[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]Good post by CAR in response to scaredy’s idea.

One thing, though, which I think would happen when the childbearer (woman) “frontloads” her prices for the tasks they won’t be able to do later in life (mainly childbearing) is that the women would end up seeking out only partner-parents (dads) who could pay them enough (however much “enough” is) for them to bear children for them.

This would encourage “gold-digging” among women, especially those who can bear children but don’t have the skills or experience to support themselves.

BUT …. “gold-digging” (in the context of the business deal that scaredy described) is a two-way street. Both parties go into it with their eyes wide open (barring any problems with pregnancy which could be written into the contract between them) and the prospective dad realizes that if they want their own children, they must pay a certain price to compel a willing woman (with good genes?) to bear them for him.

The men who didn’t make much (or were unemployed) wouldn’t be having any children by women they personally chose to bear them. They would be the ones sued for child support for “accidents” when those moms went on public aid to support their children because they never had any contract for payment for carrying their child(ren) and raising them.

Like Russ said, water seeks its own level.[/quote]

Agreed, but let’s get rid of the extremely sexist “gold digger” moniker. Is a man who seeks to be paid for his services denigrated as a “gold digger”? Women intrinsically understand that they are providing a list of services. That they want to be paid for providing these services should not compel us to look down our noses at them. Men would do it no differently if the roles were reversed.

The men who seek out “gold diggers” know exactly what they’re getting, and why.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]How about this set up.  No more marriage.  The wealthier spouse simply employs the less wealthy spouse as a domestic engineer.  All the household expenses are probably tax deductible, since the business is the business of raising baby.  Also satsisfying certain needs of the employer..  the engineer is at a lower tax bracket than the employer, so there’s a tax advantage beyond deducting all sorts of things that otherwise wouldn’t be deductible if this work weren’t employment and valued appropriately.  On the bright side for the employer, there’s no community to divide upon divorce, because there’s no divorce, simply employer employee. Also, the employer can just give the employee the boot at any time, assuming we’re in an at will state.  Since everything’s being fully compensated at an agreed upon market value, there’s no need to pay any alimony.  Child support still applies, but that’s just the cost fo doing business. Check with your acct to see if that might eb tax deductible under these circumstances.

 

This seems like a better deal all around.  No illusions.  No uncompensated work.  Lesser women will have to work for lesser employers and it may be very lwo wage, but that’s their decision, to work for a very small business.  They need to work for a larger more thriving concern if they want their work valued appropriately to what they feel it’s worth. If the employer provides any service to the spouse, that’s service may be deducted from wages.  Vacation and various employment rules apply, so more than one spouse for child care may be required, as there are limits on shift work, breaks, etc. [/quote]

Believe it or not, I would concur with this. Marriage has masked the value of the work that has traditionally been done by women because these women value other things (love, affection, physical security, social status, etc.) that come with marriage. If we were to divorce the work from these more emotional aspects of marriage, then we could get a truer picture of the monetary value of caretaking and other “women’s work.”

And we should emphasize the transitory nature of the working relationship so that women understand that they will be back on the street, looking for other work, when they are finished with their first “jobs.” That way, they could more adequately price their services that tend to be front-loaded and which they won’t be able to replicate at a later time; a bit like football players expect to be paid more because their value is highest in the beginning of their careers, and it could all end at any moment.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]why should it be valued to a specific number?[/quote]

It would have to be a range. As others have noted, some SAHPs perform better than others, and their “employers” will value these things differently, too.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=CA renter]Arrrgh!!!!!![/quote]

men. can’t do fucking anything right!

have to clean up htheir fucking messes. leave threads lying around all over the place. it’s just ridiculous…[/quote]

🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter][quote=scaredyclassic]

work outside the home is extremely easy to value; as there is a wage attached to it…[/quote]

This is precisely the problem. Since wage-earning is easy to value by default, since one’s paycheck shows the perceived value of the work, there is no dispute that it is “work.”

OTOH, we rarely compute the work that caretakers do if they are working within their own homes or for their own families. How much would you have to pay for someone to be there for your children 24/7? How much to make all the appointments and shuttle people to these appointments and manage all the follow-up? How much to manage a family’s finances — including bill paying, negotiating contracts and doing due diligence on service providers, doing investment research and allocating financial resources? How about a family’s financial/legal business like estate planning, insurance, home purchases, etc…especially if that tends to be managed by one spouse? And even though the subject is taboo, what value do we place on having biological children who will carry our last name…should the person who facilitates this do it for free, especially when they risk their health, their bodies, and reduce their value to future potential suitors?

Is any of this “work”? If so, how should we value it? Because it’s traditionally been done by women (who were owned by men, much like slaves…does a slave’s work have value, even if he/she was not paid?), should we assume that this work has no value?[/quote]

CAR, if you’re a SAHP and you perform all the above business tasks for your family, that is way more than the vast majority of SAHP’s do. They can’t possibly perform these tasks because they don’t have a clue how to do them. The italicized portions of your post (above) DO cost money and those tasks have worth.

As Russ mentioned about the (complaining-about-being overworked?) homeschool moms at his gym, that is a choice. It can’t be monetized because public school in the US is essentially “free.” Sure, property owners pay taxes which go to the school districts but renters and those many public school students living in MX and “stealing” a spot at SD County schools are attending for “free.”

The reality is that the two-earner couple doesn’t do every household task to perfection. They may get someone 2-4 times per month to clean for 7-8 hrs (abt $60 per visit here in Chula Vista). Many homeowners with lots over 10K sf (working or retired) employ gardeners 2-4x monthly. Two-earner families with young children have FT daycare or after-school care. The cost varies wildly in each situation or income level. It is also partially tax deductible for income-qualified families.

It is absolutely worth it for a SAHP to work FT who earns at least $30K per year and who has no more than two children at a time in FT daycare or afterschool care. This is so because the cost of being absent from the workforce for years at a time is very great, especially for a SAHP with limited (or dated) education. The cost to the SAHP is far greater than any perceived “emotional cost” to a kid who must attend daycare or afterschool care during the business day. In CA, this is manifested in the domestic courts where judges (no matter which gender) view each parent as an equal parent. Whether the parents are married or not makes no difference. It doesn’t matter if the working parent EVER had any interaction with their kids and was a road/sky warrior 8-25 days per month for most of their child(ren)s life! They are EQUAL parents to the SAHP in the eyes of the law and deserve 50% custody timeshare because they are the natural parent and they petition for their 50%. The vast majority of the (child-support) payor parents (the ones who are working FT and the other parent is a SAHP) lawyer up immediately in the event they sense a “breakup” and will be counseled immediately to petition for their 50%. They’re allowed to get live in care for their household to take care of their kids if they travel for work frequently or work night shifts and they do. THIS is much cheaper for the CS payor over the long run because it is not court-ordered and garnished from their pay and the amount doesn’t set a precedent for future CS hikes initiated by the receiving parent. The payor can stop it (the overnight childcare) at any time and just pay for the service intermittently when they need it. If the payor should get a new live-in partner or spouse in the future, that new partner may be willing to contribute some child care to the payor’s children.

In nearly all cases, the former SAHP is left with 50% of their time without their children and if they don’t seek any kind of work and begin working (if they don’t have other types of monthly income), they may very well eventually be imputed a salary by the court and that arbitrary salary will be used to compute permanent CS against the payor’s monthly income.

The vast majority of kids (especially toddlers and preschoolers) LOVE daycare with all the attention, toys and other kids once they get used to it … this usually takes 10 minutes to 3 days, lol. These kids are usually highly socialized upon entering kindergarten and don’t have unhealthy attachments to parents and toddler habits they’re still working on getting rid of like many 4-5 yr olds do who always had SAHPs.

The second child in FT daycare is typically discounted 25% if both are at the same facility/home daycare situation. Many, many young parents drop their kids off at a grandparent’s home 2-5 days per week, which cuts their daycare cost significantly. Headstart, DASH and other sliding scale preschool and afterschool programs are available at reasonable prices to income-qualified families. Scouting has daycamp in Balboa park with daycare afterwards for several weeks in the summers. So do the YMCAs all over the county. These non-profits offer sliding scare daycare services, activities and camperships to income-qualified families.

Meanwhile, the $30K FT working parent at the age of 24 (assuming HS Diploma and possibly a 1-yr certificate program at a CC and working as a car dealership bookkeeper) can get raises and attend one CC night class at a time relevant to their job. This could enable them to make $35K in 2-3 yrs time and close to $50K by the time both their kids are in school FT. If they work for any branch of govm’t, they will get step raises automatically and be in line for promotional opportunities which are not open to the public.

H@ll, this same parent could have gotten a degree after their kids were in school FT and started making over $100K by the time their kids were in MS or HS!

I myself worked with many, many parents of babies and young children over the years while working in local govm’t and also long before the FMLA was passed into law in 1993. NONE OF THESE PARENTS EVER QUIT and several had 4-5 kids all born while they were employed FT. Several were military spouses who let their member spouse deploy by themselves repeatedly for up to two years so they could keep their jobs!

When I began working for the gubment, the beginning clerical salary for an “Intermediate Clerk Typist” was just over $16K per year! By the time my co-workers were 50 yrs old, the vast majority had rec’d several promotions and were making $55K to $69K per year. Only a few had furthered their education beyond a HS Diploma but had taken evening classes at CC relevant to their duties. The vast majority of my former coworkers are now retired with pensions and their kids are grown. Most have paid-off homes. Some take care of their grandkids part of the week.

Sorry for the rant here, but I don’t think all simple household tasks can be monetized and like scaredy stated, not every parent cares if their houses and yards are perfect (even if the SAHP does). We must accept that society does not value household work and child care the same as it does working outside the home for pay.[/quote]

BG, I do all of this work, as do many other SAHPs…and some do even more than I do. I think your views are skewed by your own experiences and personal beliefs. It’s fine that you chose another option, but in no way does that invalidate what other people do in their own lives.

You’ve mentioned before that you didn’t take your kids for walks or let them play outside. And while your kids have turned out great, according to you, many others would have serious problems with your child-rearing decisions. Also, in EVERY case that I know of where there is a SAHP, the choice was made by the family; it was not a unilateral decision. So the risks should be borne equally between both spouses if things don’t work out.

You come from the era of “Mommy Wars,” and we could go back and forth about which choices are “right” or “wrong.” But the truth is that there is no black and white here. What’s right for one family might be wrong for another, and vice versa.

And do NOT confuse cost-shifting with “free” or “low-cost.” None of those things you’ve mentioned above (“free” public school, sliding-scale tuition, grandparents taking care of kids, etc.) is free. The cost is simply borne by someone else. And all of the duties I’ve mentioned in my post — not just what you’ve italicized — can have a value ascribed to it. If you were to have someone in the marketplace do those tasks, it would cost you a LOT more than $30,000/yr.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter]
This is precisely the problem. Since wage-earning is easy to value by default, since one’s paycheck shows the perceived value of the work, there is no dispute that it is “work.”

OTOH, we rarely compute the work that caretakers do if they are working within their own homes or for their own families. How much would you have to pay for someone to be there for your children 24/7? How much to make all the appointments and shuttle people to these appointments and manage all the follow-up? How much to manage a family’s finances — including bill paying, negotiating contracts and doing due diligence on service providers, doing investment research and allocating financial resources? How about a family’s financial/legal business like estate planning, insurance, home purchases, etc…especially if that tends to be managed by one spouse? And even though the subject is taboo, what value do we place on having biological children who will carry our last name…should the person who facilitates this do it for free, especially when they risk their health, their bodies, and reduce their value to future potential suitors?

Is any of this “work”? If so, how should we value it? Because it’s traditionally been done by women (who were owned by men, much like slaves…does a slave’s work have value, even if he/she was not paid?), should we assume that this work has no value?[/quote]

Do these tasks have any more or less value if they are done by a person who works for wages in addition to working at home.

I am not trying to belittle domestic duties in the slightest. I just don’t understand why domestic duties have more value if done by a stay at home parent than if done by a person who works outside the home. The same stuff needs to be done. Period. Houses don’t clean themselves, lawns don’t mow themselves, investments don’t invest themselves, bills don’t pay themselves. Every household, whether a 2 salary, single salary, or no salary household has to make sure food is in the fridge, kids are put to bed (if there are kids in the household) and the vacuum is run periodically.

As a working parent – I used preschool and after school care. So I exchanged money for childcare. That didn’t abdicate my responsibility as a parent – just as Mr. CAR probably does activities with CAR-kidlets. I haven’t hired gardening services or housecleaning services… so Mr. UCG and I divvied up the tasks… and as the kids grew older – delegated some of the tasks to them. We’re a household, we work together. There is no more value or lesser value to mowing the lawn if you pay for it, get paid for it, or do it for free… the grass still gets mowed.

I don’t understand this whole argument.[/quote]

I think that people aren’t getting what I’ve posted for some reason. I never said that a SAHP’s work should be valued more than the same work done by someone who works for wages. The point is that if the SAHP isn’t doing these things, then somebody else is. The cost of these things should be ascribed to the value of what a SAHP does. If the parents are both working outside of the home and both sharing these duties, it doesn’t change a thing. This work still has the same value.

[CA renter]

[quote=zk]

Two thoughts: There are plenty of other compliments to give. You’re a giver, you’re sweet, you make me laugh, you care, etc. And you see those occasionally. But add up all non-beauty compliments and they don’t number a tenth of beauty compliments.

Also, you rarely see men get or even give compliments (compared to women). Why is that?[/quote]

My guess would be that the women who compliment another woman’s looks will also be generous with compliments about other things, as well.

Some interesting stuff on Wikipedia about research that has been done on the gender and cultural differences regarding compliments…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complimentary_language_and_gender

———–

And I *wish* that we could move beyond superficial appearance! But look at the comments from some of the Piggs (a more intellectual group, in general) about how a woman’s appearance is very important to them.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude]
There are many compliments to give, but my point is that none of those are prompted by a picture which gives only visual information about the subject.

If I see a photo of someone I don’t know, I might think “nice shirt” or “pretty girl” but never “nice personality” simply because the photo doesn’t prompt anything other than visual thoughts or give me any information that might lead me to a conclusion about anything other than physical appearance.

This is why they don’t number a tenth of beauty compliments.

If someone posted a political essay or tweeted that they had volunteered at a charity today, then received compliments such as “wow, you are pretty” then you’d really be onto something.[/quote]

And I think that sdduuuude nails it here.

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=NicMM]
njtosd, complimenting a friend is not like granting a trophy to the winner of a competition. It is sad to think that way.

NicMM[/quote]

I think another poster used the word “contorted” with respect to your analysis, so I won’t bother. I don’t choose or maintain friendships based on how people look. I don’t really comment much on people’s appearance because it doesn’t make a big difference to me. And I don’t tell people they are pretty, or great at kayaking, or anything else just to make them feel good. Do I mention it sometimes? Absolutely. Do I think it should matter a lot? No. What’s sad is to put that much importance on appearance, especially at the age of most on the people on this board (and Facebook).[/quote]

It’s not contorted.

And here’s what I had said in my previous post…

[quote=CA renter]

FWIW, I’m not lying when I compliment other women (or men). I think that all people are beautiful, each in his/her own way. We don’t all need to look like some stereotype in order to be attractive and appealing to others.[/quote]

To which you responded…

[quote=njtosd]Beauty is a relative term – to say everyone is beautiful makes it meaningless.[/quote]

Saying, “people are all beautiful, each in his/her own way,” is not the same as saying that everyone is universally and equally beautiful. Some of us are genuinely able to see beauty in many different ways. Though I would have to ammend my comment to say that nearly all people are beautiful in their own way, as there are a few people in this world who truly are not beautiful in any way (especially on the inside)…I just try to avoid those people at all costs.

You might not be the type of person who likes to compliment others, whether on looks or anything else. But that doesn’t mean that the people who do so are being disingenuous or “trying to prove the depths of their own enthusiasm.” I think you’re being a bit too cynical about the motivations of other people.

For the record, the definition of beauty:

beauty
[byoo-tee]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun, plural beauties.
1.
the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/beauty

It’s not superlative or comparative; it’s not even relative to many people. A person can look at a tree or a butterfly or a cloud and think that it is beautiful without having to compare it to anything else. Some people derive pleasure from many things in life, and they might consider those things to be “beautiful.” Beauty is subjective, though, and some are clearly not able to see the beauty in most things. I think that’s sad.

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=NicMM]
njtosd, complimenting a friend is not like granting a trophy to the winner of a competition. It is sad to think that way.

NicMM[/quote]

I think another poster used the word “contorted” with respect to your analysis, so I won’t bother. I don’t choose or maintain friendships based on how people look. I don’t really comment much on people’s appearance because it doesn’t make a big difference to me. And I don’t tell people they are pretty, or great at kayaking, or anything else just to make them feel good. Do I mention it sometimes? Absolutely. Do I think it should matter a lot? No. What’s sad is to put that much importance on appearance, especially at the age of most on the people on this board (and Facebook).[/quote]

It’s not that people are putting such an emphasis on looks. When people genuinely like someone and want to encourage and uplift them, they will often compliment them about many things, and looks might be one of those things. Is that a bad thing?

FWIW, I am rarely on FB, but on the few occasions when I post/read, the vast majority of my compliments are regarding insightful posts, exceptional accomplishments, etc.

[CA renter]

Maybe they look unattractive to you, but their friends might think that whatever they’ve done (new hair, makeup, etc.) makes them look good; or, at least, better than they looked before.

But do women have that much of their self-worth tied up in their appearance? You bet! A lot of them, anyway. After all, females are usually taught from birth that their youth and beauty are their most valuable assets, even though many of their parents don’t even realize it. And even if their parents do everything in their power to avoid doing this, once the kids start living in the real world, they will soon be subjected to these standards.

Like we’ve seen in other threads right here on Piggington, people will criticize women for not looking good or for being too old. You don’t hear that type of criticism leveled at men nearly as often as you do with women.

Think about all of the criticism that Hillary Clinton has had to deal with regarding her appearance. People have been relentless over the years in making fun of her clothing, her “cankles,” and her “lack of femininity.” Whether one likes her or not, there is no question about her superior intellect, education, and experience; but she had to deal with people focusing more on her looks, her marriage, her “wanting to be a man,” etc., instead.

Which male politicians have had to deal with crap like this?

http://www.ibtimes.com/tim-gunn-mocks-hillary-clintons-pantsuits-photos-839561

Sarah Palin had to deal with the same thing, as does every other woman out there, no matter her professional experience or intellect (not saying Sarah Palin is high on the list here, but many people focused more on her looks than on anything else).

And women are every bit as guilty of subjecting other women to this as men are, if not more so.

Do some women try to make others feel better about themselves? Yes, they do. Because they — the women who desire to be kind and supportive — understand the vicious nastiness that women have to deal with regarding their appearance. So we, and I’m including myself in this group, will point out what we feel are a woman’s best attributes to let her know that she is beautiful, inside and out.

FWIW, I’m not lying when I compliment other women (or men). I think that all people are beautiful, each in his/her own way. We don’t all need to look like some stereotype in order to be attractive and appealing to others.

[CA renter]

Arrrgh!!!!!!

[CA renter]

Have to admit I’m surprised by these numbers. Maybe people are lying about their drinking habits?

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]once everytihg is fully monetized, then we can figure out who is getting the good deal. the shirker and workers will be revealed. as long as you dont enjoy the sex, you will be ahead, monetarily speaking, sicne it’ll be work.[/quote]

Unfortunately, our society tends to place the highest value on things that have been monetized. Plenty of evidence for this on this thread.

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

work outside the home is extremely easy to value; as there is a wage attached to it…[/quote]

This is precisely the problem. Since wage-earning is easy to value by default, since one’s paycheck shows the perceived value of the work, there is no dispute that it is “work.”

OTOH, we rarely compute the work that caretakers do if they are working within their own homes or for their own families. How much would you have to pay for someone to be there for your children 24/7? How much to make all the appointments and shuttle people to these appointments and manage all the follow-up? How much to manage a family’s finances — including bill paying, negotiating contracts and doing due diligence on service providers, doing investment research and allocating financial resources? How about a family’s financial/legal business like estate planning, insurance, home purchases, etc…especially if that tends to be managed by one spouse? And even though the subject is taboo, what value do we place on having biological children who will carry our last name…should the person who facilitates this do it for free, especially when they risk their health, their bodies, and reduce their value to future potential suitors?

Is any of this “work”? If so, how should we value it? Because it’s traditionally been done by women (who were owned by men, much like slaves…does a slave’s work have value, even if he/she was not paid?), should we assume that this work has no value?

[Author]

Posts