« I Swear, We'll Fight About Anything! | stillidealistic's Blog | Christians Aren't Going Away and Neither Are Gays »
How's This For An "Outside The Box" Idea?
Since we're in the mode of thinking BIG, and spending more magic money than will be repaid in a couple of generations, how's this for an idea?
What if, instead of concentrating so much on creating new jobs, we decrease the NEED for some of them?
I have long felt that the women's movement, while great in many aspects, has not served all of us well. Back in the day, we only needed one wage earner in a family to keep everyone with a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. When women joined the workforce in mass, by choice, the standard of living flew up and prices did, as well. Now it takes 2 wage earners to keep up, and women HAVE to work outside the home, whether they want to or not.
In my own family, I have 2 women who want to stay home with their children, but in order to keep their houses, HAVE to go back to work. One gets to take a year off, the other 6 months. In this country they are both VERY fortunate to be able to do that, but neither WANT to go back to work until their kids are at least in school all day.
What if we somehow subsidized women such as these so they could stay home with their children for say, 5 years, while the country gets back on its feet? That would open up jobs for women who WANT to work, and men who need to (let's face it, as sexist as that sounds, legally men are still required to support their families) and allow those women who NEED to work outside the home, but don't want to, to stay home.
The benefits are that moms would be raising their own kids for longer (novel idea, don't you think?) which seems to be a healthier way to do things and the competition for jobs would be temporarily reduced. Families would be a little less stressed. The need to "consume" to create jobs might decrease some.
My daughter-in-law currently receives 60% of her pay in disability payments, and with reductions in costs of her being home (fewer meals out, cooking from scratch, no commute costs, etc.) they are able to make ends meet w/o having to dip into savings (yes, we taught them to save!) She is DREADING having to go back to work. If she continued receiving these payments, she wouldn't need to, and her job would be freed up for someone who WANTS to work.
Now I'm sure there are some downsides to this. Re-entry into the workforce down the road for all these women would cause a whole new set of problems. It would be expensive, but we're printing it as fast as we can spend it, why not spend it on something that actually helps shore up our foundation (better adjusted kids?)
Is this just a completely crazy idea, or can it be modified into something worth considering as we figure out how to fix this mess?
What if, instead of concentrating so much on creating new jobs, we decrease the NEED for some of them?
I have long felt that the women's movement, while great in many aspects, has not served all of us well. Back in the day, we only needed one wage earner in a family to keep everyone with a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. When women joined the workforce in mass, by choice, the standard of living flew up and prices did, as well. Now it takes 2 wage earners to keep up, and women HAVE to work outside the home, whether they want to or not.
In my own family, I have 2 women who want to stay home with their children, but in order to keep their houses, HAVE to go back to work. One gets to take a year off, the other 6 months. In this country they are both VERY fortunate to be able to do that, but neither WANT to go back to work until their kids are at least in school all day.
What if we somehow subsidized women such as these so they could stay home with their children for say, 5 years, while the country gets back on its feet? That would open up jobs for women who WANT to work, and men who need to (let's face it, as sexist as that sounds, legally men are still required to support their families) and allow those women who NEED to work outside the home, but don't want to, to stay home.
The benefits are that moms would be raising their own kids for longer (novel idea, don't you think?) which seems to be a healthier way to do things and the competition for jobs would be temporarily reduced. Families would be a little less stressed. The need to "consume" to create jobs might decrease some.
My daughter-in-law currently receives 60% of her pay in disability payments, and with reductions in costs of her being home (fewer meals out, cooking from scratch, no commute costs, etc.) they are able to make ends meet w/o having to dip into savings (yes, we taught them to save!) She is DREADING having to go back to work. If she continued receiving these payments, she wouldn't need to, and her job would be freed up for someone who WANTS to work.
Now I'm sure there are some downsides to this. Re-entry into the workforce down the road for all these women would cause a whole new set of problems. It would be expensive, but we're printing it as fast as we can spend it, why not spend it on something that actually helps shore up our foundation (better adjusted kids?)
Is this just a completely crazy idea, or can it be modified into something worth considering as we figure out how to fix this mess?
Advertisement
Instead of calling it "reducing the need" - maybe call it paying women for doing childcare. Indeed, some women might still prefer a career. Or you could make flex-time more available as well.
But if govt is going to put people to work, then providing childcare payments makes a lot of sense. Saves on gas getting to and from work. Many who choose to raise their children might be happy to have ready-made friends for their own children. And you put money into people's pockets as well as valuing the work of childcare.
Some people might simply continue to do this work, even when the children are grown up. Others may want to do other things. If the govt makes education easier to come by, then people could move into other fields after doing child care.
The French provide wonderful guaranteed childcare. That's one place to get ideas. Also the Scandinavian countries.
And if you increase maternity leave and pay for that (for both parents!), then you have another piece to this!
December 17, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli has a good point here that goes to how we value work. Nobody, I mean Nobody EARNS a hundred million dollars a year. They won a bet, they won the lottery, they won something.
But WSJ would say the guy earned it anyway.
And yet the person in charge of the next generation, most of the time its mommy, is not recognized as having contributed something to the economy, something to the nation.
December 17, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a great idea, but would suggest that to avoid the "sexist" part, that families could pick which parent stays at home. I don't think it should matter what sex that parent is - if the family would prefer that A parent be at home but just can't afford it, then they should be able to pick which one.
But I think this is fantastic in concept...
December 17, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I come from a very family oriented background, while my wife is very career driven. If we could get by with one income, it would be me staying at home to take care of the home and the kids. For this to work to its max potential, we really need to work on EQUAL WAGES FOR WOMEN.. but we need to work on this anyway.
December 17, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
...oooh, and if you add in education incentives you can lessen the impact of the "off the job market" black mark that comes from staying home for a few years.
December 17, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
...oooh, and if you add in education incentives you can lessen the impact of the "off the job market" black mark that comes from staying home for a few years.
December 17, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd, heartily. I think this is an excellent idea. Good for kids, good for parents, good for the economy. I really think that the idea all parents should work full-time instead of raising their kids is terrible social policy. Elsewhere in TPMcafe there are discussions about how income inequality might be reduced, and I think that European-style (as Thera points out) support for child-rearing could help a lot with this.
I would also point out that after WWII many women had kids and left the workforce to raise them, and it's arguable that this may have reduced the supply of labor enough to raise wages to levels where a single earner could support a family. It helped get us out of what Krugman calls a 'liquidity trap' once before in similar circumstances, why not now?
December 17, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I happen to think this is a terrible idea. Some might call it welfare. The other side of this dilemna is to ask, do I need to live in this McMansion with the new car lease every 3 years? The answer to that is no and one can live a comfortable lifestyle, within ones means if we can pull ourselves away from keeping up with the Jones.
Sorry, but times are tough on all of us and to have those who are fortunate enough to have young children still, as somehow having special privilege is just wrong.
December 17, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to think outside the box and ditch the concept of fair...Fair isn't going to get us out of this mess. We all have different needs, and we're going to have to come up w/ some custom solutions.
I don't want or need a tax rebate. I don't need my taxes reduced. As long as CalPers doesn't go under, I'm going to be fine. Even if it does, I'm not going to starve to death.
Is it right that wealthy people wouldn't get as much? No. Is it right that a money manager made $135M for taking people's money and putting it all into Madoff's fund and they've lost all their money and he's rich? No. Is it right that some people are born into wealth and others barely subsist? No.
You know what? Life isn't always right or fair, and whoever told you it was, lied. So get over it. In the America I want to live in, some people are going to get a more of a boost now than I am, and I'm good with that. Life has been good to me. I'm heading into the last quarter or so of my life, and I want to do my part to help out those who haven't had it so good.
Look around. No matter how bad you have it, I'll bet you can find someone who has it worse than you. Something has to give here. What is, is. Those who don't need help are going to have to suck it up and watch others "get" stuff they don't get. Even w/ all our problems we have it soooo much better than most of the world...
December 17, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Susan Feiner just posted right on Cafe Book Club. Its your blog. You look like a prophet. You are ahead of your time Stilli!!!!
December 17, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm beginning to think that all the ideas we've been dying to make.. and having to sit on due to bushdysphoria... are coming to to the light of day!
Hoooray!
December 17, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...Thanks, Arthur!
December 17, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health care reform is a step in that direction. It would reduce the need for work, help all parents, especially single ones, and be a great perk for stay at home parents.
December 18, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment. Not a few women I know stay in their jobs for the benefits because their husbands have jobs with no benefits.
That's one of the major reasons for having two workers in a family.
December 18, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an excellent addendum to this post (well done stilli! If health care reform is part of this package it becomes eminently more feasible. In my particular situation, my wife carries the health benefits and I work full time as well. Our son goes to daycare at a significant expense. Obviously, she cannot leave her job, without her job we'd be dependant on private health insurance instead of her group plan (read: penniless) It is unfortunate that one of us cannot stay home with our son, but it is not a situation that is possible for us, and likely never will be.
I am extremely excited about all of the amazing ideas and thoughts stirring out there now--things that have been in the backs of journals and magazines are coming to the fore and I think we are all part of it! Rec'd!
December 18, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink