spread the attitude that "being an adult" means that you have to do life's unpleasant-but-necessary chores, and make no attempt to alleviate their unpleasantness." There is NOTHING that can alleviate the unpleasantness of changing a blow-out diaper or dealing with a feverish, vomiting child at 3am.
- Noxchi 13y ago
  >There is NOTHING that can alleviate the unpleasantness of changing a blow-out diaper or dealing with a feverish, vomiting child at 3am. How a robotic AI with long extending arms in every room? An act of God? Or maybe a maid... Mayhap paying your wife $20 to do it? These are all reasonable suggestions.
- zem 13y ago
  the underlying problem there, then, is that putting the kids to bed is a chore rather than a chance to spend time with them. the basic principle is still sound.
  - aaronpk 13y ago
    I've seen them essentially submit negative bids for things when the task is something desirable. If one wants to put the kids to bed, and the other doesn't, then basically no money is exchanged because both parties agree on who should do it. It's just a much faster way to get to that conclusion than feeling each other out with words. :)

bandushrew 13y ago

Communication is hard. Any system that works well for everyone in the relationship is a good one. Married 26 years with four kids :)

MrZongle2 13y ago
Well, first and foremost: congrats on 26 years. And my hat's off to you for four. Until you have your second, you don't realize that the workload is not a linear progression! But in reference to the article in question: would this system work for you? If not, isn't there a chance it really won't work for these people, for the same reason? I'm pretty confident it wouldn't work for my wife and I. If you're completely spent at the end of the day, do you really want to lose a bidding war with your spouse to do some extra work? Doesn't one party risk building resentment merely because they're the poorer in the relationship? And what does this look like to the kids after a while? I agree completely with your point that communication is hard. I just think that this "solution" is merely beautiful fondant covering a possibly shaky foundation; money should never be a long-term or routine motivator in a loving relationship.
- breadbox 13y ago
  > But in reference to the article in question: would this system work for you? If not, isn't there a chance it really won't work for these people, for the same reason? Sheesh. We all have a few things in common, but beyond that different people really can be different. Especially when it comes to how to manage family relationships. In my experience, anyway. Be careful of generalizing from yourself to folks you've never met.
- bandushrew 13y ago
  It is clearly not a perfect system, and it does raise all the questions you have mentioned, so I am not going to defend it particularly vigorously, but here is a random array of thoughts... AFAICT what this system appears to allow for is an open and honest process of outright negotiation around how the household works. I cannot see a downside for that, and have seen (and practiced on many occasions) much more negative approaches - arguing, resentment, grudging, self-martrydom and so on. If you and your partner are both completely spent at the end of the day then you can negotiate the remaining work, neglect it, or have one person accept it. All of those are reasonable options at different times, what is important is not the individual decision, but the overall pattern and the process of communication and negotiation you use to get there. To the kids it probably looks like mum and dad are negotiating over who gets to put them to bed. Ive (sadly) had my kids listen through arguments around that at times, and many other things, and overall they appear to have survived and even done pretty well, although they are still young so who knows. I think it is fantastically easy for someone outside a relationship to look at it and go "that relationship is broken, there is no way it can work", and be completely wrong (or right). Relationships tend to be pretty unique things. Maybe theirs is in good shape, and maybe it is not, but in general I dont see a problem with any process that helps them negotiate openly and honestly about what they want. It is also fantastically easy to speculate on how badly kids will be damaged by behavior you personally dont agree with. If you scrape the surface of why they are together and what their motivations are, I doubt it is the money. The money merely provides a proxy for them to build discussions around. ....or maybe their relationship really is based on money, who knows....

Iftheshoefits 13y ago

I don't begrudge this couple their 'solution' to whatever 'problem' with chore distributions exist in their life. What I find amusing is this sort of money-as-substitute-for-all-valuations thing going on. No matter how "cute" or "novel" this idea is, underlying it all is the implicit assertion that every single thing a person does has a monetary value. I understand the appeal, and the rather strong strain of libertarianism/Jon Galt-ism that runs rampant in computer science makes this couple an unsurprising place to find such a viewpoint in practice (even if they personally don't adhere to such a view). It also absolutely does not work well with children. Children, as even these two no doubt can attest, don't value things in terms of money or opportunity cost or any other such abstraction until and unless they have been taught to do so. They have basic needs that must be met, and generally in a way that isn't compatible with the incentivised behavior models that this couple present. On a personal note, I find it a bit too "nerd cutesy." It's like they're trying too hard to be hardcore nerds about their everyday life. My first thought wasn't, "wow, that's a novel way to bring levity into the daily chore drudge." It was more like, "this reminds me of people parodied in Portlandia scenes where the main characters are having a back-and-forth about who knows who or what trendy indie publications/books they've each read." More power to them if it works, but it's not for me.

mst 13y ago
I think it's more 'money as a readily available proxy for fungible utility'. It's not so much a substitute as a handy scale to quantify things with.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
klochner 13y ago
That whole "money-as-substitue-for-all-valuations" thing is an underlying assumption of nearly all of modern microeconomics. In technical terms, it's a quasilinear utility function[0], where preferences are linear in money. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasilinear_utility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasilinear_utility