This is a phenomenon that I call the "Engineer/Social Worker" phenomenon. You have a husband, who makes $70,000 as an engineer or a computer geek or what have you, but then a (typically) liberal, independent woman who as a part time social worker or women's studies major makes $20,000 per year at some government-make-work job. However, she spends $40,000 per year on stuff, thereby necessitating a subsidy from her husband, yet at the same time will no doubt claim she is independent, when mathematically and factually she's not.
I know people like this and there's a LOT of them. Maybe not the majority of the population, but definitely a lot of sheepish, sensitive 90's men with masters in computer engineering that are just thankful to have a female in their lives and turn a blind eyes to the economic realities of independence. The wife usually runs roughshod over him and after they get married, we never see our buddy again. Usually it's by accident 4 years later when the beaten, wearied-eye man is hauling three kids around and has lost that wild mustang look in his eye.
Oh well, not every guy can be a P-51 Mustang. You need tankers and haulers too.
ht to Fraulein Elizabeth
In fairness captain, IF you want to have kids, then one of the two parents basically has to take a job that's less "career" and more "exact time".
ReplyDeleteThe thing is many of the (usually) wives who take that other job know they are accepting the cross subsidy and it's an accepted part of the household economy.
The woman is "earning" more in non-monetarized 2nd. 3rd jobs, taking car of kids, making sure the house is clean (if only becuase I have yet to meet a woman who think husbands can clean to a decent standard.) etc... (In fairness the guy usually also has jobs, ALSO including kids and cleaning gutters and so forth)
You try to monetarize those jobs as a economist. Hiring someone who cooks, runs errands, and cleans and takes care of the kids even part time ain't cheap.
I'm thinking 30-40K a year as a round working number.
Or even better the 'self-employed' female consultant, who earns maybe enough to buy her monthly quota of shoes and some fancy dinners, but the husband pays all the overhead and living costs. As a self-employed woman with no spouse, these people are just bloody annoying. Because they don't have to price their services in the real world they undercut the others. I need to generate between $6,000 to $9,000 monthly to pay expenses, any vacation time I want to take off, my pension plans etc. I can't do a job for $2,000 if it takes more than a week of my time, whereas those that have a spouse paying the real bills can.
ReplyDeleteOh, I agree. If women (or whoever stays at home) were compensated for their labor, then they would certianly be making more than the stated realized income of $20,000 or whatever. However, two major problems with that;
ReplyDelete1. The people I'm talking about here are not the ones to stay at home with the children. Say they didn't have children, ask the KHOMA (have to read the book) woman if she's independent and she will adamantly insist she is. Once you bring kids into the picture, then yes, whoever is home is CERTAINLY earning their keep.
2. Somebody explain to me this stupid idea of compensating people for household work or child rearing?! Why would you PAY somebody for that? They would then have to pay TAXES on it. It's a bartering arrangement. No taxes. I've never understood that argument.
Maureen,
ReplyDeleteI never thought about that, but you just hit the doctor's trophy wife's "Doillies and Bobble" shop right on the head.
Keep charging more. The fact you're a self supporting adult makes you smarter, faster and better than the competition.
One here, Captain. Although she has just been dumped and isn't liking it one little bit.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, I wasn't stupid enough to marry her - so despite my high(ish) income, she can't have my house, which I bought before I met her and which she has never paid towards, and she can only claim about £310 a month from me for our child. Of course, the situation is 'complicated' but essentially you describe it accurately, and you certainly grasp the realities better than the vast majority.
Fortunately I'm at a stage in my career that I can cherry pick jobs, but I still get told by clients that so and so could do it for less. My response is 'then you should get so and so do to it - and I wish you luck with the result!'
ReplyDeleteHowever it is still very vexing to have to deal with these people!
Anonymous: the Captain doesn't need to monetarise the cost of those jobs - such actions are the result of a voluntary agreement between couples. If either party doesn't like it, then they are free to opt out.
ReplyDeleteMaureen: a very interesting comment.
I'm not saying you should get paid to "take care of business, at home" , my point was only that many people, usually women, accept undemanding bureaucratic jobs so that they can be home at a predictable time, not travel, etc... and thus be more effective wives and mothers.
ReplyDeleteThe second point was that though not monetarily rewarded, directly, that were you fairly assign a market value to that work ( when done well) it's surprisingly large.
(I get annoyed when women think less of themselves for being "just" a housewife. Lady, it's not a job I'd want or even be good at! )
And strongly agree with the poster who hates the competition from cross subsidized dilettantes! A similar case is the people such as politicians who somehow manage to accumulate multiple generous pensions, usually in "public service" because the generous provisions for relatively short time served.
The rest of us are busting our humps earn money and these creatures are living high off the tax hog.
Oh, agreed. Though I dare to go so far as to say that taking a part time job while still in the child rearing years should be frowned upon. You have children and a house to tend to, that unto itself is a full time job. Man or woman, doesn't matter, if there's kids, then that is the sole thing ONE of them should work on.
ReplyDeleteWhat I see more often or "driving" the "part time social worker" job is that the (typically) woman was told in her youth she HAD to get a degree and HAD to have a career and things like being a "mom" or a "housewife" were to be frowned upon. So they get this degree, they are told to get careers, but nobody ever asked the question, "hey, why are we demeaning and lessening housework and child rearing?"
Regardless, it's too late. 2 generations of women have been told to abandon what is a noble, quite necessary role for a successful (not to mention) happier society, and we get to suffer the consequences of it.