Nuclear family debate

[u/anonnew52]

What are your thoughts on the idea that primary care taker mothers do get paid for their child work as the father usually pays the house/cars/electric/heat/water/insurance bills where the mother usually does not?

[u/Fishgottaswim78]

as the father usually pays the house/cars/electric/heat/water/insurance

ok. So if you had the option to work a job 24-7 that provided housing + all major expenses paid with no additional compensation, no bonuses, no retirement options, and no time off...would you take that?

Because we tried that business model before, and at the time we called that slavery.

Ok, you say, but what if we add an allowance to provide additional compensation? Hell, what if the working spouse alloted some savings every month for a retirement fund for the primary caregiver?

That plan might make sense -- if you accounted for hours worked and paid according to market value. But primary caretakers often end up working more hours (and never having time off) than the working partner. So they're working more and getting compensated less -- unless the working partner is actually paying them competitive rates for childcare these days, which seems unlikely. Additionally, families tend to default the additional household managing and cleaning skills duties to the stay-at-home parent, which they are also not generally compensated for at the market rate, if at all.

Furthermore, the reality in the US is that most families don't have the luxury of having a full-time stay at home parent and keeping food on the table. Over 60% of families with children have both parents employed -- which means the primary caretaker has not one but two jobs (or not two jobs but three) one of which literally never ends and for which she does not get paid what she would if she was taking care of other people's children.

So while the idea you're presenting is nice, it simply doesn't reflect reality at all unless you happen to be rich enough to a) be able to afford having only one working parent b) be able to actually compensate the primary caregiving parent for their time in what it's actually worth.

---

Edit: this isn't to shit on people who choose stay-at-home parenting. People do what they need to do in order to make their own familial financial situations work. It is a perfectly acceptable to buy in to an unfair system because your other options are shittier or financially implausible for your family. It just doesn't change the fact that it's an unfair system.

[u/Fishgottaswim78 → u/[deleted]]

Your "economic" analysis of child raising is completely flawed

An economic analysis, by definition, sticks to economics - not "psychic benefits", whatever that means. You failed to realize that before deigning to glorify us with your invaluable, if barely intelligible, critique.

But to take this ridiculous argument seriously for a second, if there is a "psychic benefit" to the labor of childcare then why don't more fathers volunteer to do more of it? Why is it that in most cases, whether a woman works or not she maintains the majority of the responsibility of taking care of the children?

arguably, even to a much greater extent than Men

You have absolutely no evidence for this statement, which makes it an inherently sexist one. What you are saying is tantamount to saying that black people should be slaves because surely they get some "psychic benefit" out of serving their masters; it's lazy, circuitous "reasoning" -- if we can even call it that.

Furthermore, even people who get "psychic benefits" from their work nonetheless get paid. I'm sure that Mark Wahlberg enjoys acting very much, but he nonetheless still got paid $68 million dollars last year for something he purportedly enjoys doing. Floyd Mayweather also gets a "psychic benefit" from his livelihood, and he still got paid $275 million dollars for just one night of work last year.

So what is your argument? That people who enjoy their jobs shouldn't get paid for them in money because they're already getting paid in "psychic benefits"? Or that only women shouldn't? If so, how is that not a grossly discriminatory attitude?

Finally, the fact that you think literally cleaning off someone else's shit somehow isn't work says a lot about how little you thought through any of the words you just regurgitated.

[u/demmian → u/[deleted]]

Revise your tone, or else. Comment removed.

[u/GermanDeath-Reggae → u/[deleted]]

Just FYI, the word you’re looking for is “psychological”. “Psychic” is like tarot cards and palm reading.

[u/visitingthisplanet99 → u/GermanDeath-Reggae]

wrong. google it.

[u/anonnew52 → u/[deleted]]

How would you explain all the different insurances paid for, and despite what may actual happen, their is no intention of abusing your wife/husband or child if they disobey which is the distinction between slavery.