Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Would you support the payment of wages for housework

POST REPLY

Wages for housework?

Yes
4
27%
No
11
73%
Unsure
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 15
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 20 Sep 2014, 06:33
On a recent thread I posted the argument of a thinker who campaigned demanding wages for housework, as a way of breaking the economic dependency of women on men.

What are your thoughts on the matter?
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 20 Sep 2014, 08:45
I doubt any economy is able to afford every individual for housework. Thats impossible. I understand the idea, but its impossible to introduce in practice.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 20 Sep 2014, 17:47
Should people be paid for the routine upkeep of their own personal property? No way. There are better, easier ways of reducing economic dependency on men. Plus there's the matter of who would be paying them. If the state, there are 1001 better uses for those resources.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4796
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 11:09
Ideology: Other Leftist
Central Committee
Post 20 Sep 2014, 19:08
Indigo wrote:
Should people be paid for the routine upkeep of their own personal property? No way. There are better, easier ways of reducing economic dependency on men. Plus there's the matter of who would be paying them. If the state, there are 1001 better uses for those resources.


This. On its face, without viewing this in a broad societal context of how an economy actual functions, the arguments might make sense. But as it stands, we do not pay for these type of inputs as that would be needlessly complex. Those inputs are covered in the wage to the worker. In the case of divorce, some of this stuff could be accounted for in Alimony or child support.

Quote:
It produces not just the meals and clean clothes, but reproduces the workforce and therefore is in a sense the most productive work in capitalism. Without this work, no other forms of production could take place.


This is the center of their argument, but it is also the problem. Without lungs, there'd be no breathing, there would be no work, so should we pay lungs for breathing as it is a precondition to workers doing work?

No, again, living is covered in the wage.

Preconditions to work do not count as work, plain and simple.

If you want to argue for a stipend to every living person, fine. But when you start to parse this kind of stuff, you start missing the point of the actual productive work of producing goods and services. The wage covers this.

The way this would HAVE to work with the way economies are organized would be for part of a paycheck to go to the spouse, which would only serve to discourage coupling.

Reorganizing the economy in the manner that the author suggests would be damn near impossible, and lead to lots of stupidity.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9187
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 20 Sep 2014, 20:40
No, it's basically a subsidy for single-earner households and really just encourages families where women stay at home rather than work. There is also no guarantee that the person who is entitled to the money would be its final recipient.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4796
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 11:09
Ideology: Other Leftist
Central Committee
Post 21 Sep 2014, 05:10
Kirov wrote:
No, it's basically a subsidy for single-earner households and really just encourages families where women stay at home rather than work. There is also no guarantee that the person who is entitled to the money would be its final recipient.



But that's kind of the point isn't it? Encouraging one worker households.

Right now, the argument is that the wage of the workers in the family should cover the household work and expenses. In that case, the paycheck goes only to the worker. So there is no guarantee it is being shared. This would be better than that.
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 21 Sep 2014, 13:05
No

Mainly because ultimately I don't support a wage-based mode of production at all. In the meantime, who would pay these wages? A company? The state? How does the payer ensure that the "housework" has actually been done and to a good standard? The feminist argument should be to have men and women having equal opportunities when it comes to the workplace and encouraging men to do more around the house. This feminist narrative within this model of wages for housework is based on the idea that the man goes to work while the woman stays at home and does the housework. Paying her wages for this will not dissolve these rigid gender roles. The house worker would still be a wage slave.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 11 Oct 2014, 07:59
If you pay wages for housework you would be de-incentivating woman work. There are better ways to deal with machism than this.

Both sexes should burden the housework, plus women should have incentives to leave home and work outside. No more double work for woman (outside and at home) while the man sits to watch tv and the last sport news.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 14 Oct 2014, 03:22
What, they're giving away free money? frag YES, I'LL TAKE IT.

I live alone and do all my own housework, anyhow.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10737
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Oct 2014, 05:49
Yes...

gRed Britain wrote:
Mainly because ultimately I don't support a wage-based mode of production at all


With this exception. But along the similar line that communists fight for a minimum wage (despite being opposed to wage slavery) fighting for housework as a job would be worth fight for. In the traditional patriarchal family, the man works and the woman stays at home to do house work. In the current state of capitalism (circa the past several decades) that no longer exists. Women are expected to work a wage job in addition to "their" job of taking care of the house and raising the children. Being forced to work two jobs (assuming they don't work multiple wage jobs in addition to house work) is additional exploitation that women face in addition to wage exploitation.

leftguy wrote:
I doubt any economy is able to afford every individual for housework. Thats impossible. I understand the idea, but its impossible to introduce in practice.


I don't think that it is rational for several hundred billionaires to horde wealth at the expense of billions of people on the planet.

AldoBrasil wrote:
If you pay wages for housework you would be de-incentivating woman work. There are better ways to deal with machism than this.

Both sexes should burden the housework, plus women should have incentives to leave home and work outside. No more double work for woman (outside and at home) while the man sits to watch tv and the last sport news.


Last I checked roughly half of the workforce is made up of women, which makes sense considering roughly half of the population is made up of women.

Ideally it would be nice for both people who live together to share the housework. Having housework considered actual work would recognize the labor that goes into running a household and raising a family. Is it so hard to believe that a house would have a babysitter, landscaper, cook, maid, ect.? Those are all jobs that exist. All of these jobs women are expected to take on in addition to wage jobs.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 15 Oct 2014, 07:15
Red Rebel wrote:
In the traditional patriarchal family, the man works and the woman stays at home to do house work. In the current state of capitalism (circa the past several decades) that no longer exists. Women are expected to work a wage job in addition to "their" job of taking care of the house and raising the children. Being forced to work two jobs (assuming they don't work multiple wage jobs in addition to house work) is additional exploitation that women face in addition to wage exploitation.

This is actually a very good point. Considering it a job like any other would mitigate that. It wouldn't be eliminated entirely, a mother playing a role in her child's upbringing is probably better than hiring a nanny 24/7; so the "two jobs" problem can't quite be 100% solved with it. But, things would be a lot more equal, overall.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron