Occupation: housewife?

[Harriet]

Is anyone familiar with the concept of "imputed income?" The classic example is a housewife. She does work that would otherwise be done by a nanny, say, and be taxed. The housewife is regarded as being 'paid' by her family and has having imputed income. If it were administrable, there are good arguments for a tax on imputed income. Simply put, housewives are considered productive by not a few economists.

 

[Harriet]

Yssie,

You are assuming that, when someone makes a choice as to education, he or she knows what will happen in the future (health, family circumstances, job fulfillment). Also, have you considered that, by someone giving up a job, that job becomes open to another who may need it more? Lastly, there are other ways to give back to society.

Yes there are, a volunteering dynamo is obviously giving back to society. Jas specifically addressed this, and I tailored my comments to the scenario she proposed.

What about your statement that, by not practising in the field for which I was trained, I have wasted society's resources, amongst others?

 

[yssie]

Harriet, many, many people can do the work of a housewife. It takes an incredible amount of resources to train someone sufficiently to earn something as esoteric as a medical degree, and those resources are precious and limited. A dr. is far more useful to society working in his/her capacity as a doctor than doing work that so many other people could take on.


A dr. is much more highly paid, too, and the net profit from working in that field would far outstrip her 'earnings' as a nanny to her own home.

 

[Imdanny]

Wow, I guess we shouldn't waste money on educating women and we don't need to give them equal pay for the same work men do because women validate discrimination against them by the choices they make.

 

[yssie]

Wow, I guess we shouldn't waste money on educating women and we don't need to give them equal pay for the same work men do because women validate discrimination against them by the choices some of them make.

I think it's terrible.

I know it's a view that some med school admissions folk/employers have, and "some" is some too many. Unfortunately, they're not just making it up - there's a certain chauvanistic, pedantic, dismal logic to the argument.

 

[Imdanny]

There IS gender bias and discrimination in the workforce, as the above linked article claims. And frankly, that IS in part because the state and private institutions funnel precious expenses into people who then make choices like your SIL has made, and that investment is from an economic and social standpoint a waste. And it IS more likely to be a woman making that choice to stay at home and not practice, therefore it IS more likely, statistically, that educating a man is more likely to pay off from the community's view. And thus the discrimination IS, sadly, validated.

Of course, if anyone actually dared to say all that out loud in the workforce they'd be hung, drawn, and quartered.

And that's what I would be thinking - what I am thinking.

I was responding to this.

 

[Imdanny]

Wow, I guess we shouldn't waste money on educating women and we don't need to give them equal pay for the same work men do because women validate discrimination against them by the choices some of them make.

I think it's terrible.

I know it's a view that some med school admissions folk/employers have, and "some" is some too many. Unfortunately, they're not just making the whole thing up.

But since you brought this up, there is something I want to say.

I think it's terribly unfair that society expects women to support themselves in a career and to be financially independent, but on the other hand discriminates against women, and pays them less.

How can society have it both ways? If women are supposed to be as independent as men, they shouldn't be discriminated against, and they should be paid the same.

This kind of bothers me, because I see my mother, sister, and aunt, who work very, very hard, but don't make very much money relative to what the men in my family make/ have made.

My sister and aunt are single, and it doesn't seem fair to any of them, but especially to my sister and aunt, who are basically on their own AND discriminated against, imho. And neither of them is a doctor.

 

[Circe]

Just to follow with where the discussion is going (and, no, I am not talking about the nonsense about "laziness" - jeez, girl, bored at work or just issue-ridden to stir the pot so much?) I just want to draw attention to the nonsense that is the "opt-out revolution." This term has been bouncing around since the early oughts. It's the classic red herring of our time: the 21st century equivalent of that old canard about how a woman is more likely to be killed by a terrorist than get married over the age of 40 (that one dominated the 80s). It's actually sort of interesting how these things follow cycles: once we establish that, yeah, successful career women can get married, let's try to destabilize the goal by communicating that even if they do, it's all worthless because they'll inevitably leave the workforce to take care of Teh Baybeez.

Nonsense.

The opt-out revolution is TEMPORARY. (And that's assuming we're acknowledging it exists - while I think a lot of upper-class women do it, "a lot" is not statistically significant in view of the national population.) Many women choose to spend a few years away from the workplace. Sadly, in our current system, once they return, that can retard their career progress and earning potential significantly. Does that negate their education? NO. I have a Ph.D., and if I choose to take a few years off when I have kids, that knowledge will not exit my vagina alongside the caul. It will keep until I reenter the workforce, benefitting me, my kids, and the students I will teach in the future (who, admittedly, if I choose to take a break from the tenure-track, will be a different sort of student ... but do we really want to say that you don't need as much education to teach CC then grad school? I don't ....)

What fascinates me most is how little crap I see men getting, comparatively. We just don't get articles about how men are wasting the resources of the nation by choosing not to attend college, or dozing through classes. Instead, we scream about discriminatory educational systems (funny how they were fine when men were the only attendees and there were no women enrolled for them to be compared to), and praise men for "baby-sitting" their own offspring. It's like we just can't win until we're 8-armed Kali, juggling education, career, baby, spouse, beauty, home, and a chainsaw to boot.

No wonder Kali is a goddess of destruction. I'd be cranky, too. Hell, I already am.

 

[T L]

Danny are you asking if a woman is a housewife with children or without (I didn't read the whole thread, so I apologize if this was already addressed). I think there's a difference. Being a parent takes a lot of work, and I admire people that are stay at home parents, housewives or househusbands. I don't know what I would do as a housewife all day if I didn't have kids. If my husband was very wealthy, maybe I would shop a lot, however, for me, I would feel very unproductive. Maybe I would do charity volunteer work, or do something that helps society.

 

[yssie]

Wow, I guess we shouldn't waste money on educating women and we don't need to give them equal pay for the same work men do because women validate discrimination against them by the choices some of them make.

I think it's terrible.

I know it's a view that some med school admissions folk/employers have, and "some" is some too many. Unfortunately, they're not just making the whole thing up.

But since you brought this up, there is something I want to say.

I think it's terribly unfair that society expects women to support themselves in a career and to be financially independent, but on the other hand discriminates against women, and pays them less.

How can society have it both ways? If women are supposed to be as independent as men, they shouldn't be discriminated against, and they should be paid the same.

This kind of bothers me, because I see my mother, sister, and aunt, who work very, very hard, but don't make very much money relative to what the men in my family make/ have made.

My sister and aunt are single, and it doesn't seem fair to any of them, but especially to my sister and aunt, who are basically on their own AND discriminated against, imho. And neither of them is a doctor.

Imdanny, I'm a woman entering a men's world, and I'm sorry about for your sister and aunt face, and I worry for myself - it's not fair, and I know it's an uphill road.

The whole point of that portion was to highlight how it does look from the other side of the desk, though, their concerns, their fears. And part of the reason that they have those fears is because they've seen and experienced the effects of many more women making the decision to abandon their specialised careers than men.

 

[Harriet]

Harriet, many, many people can do the work of a housewife. It takes an incredible amount of resources to train someone sufficiently to earn something as esoteric as a medical degree, and those resources are precious and limited. A dr. is far more useful to society working in his/her capacity as a doctor than doing work that so many other people could take on.


A dr. is much more highly paid, too, and the net profit from working in that field would far outstrip her 'earnings' as a nanny to her own home.

Yes, there may be inefficiencies. My point is solely that a housewife is also regarded as being economically productive.

 

[Circe]

Wow, I guess we shouldn't waste money on educating women and we don't need to give them equal pay for the same work men do because women validate discrimination against them by the choices some of them make.

I think it's terrible.

I know it's a view that some med school admissions folk/employers have, and "some" is some too many. Unfortunately, they're not just making the whole thing up.

But since you brought this up, there is something I want to say.

I think it's terribly unfair that society expects women to support themselves in a career and to be financially independent, but on the other hand discriminates against women, and pays them less.

How can society have it both ways? If women are supposed to be as independent as men, they shouldn't be discriminated against, and they should be paid the same.

This kind of bothers me, because I see my mother, sister, and aunt, who work very, very hard, but don't make very much money relative to what the men in my family make/ have made.

My sister and aunt are single, and it doesn't seem fair to any of them, but especially to my sister and aunt, who are basically on their own AND discriminated against, imho. And neither of them is a doctor.

Imdanny, I'm a woman entering a men's world, and I'm sorry about for your sister and aunt face, and I worry for myself - it's not fair, and I know it's an uphill road.

The whole point of that portion was to highlight how it does look from the other side of the desk, though, their concerns, their fears. And part of the reason that they have those fears is because they've seen and experienced the effects of many more women making the decision to abandon their specialised careers than men.

Yssie, just to emphasize this - in your experience, do those same employers take the temporary nature of the "abandonment" into account? Do they rehire women when they reenter the workforce? Because that's the part of the equation that makes the relationship between women and the workplace so dysfunctional, IMHO - the expectation that women today follow the model that was originally set for men (and which, frankly, men aren't finding all that satisfying either, these days). I think we need to change the system, not drive ourselves mad trying to meet a deeply unsatisfying standard.

 

[iluvcarats]

Harriet, many, many people can do the work of a housewife. It takes an incredible amount of resources to train someone sufficiently to earn something as esoteric as a medical degree, and those resources are precious and limited. A dr. is far more useful to society working in his/her capacity as a doctor than doing work that so many other people could take on.


A dr. is much more highly paid, too, and the net profit from working in that field would far outstrip her 'earnings' as a nanny to her own home.

I am married to a dr. and he freely and often admits that he could not do his job without me. His hours aren't 9-5, they are more like 5-9, and he certainly wouldn't be a very happy dr., or able to contribute to society as he does if I didn't take care of every other aspect of his life. We are a team together. At the end of the day, I guarantee that I will be thinking of him and our children and the richness of our life together, and not "I wish I had a career." And I am sure he will be thinking of me and our children, and not his life as a dr. But I guess it's up to you how you define "useful" and "important".

 

[yssie]

Wow, I guess we shouldn't waste money on educating women and we don't need to give them equal pay for the same work men do because women validate discrimination against them by the choices some of them make.

I think it's terrible.

I know it's a view that some med school admissions folk/employers have, and "some" is some too many. Unfortunately, they're not just making the whole thing up.

But since you brought this up, there is something I want to say.

I think it's terribly unfair that society expects women to support themselves in a career and to be financially independent, but on the other hand discriminates against women, and pays them less.

How can society have it both ways? If women are supposed to be as independent as men, they shouldn't be discriminated against, and they should be paid the same.

This kind of bothers me, because I see my mother, sister, and aunt, who work very, very hard, but don't make very much money relative to what the men in my family make/ have made.

My sister and aunt are single, and it doesn't seem fair to any of them, but especially to my sister and aunt, who are basically on their own AND discriminated against, imho. And neither of them is a doctor.

Imdanny, I'm a woman entering a men's world, and I'm sorry about for your sister and aunt face, and I worry for myself - it's not fair, and I know it's an uphill road.

The whole point of that portion was to highlight how it does look from the other side of the desk, though, their concerns, their fears. And part of the reason that they have those fears is because they've seen and experienced the effects of many more women making the decision to abandon their specialised careers than men.

Yssie, just to emphasize this - in your experience, do those same employers take the temporary nature of the "abandonment" into account? Do they rehire women when they reenter the workforce? Because that's the part of the equation that makes the relationship between women and the workplace so dysfunctional, IMHO - the expectation that women today follow the model that was originally set for men (and which, frankly, men aren't finding all that satisfying either, these days). I think we need to change the system, not drive ourselves mad trying to meet a deeply unsatisfying standard.

I'm working for a startup (well, multiple) in the Silicon Valley. I can safely say that for the next ten years or so if I leave my job for any reason not directly health-related I wouldn't be able to re-enter this workforce - ever. It's fast paced, it's competitive, and there are a dozen people just off their last jobs vying for every spot - as I said a couple of days ago, the employers have neither time nor patience for choices that make one a less eligible candidate, in large part because they don't *have* time - if a startup doesn't take off within the first few years it's pretty much doomed, which doesn't leave wiggle room for people to leave and reenter


ETA: iluvcarats I think it's pretty clear that my statements are only relevant if you, too, have a medical degree

 

[Circe]

I'm working for a startup (well, multiple) in the Silicon Valley. I can safely say that for the next ten years or so if I leave my job for any reason not directly health-related I wouldn't be able to re-enter this workforce - ever. It's fast paced, it's competitive, and there are a dozen people just off their last jobs vying for every spot - as I said a couple of days ago, the employers have neither time nor patience for choices that make one a less eligible candidate, in large part because they don't *have* time - if a startup doesn't take off within the first few years it's pretty much doomed, which doesn't leave wiggle room for people to leave and reenter

Cutting the previous quotes so this doesn't get too unwieldy ....

See, this is why I think the Swedish system is so superior. The way it works there is that a spot is automatically held for anybody, male or female, who takes their parental leave time. The downside is that, yes, it does make women in their 20s slightly less desirable candidates, on the assumption that they'll probably take some time off for childbearing and you'll have a temp rotating through the office. The plus side is ... everything else. The nation keeps its pool of talented workers, men and women get gender equality, babies get mothers milk and individualized attention, and employeers have been polled with the finding that they actually prefer to hire moms of two or more, as they multitask better. Everybody wins!

Do I see this system coming to the US anytime soon? Sadly, no. Do I see it as a necessity for women to figure out alternate-path careers as a result? Yes. For a lot of women, the working mom thing works beautifully - if they can afford childcare, if they feel ready emotionally, and if, even given all that, they have an employer who's understanding about everything from pumping to the fact that most of the time it's the mom who's expected to make the sacrifice of taking time off to, say, take a sick kid to the doctor. But for a lot of other women, it seems like there's this lacuna of staying at home, and I wish to god it wasn't an either-or in our collective mindset, but an in-between ... and that we planned for the "after" part better. Not just as individuals, but on every level. Dream big, I always say.

 

[iluvcarats]

Yssie:
You missed my point which is, at least in my husbands case, that he couldn't contribute to society the way that he does if he didn't have me to orchestrate everything else. His job requires both of us. And I am sure that he would agree that his stay at home mom helped him realize his dream as well. Without her, maybe his life would be completely different.

 

[Haven]

I find it funny that anyone would be anything but proud to be a SAHM or SAHW! [ . . . ]

Even in NYC, a lot of women would love to be SAHMs but don't have the option. Many working moms I know work because they have to or because their identity is in their jobs...or it's too hard to let go of that extra income. Some people do truly love their jobs, but I don't know many who would keep working if money were no object. I think I'd be super proud to be a SAHM and have no issues proudly declaring it. Why not? I know who I am. I am proud of my accomplishments... now I'm doing something more meaningful to me.

All those years of education and experience? Not a drop wasted - they were for my enlightenment as a human being and for my intellectual growth...all of which made me who I am today. And I will be a better parent, partner and world citizen for it. Education is never wasted. No one can ever take away your education. It's there for YOU, for your hungry mind...so that you can contribute to the world in a meaningful way. It's not just so you can get a j-o-b! No, education is so that you can learn more about the world you live in and grow as a human being. There are so many ways to help make the world a better place outside of our jobs as well. We are so much more than our jobs.

Anyway, what's not to love? [ . . . ]

Bliss, I really enjoyed reading your post. I've found that many SAHMs seem to feel like they have to justify their choice to stay at home, when really I wish they would own it and be proud of it, as you are. Is staying at home for everyone? No. But is it bliss for some people, absolutely!

I had a good friend in college who studied horticulture and had no problems telling anyone that her dream was to be married, to raise wonderful children, and to stay at home to create a wonderful place for them all. She studied horticulture so she could beautify their home, and she wasn't ashamed of who she was or what she wanted, or of the fact that she *knew* what she wanted. And guess what? She got exactly what she wanted, partly, I'm sure, because she was honest about it.

I also like what you had to say about your education. I think it is a very sad state of affairs today that so many people view education as merely a means to an end, and if you aren't going to get a good job out of it, it isn't worth the pursuit. I have some colleagues who would tell you that this is a sign of the fast decline of our culture, but that's another story, I suppose. I can't tell you how many times I was asked "What are you going to do with a BA in English?" during my undergrad years. My response was always "Think for myself" or some variation of that idea. My parents would have been so disappointed in me if I chose to study something because it led to a particular career, rather than something that lit my intellectual fire. Of course, that's a luxury and I'm proud to have taken advantage of it.

As for the discussion about contribution to society, I really have to say that I believe people who pursue what makes them happy and fulfilled contribute so much to society simply by being happy and fulfilled. If they are also raising children, whether they stay home with them or not, they are contributing greatly to society by raising decent, whole, well-adjusted human beings. If everyone took care of themselves and fiercely pursued their own happiness, we'd be much better off on the whole. Happy people do great things. They inspire others. They smile at strangers. They create charities and philanthropies and schools for needy children. They raise wonderful sons and daughters. They are too busy being happy that they don't have time to condemn others for their choices, to cut off strangers on the toll road, to spread hate in its many forms. To murder, rape, or steal. Happy people, in whatever public form they take (SAHM, ER Doctor, Personal Trainer, Barista, Accountant,) are so much better for society than people who suffer the slow and quiet desperation of living an unfulfilled life just because they feel the obligation/pressure/compulsion to do so.

Edited to shorten the length of the quoted post. Bliss--I loved every word of it!

 

[yssie]

You said it perfectly Circe - planning for the "after" better.

I love my job, and can't imagine not wanting to work, but there are of course many women who would prefer to take some time off to raise children, then reenter the workforce, and those women really do have it the worst - right now, as it stands, they make a choice: stay home and possibly end - or severely retard, as you said - their careers, or give up their dreams of staying home with their children whilst they're young..

 

[yssie]

Yssie:
You missed my point which is, at least in my husbands case, that he couldn't contribute to society the way that he does if he didn't have me to orchestrate everything else. His job requires both of us. And I am sure that he would agree that his stay at home mom helped him realize his dream as well. Without her, maybe his life would be completely different.

I understood your point completely. You seem to have missed mine: that unless society poured those resources into YOU, to make YOU a doctor, and you have chosen not to practice, I make no remarks one way or another.

 

[iluvcarats]

Yssie:
You missed my point which is, at least in my husbands case, that he couldn't contribute to society the way that he does if he didn't have me to orchestrate everything else. His job requires both of us. And I am sure that he would agree that his stay at home mom helped him realize his dream as well. Without her, maybe his life would be completely different.

I understood your point completely. You seem to have missed mine: that unless society poured those resources into YOU, to make YOU a doctor, and you have chosen not to practice, my statements aren't applicable.

I guess I am confused. How does society make anyone a doctor? Medical School is upwards of $50,000 a year, and it is not subsidized. Hospitals certainly aren't losing money by training residents.

 

[iluvcarats]

We do have something in common though Yssie:
Here I am a SAHM, while you are working for "several internet start up companies", yet we're both doing the same thing:surfing a diamond website

 

[yssie]

Well you've got me there, I suppose if a medical student did not rely on society at all to achieve everything that he/she did, then there's no need for any sense of obligation..


and yes, we are - both on this forum together at the same time I'll be bowing out now, though, I have a 10:30 meeting I actually have to get dressed for

 

[waterlilly]

For those of you that are homeowners, wouldn't you agree - there is simply a never ending list of "things" that need to be done?

We have a fairly decent sized home, a fairly big chunk of land, and if I chose to be a housewife (no kids) I would have NO problem filling my day with things to do. Add growing/preparing all our meals from scratch - easily a 40+ hour a week job.

I think it would be great for the weekend to come and not have to worry about cramming all the week's cleaning/chores into those two days and just having the entire weekend to ourselves.

I can absolutely see the draw and HUGE benefits to a married couple that owns a home of having one person not work and do all the tasks required to run the household. Kids or not.

Oh, how clean our house would be!! I would love it.

 

[waterlilly]

Yssie:
You missed my point which is, at least in my husbands case, that he couldn't contribute to society the way that he does if he didn't have me to orchestrate everything else. His job requires both of us. And I am sure that he would agree that his stay at home mom helped him realize his dream as well. Without her, maybe his life would be completely different.

I understood your point completely. You seem to have missed mine: that unless society poured those resources into YOU, to make YOU a doctor, and you have chosen not to practice, my statements aren't applicable.

I guess I am confused. How does society make anyone a doctor? Medical School is upwards of $50,000 a year, and it is not subsidized. Hospitals certainly aren't losing money by training residents.

Yes, I don't get that argument even a little tiny bit. Society pours resources into people that become doctors??? (or any other profession for that matter!)

What? Are there people out there that "volunteer" their services to educate and train doctors?? Are there universities that are offering free MD's?

 

[lyra]

Does anyone know what percentage of the population in the US is in the workforce vs. the percentage of the population that isn't?

Does anyone know what the unemployment rate is in the US? How about the unemployment rate in the US when the people who aren't counted because they can't find a job and gave up looking and aren't counting in the unemployment rate are counted?

Does anyone know how many jobs have to be created in the US every year for people entering the workforce (let alone the fact that it is not happening).

Not everyone is able to work, male or female. Some people, as hard as it is for some people to believe, are not able to work.

I would never make a judgment about whether someone worked or not. Maybe that puts me in the minority but so be it.

The US states has 5-7 applicants for ever 1 job available at the moment. I don't see any reputable economists who are claiming the situation is going to get better anytime soon (as in for years).

Even if every man, woman, and child (teenager) wanted to work, the are not enough jobs.

Ok, rant over.

Thank you for this Danny. It upsets me to think some people think I'm lazy or something. I began having health problems when I was 30 and my kids were young. Time has only brought more health issues. I cannot work now. I felt so guilty about not contributing financially, I attempted a low paying physically demanding job several years ago because that was all that was available at the time. It was a disaster, and emotionally it was awful. I used to have a high pressure job in the business field, but you can't take a long break and step back into that, not that the result would have been any different. I'm on medications that make me tired sometimes, very thirsty, and I have pain. I didn't see this coming at all. I do not receive any kind of disability payment either. I am offered a very small income tax reduction. I'm in Canada. There are not enough jobs here either.

 

[steph72276]

Housewife is just a nice name for a lazy person who can't be bothered working. I could never let my husband do all the working and earning and me just sitting at home on my backside.

The only exception to this is if I were a SAHM - totally different story!!! But once the kids are off to school, then it's time to start supporting the household IMO.

Okay, so here's the thing. People can say being a housewife isn't for them...clearly it's not for everyone and that is perfectly fine. But to over generalize and over simplify a huge group in this way is just wrong. Just as wrong as over generalizing any group based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc...so why is okay to do the same to a large group of women? Sure there are lazy housewives out there, just like there are lazy men/women in the workforce. But there are also housewives that get up at 6am everyday and work their butts off to manage a household. Some don't get the luxury of an hour long lunch break, or coffee break, or chit chat by the water cooler. Some are busy all day long cleaning, managing finances, shuttling kids back and forth to school, after school activities, sports, doctor's appointments, dentist appointments, tutoring, grocery shopping, cooking from scratch, gardening, supervising home repairs, shopping for everyone in the family's birthday, graduation, anniversary gifts, planning parties, taking the dog out for walks, volunteering, etc. all while caring for young babies that need constant attention. So anyone that is actually completely running a household is anything but lazy in my book!

 

[zhuzhu]

Why are women so hard on other women?

 

[lyra]

Why are women so hard on other women?

I was wondering the exact same thing!

 

[Shoopy]

Why are women so hard on other women?

I was reading through the last pages trying to figure out what it is that I wanted to say and this sums it up well.

I work in a community where we have women who are VPs, SVPs, and Presidents. Some of these women have SAHDs. In my 9-5 enviornment, being a working mom is something to be proud of. But then I go home to my mommy communities and being a working mom is unfortunate. I just live my life.

FWIW, we are now a single income home and will be that way until the new year, but I'm not the one that is a SAHM.

 

[Harriet]

Yssie:
You missed my point which is, at least in my husbands case, that he couldn't contribute to society the way that he does if he didn't have me to orchestrate everything else. His job requires both of us. And I am sure that he would agree that his stay at home mom helped him realize his dream as well. Without her, maybe his life would be completely different.

I understood your point completely. You seem to have missed mine: that unless society poured those resources into YOU, to make YOU a doctor, and you have chosen not to practice, my statements aren't applicable.

I guess I am confused. How does society make anyone a doctor? Medical School is upwards of $50,000 a year, and it is not subsidized. Hospitals certainly aren't losing money by training residents.

Yes, I don't get that argument even a little tiny bit. Society pours resources into people that become doctors??? (or any other profession for that matter!)

What? Are there people out there that "volunteer" their services to educate and train doctors?? Are there universities that are offering free MD's?

I don't get it either. My brain must be wasting away.