Quote:
Originally Posted by Leondros
You are also using flawed thinking - by going completely in the opposite direction.
High functioning and successful people do pay people to do things like cooking, driving, child care, house cleaning - the reason being they are often working 70, 80, 90 hour weeks. There is simply not enough time in the day. If they reduced their hours, they wouldn't get as high up in an organization and thus they make less.
Similar to some posters in this thread, if you look at a marriage as a team, which at the end of the day any well functioning marriage should be viewed as a partnership where one's success is shared by the other, then a stay at home person dealing with the house in general makes a lot of sense.
Most of my peers and coworkers who are working huge hours are supported by their spouses at home. Picking the kids up, taking them to activities, cleaning, cooking, taxes, house maintenance, bills, etc. are all handled by the stay at home person so the 'bread winner' can bring home hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Some of these 'homemakers' if you want to call them that are equally as qualified as their spouses. Lawyers, accountants, some even doctors with huge earnings potential. Some like the life style, some get more utility out of that work than their career, and others have sat down and crunched the numbers and realized having one person going 120% rather than 2 at 80% if going to pay out way more over the long haul.
|
At the very top of the pay scale it usually pays for one partner to focus on work while the other handles all non-work family duties, for the reasons you cite. It’s pretty rare for a top executive with a family to have a spouse who works - they need someone to tend the home fires so they can dedicate themselves 100 per cent to their careers.
This is a big reason for the gender disparity in the top echelons of business. It’s far more common for a male executive climbing the org chart to have a partner dedicated to handling all domestic matters.