Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I look at it as buying more time with the family. Instead of cleaning bathrooms we do fun stuff together. It's outstanding value.
|
From your posts you in general agree that spending money to reduce the amount of labour required to run your life is a good use of money
And
That overall reducing the amount of labour you do for money is positive
Yet the homemaker you view as parisitic.
Your only issue with home making appear to be that the labour reduction is unequally distributed.
On the unequal distribution of the labour reduction I think the relative scale of incomes makes a big difference. The larger the income difference the more it makes sense for one person to stay home. And depending on the income difference you might be asking someone to commit to 40 years of additional labour to save you 5 years of labour once you account for all of the associated work expenses and the extra labour you need to put in at home. You also don’t account for the ability to work additional time at work to increase the all ready higher earning persons potential.
So overall it’s symbiotic rather than parisitic and even from an individual perspective my total workload is reduced compared to the alternative.
To me it seems more unreasonable to have two people working in order to purchase luxury goods. It’s a far greater luxury to have a person who can deal with all the life challenges.
Obviously this thread is full of privileged people who are making choices on how to allocate surplus money/time as opposed to having two working parents out of necessity.