This is a problem that vexes me and I have yet to find a workable solution. As I noted before ( https://www.lianeon.org/p/we-dont-have-enough-people ) we face a global demographic crisis of shrinking populations. This is, in no small part, due to the opportunity cost of having children. Mostly, this opportunity cost falls on women who shoulder the burden of child-rearing.
As you said, most economists seem to handwave childcare/domestic work away. Maybe if we found a means to measure domestic work into GDP, we could develop a system that properly reward that work? And if we did, would the fertility rate turn around?
J.K. Just reposting here my response from Notes (for others following this thread):
Thanks for sharing and for the excellent analysis, @J.K. Lund . I appreciate your point about being vexed. I guess I am, too. I know I have readers who think I should tout, say, “5 Easy Tips to Fix [unpaid domestic work or whatever issue I’m exploring],” but in my experience easy solutions do little other than gain clicks, and may do harm by oversimplifying complex problems. Your idea about incorporating unpaid domestic work into GDP makes sense, and prompted me to uncover that the Bureau of Economic Analysis takes a step in that direction in a “satellite account.” https://apps.bea.gov/scb/issues/2022/02-february/0222-household-production.htm
Thanks for getting me there. It’s info I should know and am likely to incorporate into future work.
Maybe it’s a story I tell myself — one consistent with my study of behavior change — but I like to think consciousness-raising is an important step toward change and that articles like the ones you and I write are effective toward that end. I.e., spotlighting a complex, under-appreciated problem is an important precursor to workable solutions.
What a great gathering of domestic work issues, Bob. One other aspect of being unpaid is that if a woman (like me) stayed home to raise her kids or at least until in school, they received the minimum social security benefit. Considered what - not really work? not worth a measure of compensation? I remember back in the "workforce" (aka office) looking at my social security history and seeing those early years raising my kids as zeros.
Thanks for calling out the social security piece, Barbara. As I recall, it's factored into the "retirement income" that makes up the 20% of the *average* $295,000 lost over a lifetime. Either way, it warrants being spotlighted more than I did in the article. There are a lot of ripple effects to unpaid domestic work. Sometimes, for example, people may be dismissive of lost earnings and retirement income because they picture couples staying together, with combined finances, long into retirement. But, of course, that's often not the case. In fact, I was tempted to include some data about how more and more marriages are ending in divorce later and later in life. So, couples are often agreeing to women staying home to care for kids with the idea that they'll share the financial burden. Then, after the kids are grown, they get divorced and suddenly the woman is left with minimal (if any at all) retirement savings, because hubby has flown the coup with his.
Good point Bob, especially the late divorces. My point, however, and should have made it better, is that what would be so hard to recognize labor as labor and give women some scheduled credit for "housework" as we used to call it. Even the new "homemaker" implies creative work. One kid - so much credit, two.... It's not recogizing real work (as you do so well in your post) that bothers me whether it's work period, in the home (caregiving for example) or raising kids. Also - as for social security - the lid should come off and have those who've enjoyed a large income kick in a bit more. Then the whole social security is about to die in the congressional ER would be over.
This is a problem that vexes me and I have yet to find a workable solution. As I noted before ( https://www.lianeon.org/p/we-dont-have-enough-people ) we face a global demographic crisis of shrinking populations. This is, in no small part, due to the opportunity cost of having children. Mostly, this opportunity cost falls on women who shoulder the burden of child-rearing.
As you said, most economists seem to handwave childcare/domestic work away. Maybe if we found a means to measure domestic work into GDP, we could develop a system that properly reward that work? And if we did, would the fertility rate turn around?
J.K. Just reposting here my response from Notes (for others following this thread):
Thanks for sharing and for the excellent analysis, @J.K. Lund . I appreciate your point about being vexed. I guess I am, too. I know I have readers who think I should tout, say, “5 Easy Tips to Fix [unpaid domestic work or whatever issue I’m exploring],” but in my experience easy solutions do little other than gain clicks, and may do harm by oversimplifying complex problems. Your idea about incorporating unpaid domestic work into GDP makes sense, and prompted me to uncover that the Bureau of Economic Analysis takes a step in that direction in a “satellite account.” https://apps.bea.gov/scb/issues/2022/02-february/0222-household-production.htm
Thanks for getting me there. It’s info I should know and am likely to incorporate into future work.
Maybe it’s a story I tell myself — one consistent with my study of behavior change — but I like to think consciousness-raising is an important step toward change and that articles like the ones you and I write are effective toward that end. I.e., spotlighting a complex, under-appreciated problem is an important precursor to workable solutions.
What a great gathering of domestic work issues, Bob. One other aspect of being unpaid is that if a woman (like me) stayed home to raise her kids or at least until in school, they received the minimum social security benefit. Considered what - not really work? not worth a measure of compensation? I remember back in the "workforce" (aka office) looking at my social security history and seeing those early years raising my kids as zeros.
Thanks for calling out the social security piece, Barbara. As I recall, it's factored into the "retirement income" that makes up the 20% of the *average* $295,000 lost over a lifetime. Either way, it warrants being spotlighted more than I did in the article. There are a lot of ripple effects to unpaid domestic work. Sometimes, for example, people may be dismissive of lost earnings and retirement income because they picture couples staying together, with combined finances, long into retirement. But, of course, that's often not the case. In fact, I was tempted to include some data about how more and more marriages are ending in divorce later and later in life. So, couples are often agreeing to women staying home to care for kids with the idea that they'll share the financial burden. Then, after the kids are grown, they get divorced and suddenly the woman is left with minimal (if any at all) retirement savings, because hubby has flown the coup with his.
Good point Bob, especially the late divorces. My point, however, and should have made it better, is that what would be so hard to recognize labor as labor and give women some scheduled credit for "housework" as we used to call it. Even the new "homemaker" implies creative work. One kid - so much credit, two.... It's not recogizing real work (as you do so well in your post) that bothers me whether it's work period, in the home (caregiving for example) or raising kids. Also - as for social security - the lid should come off and have those who've enjoyed a large income kick in a bit more. Then the whole social security is about to die in the congressional ER would be over.