Do you consider "homemaker" to be a job?

[Scroopy Noopers]

So what if the homemaker got a minimum wage job, part time, to fill “gaps” in the week (kids at school/daycare, or extra time outside of house tasks)? Like at the Timmies around the corner. Do you view that person as a leech because they don’t have a 9-5 career? What about min wage with a flexible schedule at a non-profit with no expectations to ascend into bigger roles?

What if, I know this idea shocks some, the family unit as a whole isn’t interested in earning additional money than what they currently do? Is it still “get to work you leech”. For what purpose? Jealousy? I just don’t understand any of this mentality.

[RichieRich]

Not true for all couples but when there is a perceived disparity of efforts versus the actual disparity of effort and/or value.

Certainly if there are 2 small ones being taken care of at home whilst taking care of the house that’s a huge difference if the 2 kids are now teens and largely independent and do most of their own chores and some household contribution. The homemaker workload has changed dramatically and so therefore what was a fair split ~15+ years before no longer is the case. Homemaker arguably has a lot more spare time on their hands to relax, spend, sleep in, spend, leisure shop,spend, hobbies, spend, etc.

Asking for a friend - Question is… any advice how to address that disparity?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

Asking for a friend - Question is… any advice how to address that disparity?

Communicate with your spouse.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

Homemaker arguably has a lot more spare time on their hands to relax, spend, sleep in, spend, leisure shop, spend, hobbies, spend, etc.

Asking for a friend - Question is… any advice how to address that disparity?

Step one, don't be a dick.

Username checks out.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by you&me

It's funny, because that's the same view I take with having my wife stay home... Between the time she spends with the kids and the less time we otherwise have to spend doing 'housework', it's a way for her (and by extension, all of us) to spend more time together.

It's entirely up to her, but the only reason I would want her to work after all of the kids are in school is if she's bored out of her mind and wants something to do, whether for fulfillment, or simply to occupy her time. But it certainly won't be because I think she's a "parasite"...

To me, the more baffling thing is not wanting to provide that option to the person you love because of some tally of chores you're keeping, like a score.

I've had a housekeeper for over 11 years. It isn't a joint expense, I personally pay for their services even though both my wife and I get the shared benefit. Both my wife and I work, but given what each of us brings to the relationship in terms of resources -- I bring more income but have a higher time commitment to my job -- my wife fills a much higher proportion of homemaker tasks than I do when the housekeeper isn't around. But having the housekeeper reduces the overall load, so it's worth it. I consider it outsourcing.

There's nothing wrong with maintaining a set division of tasks, both of you just need to agree that the division itself is fair and that the underlying reasons are valid.

[Cappy]

This topic is a can of worms. Essentially every family's situation is unique so making general comments on this topic is sure to either upset some or at least be irrelevant to others.

I don't have kids. I don't really plan on having kids. I actively steered clear of potential mates with menial jobs who "couldnt wait to be a mom" because of my opinions on having kids.

IF I was to have kids, i wanted a partner who wanted to go back to work. I didn't want to marry a housewife - but I also understand why some would want that. Also, i understand that some men will agree to it after the fact as it makes their wife happy and they love them so circumstances change. So again, not every situation is the same or consistent.

To be clear, raising kids and doing housework is not for me. I wouldnt want to do it - as a job or otherwise. Also, a husband who works and their wife doesnt has no right to make statements like "its my money" or other comments that demean/negate their wife's choice - something that was at least tacitly agreed to by them.

But, i do feel like modern society has made the role of housewife to be an easier one since the 1950s where traditional family units are no longer required or necessary. Modern conveniences have essentially eliminated many of the standard chores (or chore hours) so there is certainly far more free time for other activities.

There is a reason "soccer mom" is generally a derogatory term in this day and age

[you&me]

Originally Posted by woob

But a Sliver thread rarely follows honest debate, so I know what I'm getting myself into here

Are you kidding me? I ####ing love Sliver threads.

It's funny, because I think I almost unanimously disagree with every single opinion he holds, yet (I thinK) I'd still enjoy having a beer with him.

[afc wimbledon]

My feeling is housework is work, but you cant be fired and you can do a ####e job, serve up inedibly bad food (the only meal my ex ever could ever cook) leave the house filthy and spend the day drunk watching soaps so it isnt really a job.

I would never pay anyone for the level of cleaning or cooking competence either I or my ex does/did

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by you&me

Are you kidding me? I ####ing love Sliver threads.

It's funny, because I think I almost unanimously disagree with every single opinion he holds, yet (I thinK) I'd still enjoy having a beer with him.

Spoiler!

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

I love to reduce labour in my life. That's precisely why I think if there are two able-bodied adults with either no kids or school-aged kids, both should work. I think generally people marry somebody of similar class and therefore similar earnings potential. Obviously you could be a lawyer and marry a high school drop-out with low earnings potential, but from my experience people usually marry somebody consistent with their class so I wouldn't say the 40 years of work to make 5 years of work scenario you made up is relevant in general terms, but I'm definitely not in the mood to back that up with a hunt for evidence so take it with a grain of salt.

So back to reducing labour. I do not want to work an extra five or 10 years in order to support somebody when - instead - they could be contributing to our financial health and growth allowing us both to retire earlier together. It's short-sighted to say keeping somebody at home is less work. Sure, maybe it is in the short-term, but it's certainly not in the long-term. Right now my wife and I are both "young" and it's time to make hay while the sun is shining. If she's just going to watch soaps all day and make casserole's for supper and earn $0/month, then I just married a liability. That's crazy to me. Let's both work, thus sharing the burden and labour, and then both retire at the same time, which would be years earlier than had just one of us worked while the other blobbed around.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

My Mom never worked when I was growing up, and actually never did. Dad retired at 55. But aside from going to work he is absolutely useless at literally everything, has been on the wrong side of every social issue in history, has no friends, no hobbies, and has done nothing for the last 17 years but smoke cigarettes and watch TV.

Your life's story is interesting to me, and really goes to show how our opinions about "homemakers" are molded by experience. Your mom was a positive contributor to your life, teaching you all sorts of skills and being able to actually have conversations with you, as opposed to your closed-minded father who worked until age 55. My experience is that the amount of time spent working a "real job" was completely disconnected from how much my parents did around the house and were positive contributors to my life.

My parents both worked full-time when I was growing up, but my mother worked a 9-5 office job as a secretary/admin assistant while my dad worked in the construction industry, and owned and operated a business for a few years when I was a kid. She had much, much more free time than he did, and she did SFA around the house other than sit on her ass and watch TV. Had she been a "SAHM" I guarantee she wouldn't have been any less useless and disinterested at home than she was in the evenings and weekends when she had a full-time job. She didn't support my father's business efforts whatsoever, and was a dour, negative influence overall. She still resents him for having "ruined" them financially with that business, but what really did them in was her profligate spending on junk. To her, "balancing the chequebook" meant she was the one "good with money"; she still doesn't (and never will) understand the difference.

She "retired" at age 59 (she was laid off in an O&G downturn and never got another job), while my dad still works. She's like your dad: absolutely useless at everything, no friends, no hobbies, done nothing for years but watch TV. She is the simpleton philistine with few brain cells to spare. My dad was the one who taught me things, the one I could have conversations about social issues with, the one who'd go out and do things with me—movies, camping, whatever. (And that was still pretty sparse; he wasn't around much.)

So, that's what colours my opinion of "homemakers": my mother was a lazy, useless twit around the house whether she worked full-time or not, but at least the full-time job brought money in. She otherwise brought no "value" to the household. Had she been a "homemaker" it would have been absolutely disastrous for my family.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I love to reduce labour in my life. That's precisely why I think if there are two able-bodied adults with either no kids or school-aged kids, both should work. I think generally people marry somebody of similar class and therefore similar earnings potential. Obviously you could be a lawyer and marry a high school drop-out with low earnings potential, but from my experience people usually marry somebody consistent with their class so I wouldn't say the 40 years of work to make 5 years of work scenario you made up is relevant in general terms, but I'm definitely not in the mood to back that up with a hunt for evidence so take it with a grain of salt.

So back to reducing labour. I do not want to work an extra five or 10 years in order to support somebody when - instead - they could be contributing to our financial health and growth allowing us both to retire earlier together. It's short-sighted to say keeping somebody at home is less work. Sure, maybe it is in the short-term, but it's certainly not in the long-term. Right now my wife and I are both "young" and it's time to make hay while the sun is shining. If she's just going to watch soaps all day and make casserole's for supper and earn $0/month, then I just married a liability. That's crazy to me. Let's both work, thus sharing the burden and labour, and then both retire at the same time, which would be years earlier than had just one of us worked while the other blobbed around.

Just to provide an alternative perspective, I have no interest in retiring. I know when I’m an old lump of coal I’ll be limited in my working ability, and I’ll prepare for that with savings accordingly. But I have no interest in burning myself out trying to make a specific amount of income to retire at a certain age. Especially since I’m certain I’d die before I got there.

Basically my outlook is to try to be responsible and cover ourselves for worst case situations, but otherwise arranging our lives on a year to year basis. Which includes less work for both of us, to enjoy our lives while young.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I love to reduce labour in my life. That's precisely why I think if there are two able-bodied adults with either no kids or school-aged kids, both should work. I think generally people marry somebody of similar class and therefore similar earnings potential. Obviously you could be a lawyer and marry a high school drop-out with low earnings potential, but from my experience people usually marry somebody consistent with their class so I wouldn't say the 40 years of work to make 5 years of work scenario you made up is relevant in general terms, but I'm definitely not in the mood to back that up with a hunt for evidence so take it with a grain of salt.

So back to reducing labour. I do not want to work an extra five or 10 years in order to support somebody when - instead - they could be contributing to our financial health and growth allowing us both to retire earlier together. It's short-sighted to say keeping somebody at home is less work. Sure, maybe it is in the short-term, but it's certainly not in the long-term. Right now my wife and I are both "young" and it's time to make hay while the sun is shining. If she's just going to watch soaps all day and make casserole's for supper and earn $0/month, then I just married a liability. That's crazy to me. Let's both work, thus sharing the burden and labour, and then both retire at the same time, which would be years earlier than had just one of us worked while the other blobbed around.

So you want to be a homemaker as soon as you can afford it.

Then in your retirement you and your spouse can make casseroles and watch soaps all day together.

I think you dramatically undervalue the amount of time you and your spouse put into to maintaining a household and how much free time you can generate by cutting out your half.

[FireFly]

I don't think there's a one size fits all answer to this question. It depends on how busy your family is and what you value for involvement.



For example, perhaps some of these stay-at-home parents volunteer a lot, are on the Boards of all their kids activities, members of the PTA, etc. All of those things take time. It's not just about maintaining the physical household, it's about maintaining your family's lifestyle and whatever that entails as well.



The biggest problem is that people seem to undervalue the other things that a proper homemaker does.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I don't think there's a one size fits all answer to this question. It depends on how busy your family is and what you value for involvement.



For example, perhaps some of these stay-at-home parents volunteer a lot, are on the Boards of all their kids activities, members of the PTA, etc. All of those things take time. It's not just about maintaining the physical household, it's about maintaining your family's lifestyle and whatever that entails as well.



The biggest problem is that people seem to undervalue the other things that a proper homemaker does.

I hate to sound like a whiner, but sometimes I think the opposite is true. I have a good job that allows us to have one parent at home. With a well paying job comes high stress.

It feels like sometimes the societal expectation is the parent who worked all day should now come home and take over the homemaker job, so the homemaker from 8-4 can rest. Don't forget weekends.

When does the working parent rest?

[Sliver]

Just a notice here, I am out of "thanks", but I'm seeing posts I would normally like to thank. So shout out everyone.

Originally Posted by FireFly

I don't think there's a one size fits all answer to this question. It depends on how busy your family is and what you value for involvement.

For example, perhaps some of these stay-at-home parents volunteer a lot, are on the Boards of all their kids activities, members of the PTA, etc. All of those things take time. It's not just about maintaining the physical household, it's about maintaining your family's lifestyle and whatever that entails as well.

The biggest problem is that people seem to undervalue the other things that a proper homemaker does.

That's another thing. I don't agree with volunteerism as a regular scheduled thing to do. Your labour has value and you shouldn't give it away for free. If you're giving your time then get paid. If you're a homemaker and volunteering, your partner should get all the accolades for your volunteer hours because he's subsidizing you to do your little passion projects, but you're the one that smugly accepts all the gratitude for being such a "giver". Volunteers are the actual worst.

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Just to provide an alternative perspective, I have no interest in retiring. I know when I’m an old lump of coal I’ll be limited in my working ability, and I’ll prepare for that with savings accordingly. But I have no interest in burning myself out trying to make a specific amount of income to retire at a certain age. Especially since I’m certain I’d die before I got there.

Basically my outlook is to try to be responsible and cover ourselves for worst case situations, but otherwise arranging our lives on a year to year basis. Which includes less work for both of us, to enjoy our lives while young.

That's fair, but I'm way too risk averse to live year to year. I try to plan generationally. I want to set things up with the goal of helping my kids and their kids because you never know what life can throw at you. I always look at Wal-Mart greeters or old people working beyond when they want to be and wonder what their spending/savings/working habits were when younger. I need to plan for my wife and I to live a long time and I want my kids to have financial security via me if necessary.

[djsFlames]

I don't know about homemaker, but homewrecker can definitely be considered a job.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

That's another thing. I don't agree with volunteerism as a regular scheduled thing to do. Your labour has value and you shouldn't give it away for free. If you're giving your time then get paid. If you're a homemaker and volunteering, your partner should get all the accolades for your volunteer hours because he's subsidizing you to do your little passion projects, but you're the one that smugly accepts all the gratitude for being such a "giver". Volunteers are the actual worst.

There is a lot to unpack in this paragraph. I will say that Volunteers aren't the worst.

Volunteers that go into volunteering seeking adulation for their volunteering are the worst. But I have found those people are generally missing something in other parts of their life.

I know many people that volunteer in numerous different capacities and don't seek or accept accolades.

I am looking to get involved in some volunteer work myself, but I'm not sure what that looks like yet.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

When does the working parent rest?

plenty of time to rest when you are dead.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I hate to sound like a whiner, but sometimes I think the opposite is true. I have a good job that allows us to have one parent at home. With a well paying job comes high stress.

It feels like sometimes the societal expectation is the parent who worked all day should now come home and take over the homemaker job, so the homemaker from 8-4 can rest. Don't forget weekends.

When does the working parent rest?

That's why every family dynamic is different. However, what you've just said is that taking care of the house is work so you don't ever get a break, (you go from a paying job to work at home,) but your spouse gets a break when you get home. However, if you don't take over at least some of the responsibility on evenings and weekends, when does your spouse get a break? You get lunch breaks and evenings and weekends off from your job but a homemaker just has to work 24/7?

What does the division of labour look like after you get home? Are you being asked to cook and clean because your spouse isn't capable of getting it all done while you're at work, or are you being asked to spend time with your children?