dhw@ncar.ucar.EDU ("David H. West") (11/27/90)
In article <90Nov16.231745est.1712@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) writes: >Our society does not value work done in the home. [...] >Their labour is unpaid, though it contributes to society [...] (see below) >Essentially, work done in the home is slavery [...] The essential element in slavery is compulsion; this factor seems to be missing in the case of housework. >I suggest that [...] either the government or >the other partner pay normal wages to the spouse working in the home. >When any labour is done, it should be paid [..] That would certainly help the house-spouse pay her/his share of the rent... but wait! right now they don't pay their share of the rent! Could it be that you have overlooked this invisible transfer of value to them? :-) Another point to remember is that "the spouse working in the home" is as such the employee not of the other spouse, but of both jointly, so that if the househusband (for example) is paid (the commercial rate of) $N for doing the laundry, $N/2 of this should come out of his own pocket, because he receives half of the benefit - half of the laundry is his own. In other words, housekeeping should be paid at half the commercial rate. I don't think I've ever seen these issues explicitly addressed by advocates of wages-for-housework. It is certainly a tenable position that "the spouse working in the home" would be better off if ALL interspousal transactions were monetarized, but can you imagine trying to do it? -David West dhw@iti.org
cliffs@sunrock.east.sun.COM (Cliff Skolnick {Prof Services} Sun Rochester) (11/28/90)
In article <1990Nov26.041422.18180@iti.org> uunet!mailrus!sharkey!hela!iti.org!dhw@ncar.ucar.EDU ("David H. West") writes: >In article <90Nov16.231745est.1712@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) writes: >>Our society does not value work done in the home. [...] >>Their labour is unpaid, though it contributes to society [...] > >Another point to remember is that "the spouse working in the home" is >as such the employee not of the other spouse, but of both jointly, so >that if the househusband (for example) is paid (the commercial rate >of) $N for doing the laundry, $N/2 of this should come out of his own >pocket, because he receives half of the benefit - half of the laundry >is his own. In other words, housekeeping should be paid at half the >commercial rate. I think we can really lose the issue that a husband/wife can be viewed as a financial unit. The "he" makes and "she" makes, should be considered "we" make. I'm not saying throw all money into a single account, have one shared credit card, ect. but the couple should realize that they are both owrking for each other. If not, I guess it is not a marriage of love and sharing instead it is living together without a bond and concern for mutual well being.
RA04@Lehigh.UCAR.EDU (11/30/90)
"a marriage of love and sharing" has very little in common with social
and financial recognition/reward for one spouse and not even social
security or other retirement provision for the other. Many marriages
do not end in divorce because the wife realizes that her skills just
don't translate into economic autonomy should she leave her husband.
C'mon, think of a situation: he continues with his job and continues
to get paid, while she goes to an employment agency and says "I'm real
good at love and sharing"?!
r.a.eem@esl.com (Eric McColm) (11/30/90)
Many people have suggested stating dollar amounts for 'housework' over the years (i.e. 'domestic engineer') and according respect for the worker based on this wage. I think this misses the point. PRAGMATIC REASON: (as previously stated) Try it. You'll hate it. ROMANTIC REASON: That's not what housework is all about. Before you start flaming, consider that 'housework' is the portion of a division of labor between cohabitants that does not bring in new income. But as there is a division of labor, the 'houseworker' and the 'nonhouseworker' are partners. Their income is shared, as should be their respect derived from monetary terms. How they choose to divide the labor is their business. I sidestep the issue of respect based on money, which I think is carried too far in this society. My personal soapbox is that if the 'houseworker' is raising children, I cannot imagine a more (financially or socially) important occupation. But I've always been in favor of well-fed, well-educated, well-adjusted children. Perhaps the problem with the current outlook (including mine) is that there is a pervasive stereotype for what the division of labor SHOULD be. For all those who prefer to share a relationship with an SO, spouse or whatever, and had to divide the labor up yourselves, how would you do it? The two-income family clearly doesn't fit the stereotype of husband with distant job/wife in the house. -- This is NOT and Ada comment! -- And this is NOT the opinion of ESL! It may not be ANYONE'S opinion! Eric McColm eem@esl.com, which is 1 hop off ames.arc.nasa.gov
rwilson@sol.uvic.ca (Rich Wilson) (01/02/91)
In article <9011280524.AA12901@sunrock.East.Sun.COM> cliffs@sunrock.east.sun.COM (Cliff Skolnick {Prof Services} Sun Rochester) writes: >I think we can really lose the issue that a husband/wife can be viewed >as a financial unit. The "he" makes and "she" makes, should be >considered "we" make. I'm not saying throw all money into a single >account, have one shared credit card, ect. but the couple should >realize that they are both owrking for each other. My husband and I DO "throw all money into a single account, have one shared credit card, etc.". We are a partnership, a team and it works so well for us that I can't imagine doing it any other way. I don't think I would feel that we had a very close relationship if we had to divide the money and keep seperate finances. We trust each other and neither of us would feel like having separate finances was intimate or trusting. This is the person I am going to be making wild passionate love with when I am 90 for god's sake! I am sorry that not everyone feels that much closeness, or "oneness" and trust with their husband/wife. It helps that we are always looking out for the other's best interests and therefor would never be greedy or selfish with the money, or do something that was unfair to the other. Anne Wilson
king@piano.reasoning.com (01/02/91)
My husband and I DO "throw all money into a single account, have one shared credit card, etc.". We are a partnership, a team and it works so well for us that I can't imagine doing it any other way. I don't think I would feel that we had a very close relationship if we had to divide the money and keep seperate finances. We trust each other and neither of us would feel like having separate finances was intimate or trusting. This is the person I am going to be making wild passionate love with when I am 90 for god's sake! I am sorry that not everyone feels that much closeness, or "oneness" and trust with their husband/wife. It helps that we are always looking out for the other's best interests and therefor would never be greedy or selfish with the money, or do something that was unfair to the other. I do believe this generally, when the issues are really money, but relatively small amounts of money can be used to exert control, and i would therefore advise couples thinking of merging the main account, as we do, reserve about a percent or two for each player to their exclusive control. An anecdote from me and my sister will help explain what i mean. One morning my sister woke up, saw an ad for equestrian lessons, said "that looks like fun", and decided to go for it. Her husband objected strenuously, and brought up the dollars as a reason, completely bogusly -- she was proposing to spend perhaps three tenths of one percent of their rather healthy income stream. His real problem was that he didn't want her home late once a week, but he used the money as an excuse. This stopped them from getting to the real issues for a long time. So they had several instances of the wrong fight before they had the right fight. Just about exactly the same thing happened to me, except in my case it was fencing lessons. But there was another difference. We each have a private spending account, 1% of the family income, over which the other has absolutely no say. So we quickly got down to the real issue, and got the tiff over with immediately. In between passionate love, or while you're waiting to reach 90 for that passionate love to start :-), you ARE individuals. Money isn't everything but it does enable some of life's resources, and you should retain individuality by having small private accounts. -dk