Why do we have to be paid for work?

[Murphy101]

Why can't people just do what the love and share the result?

 

For example, if a farmer loves to farm, why can't he just farm for the joy of it and share what he reaps and in return other share with him, not barter, just give furniture from the carpenter and so forth. Notice the question is why must people work. It never occurred to my kids to ask that. Yet. The concept that everyone needs purpose is well ingrained here. ;)

 

Now I know the answer.

 

The answer is because that always dissolves into slavery or indentured servitude. Because there is always work that no one wants to do.

 

But I'm curious..

 

Opinions? How does the view of not just work, but meaningful work, affect your views of economy and commerce in our society?

[SKL]

I think it's healthy to work.  So I'm glad it's something we kinda have to do in our culture/economy.  Of course even if you love your job, you're going to resent having to feed people who won't work.  Pretty soon everyone will be either resentful or depressed.  I say crack that whip.  ;)

 

Being paid happens to be one way we show appreciation.  And most people like being appreciated.  So there's that too.
 

[vonfirmath]

From a basic level: Do enough people love farming to feed the people that don't? If you just did what you loved, what happens if there are a bunch of people that love making and playing video games, movies, books, etc. but not so many that love growing food, Raising animals for slaughter, and such? What happens when one person thinks they need another piece of furniture but the furniture maker thinks they have enough? When they want more space for their family but the housebuilder has already provided them with a place to live? When the whole group of people want more individual places to live than the amount of space that exists?

 

 

 

[Murphy101]

Supply vs demand is an issue.

Also, not everyone is good at what they love. I love doing art projects and stuff with my kids. I suck at art. Seriously. Even my handwriting isn't pretty. But I could play in paints and crochet and all sorts of stuff happily all day long.

 

Indentured servitude and slavery. Every time.

 

Because there are always jobs that NO ONE wants and the only way to get them to do it is with major incentive or forced labor.

 

So here is my question then...

 

If we are refusing to give a major incentive to do work we don't want to do, but we insist people must do those jobs whether they want it or agree with it or not - then how do we make them do it?

 

If we readily admit we have too many citizens and not enough work, or not enough work they want to do AND we don't want to give incentives to entice them to do that work - then is there an ethical way to force them to do it? In that case are we okay with slavery, indentured servitude, chain gangs, let them starve?

[Snow]

Back to your first post, what if the farmer gives away his food but something happens (a flood or whatever) and then he doesn't have enough to feed himself and his family? I think it always comes down to a fear of lack that keeps people in accumulation mode. We don't have control over anything in our lives, so we accumulate stuff to feel a sense of power and security.

 

I understand what you are saying about the jobs people don't want and slavery, but really I think we have to solve the first problem, fear of giving things away, before the second problem can even be considered. Unfortunately, I think the first problem is just human nature and not likely to change in this life.

[Sara R]

Because doing what you love isn't enough to make the total economy work, or to take economic risks, or to make investments in training that may pay off. And because work is hard, and in the moment many people might prefer to not work if they have that choice.

 

If this topic interests you, read up on utopian history. I am LDS and read a book years ago, Building the City of God by Leonard Arrington, about LDS history with the United Order, an LDS utopian idea where there is no rich or poor and everyone works for the common good and to do what God expects of them. Some of these experiments were more successful than others. Brigham Young and the Mormons in 1850s Utah started off on relatively equal terms by today's standards. Most pioneers didn't bring a whole lot of stuff with them; most were poor; those who did have more tended to share with those who were less off so fellow saints could get to the valley. But things didn't stay equal, because some people just have more business sense or talent than others. And if business-savvy people gave some of their property to someone less business savvy, and it got wasted, that person wasn't happy, and the waste isn't good for the economy as a whole. In small communities where they tried to implement the United Order more fully, people tended to be really judge-y about how hardworking their neighbors were, understandably so because they were so invested in each other's labor.

[regentrude]

I have lived in a country with a government striving towards the communist ideal that everybody would freely work according to his abilities and receive according to his needs. While they acknowledged to be still far from that goal, monetary incentives for working harder, being more qualified, making the extra effort were frowned upon and non-existent. In some cases, higher qualified employees received less pay than the workers they supervised.

Guess what happened? A few idealists worked their butts off without any reward, and a large majority slacked.

So, when people do not get paid, work does not get done.

 

 

If we are refusing to give a major incentive to do work we don't want to do, but we insist people must do those jobs whether they want it or agree with it or not - then how do we make them do it?
If we readily admit we have too many citizens and not enough work, or not enough work they want to do AND we don't want to give incentives to entice them to do that work - then is there an ethical way to force them to do it? In that case are we okay with slavery, indentured servitude, chain gangs, let them starve?

 

Who is "we"? Without incentive, we can't. If a job needs to get done, the company who needs the job done will raise wages until what they offer is enough incentive for people to take it.

I am not sure I understand the question.

Why would one even consider forcing people to do something they don't want to do if one can offer them a reward for doing it?

 

ETA: I am surrounded by people who voluntarily work much more than they would have to for their salary. But they still need the salary to live on - how would you propose a moneyless society would function?

[kiwik]

Because we haven't found a better way that works. The problem with the "there are always some jobs that no-one wants to do" is that they are lowest paid not necessarily lowest value or least pleasant. Really is the contribution to society of a lawyer more than that of a nurse? Who would you take to mars on a one way trip? A farmer may love farming but it is very hard work - he keeps going not just because he loves it but because there are no other jobs he can/wants to do.

[chiguirre]

If we are refusing to give a major incentive to do work we don't want to do, but we insist people must do those jobs whether they want it or agree with it or not - then how do we make them do it?

 

If we readily admit we have too many citizens and not enough work, or not enough work they want to do AND we don't want to give incentives to entice them to do that work - then is there an ethical way to force them to do it? In that case are we okay with slavery, indentured servitude, chain gangs, let them starve?

1. Well, Stalin, Chairman Mao and the Khmer Rouge found a way to make people do jobs they didn't want to do. I wouldn't recommend their method, but Stalin and Mao certainly managed to reshape their countries into world powers with their brutality.

 

2. I think reading a description of a Victorian workhouse answers this question. In the end, they were abolished because they were appalling. I can't imagine that we would ever go back to that model. I find it even less likely that anyone would support slavery, indentured service, chain gangs or letting people starve when there is food available.

[theYoungerMrsWarde]

Walden Two by B.F. Skinner addressed this and I would love to live and work in his fictional community.

[Murphy101]

First: let me be clear that I'm familiar with Stalin and so forth and no idealization about them or their philosophy.

 

Who is "we"? Without incentive, we can't. If a job needs to get done, the company who needs the job done will raise wages until what they offer is enough incentive for people to take it.

I am not sure I understand the question.

Why would one even consider forcing people to do something they don't want to do if one can offer them a reward for doing it?

 

ETA: I am surrounded by people who voluntarily work much more than they would have to for their salary. But they still need the salary to live on - how would you propose a moneyless society would function?

Or the company will decide they cannot sell their item for a profit if they have to pay those wages and close up shop. This happens all the time in innovation. Things that are incredible and could be an amazing benefit to society are shelved because the cost is too much. Sometimes another way is found, sometimes not.

 

*I* am not considering forcing anyone.

 

But historically, that's exactly what happens.

 

Lets say our sewer workers decided they didn't want to do their job for what we citizens considered reasonable incentives. How would we get that very necessary job done?

 

Or let's go the reverse. Lets say some able workers decided they just didn't want to work. Not there. Not anywhere. It wasn't about incentive. They just didn't want to work. They'd rather be on welfare. But you take away welfare. Then what? How do you 'make' them work?

 

I am not proposing a moneyless society. But I think the concept interesting to contemplate. It somewhat goes hand in hand with how do we make people work?

[Snow]

Forgive me, my geek is showing, but we've been watching Star Trek: The Next Generation every night.

Dh and I have been watching every night on Netflix! We're up to mid-season 4. So fun.

[Teachin'Mine]

Imagine your 10 kids are hungry and there's no food in the house.  You'd be amazed what you/your husband would be willing to do to get what you need to buy the food.   No job would be too menial or the pay too low.   That's how a sizable percentage of the population gets by.   They're called the working poor.   When the workers are making minimum wage or less, it's usually due to greed on the part of the ones making the most in the same organization.

[Word Nerd]

Anyone who's volunteered for an organization may have a guess. I don't think I've ever been in a group that divided the work equally; it's the same few people doing everything.

[regentrude]

Lets say our sewer workers decided they didn't want to do their job for what we citizens considered reasonable incentives. How would we get that very necessary job done?

 

The company that runs the sewer (city public works or whatever) pays them enough money so that somebody takes the job rather than deciding to stay home. You'd have to pay enough to make it worth it to somebody.

 

Or let's go the reverse. Lets say some able workers decided they just didn't want to work. Not there. Not anywhere. It wasn't about incentive. They just didn't want to work. They'd rather be on welfare. But you take away welfare. Then what? How do you 'make' them work?

 

There needs to be a welfare system in place for people who are unable to work, for example because they have a physical or mental disability. And you structure it so that an able bodied person who simply does not want to will not receive benefits. Thus, you "make" them work. Many people would prefer not to work if they did not have to earn money. Any system that does not take this element of human nature into account is doomed to fail (been there, seen it happen)

[SKL]

I am not aware of any time or place in history where there was nobody who wanted to be paid to do the scut work.

 

OK, once in a blue moon the garbage men go on strike.  People complain to the city officials, and some way or other they are back picking up garbage in short order.

 

I keep hearing about all these jobs that "nobody wants to do," but I've not seen this in real life.  There will be someone whose need for money exceeds his disgust for sewage.

[Murphy101]

Plus, some people don't value certain things at all.  Nobody gives a crap that I teach my kids at home.

 

 

Ha! I was reading the thread asking how to grow financial worth and I very nearly posted:

 

"Die."

 

Seriously. I am literally worth more dead than alive. Alive, no one except maybe my dh and sometimes my kids value anything about me and they still don't give me any value for it. Nope, I gotta love them even when they are having a crappy day just because. ;p Monetarily im worth about -$500 a month, but we have just enough life insurance to pay for my funeral and I figure if dh really really goes cheap, he might even have enough to buy a 6 pack to cry in afterwards. So I tease dh that thank goodness we have that itty life insurance for me, because that means my value went from -$500 a month to +$10 at my funeral.

 

Anyone who's volunteered for an organization may have a guess. I don't think I've ever been in a group that divided the work equally; it's the same few people doing everything.

 

 

 

But what I take from it, that I think is true, is that many people are not motivated simply by doing a good job.

 

Hmmm. I have volunteered. I don't think it's more important or a question of motivated simply by doing a good job.

 

I am motivated by simply doing a good job as a wife, as a mother, and a home schooling parent. As a catholic. As a Good Samaritan when the opportunity comes up.

 

But I think most people volunteer for things they are passionate about. And because of that, they tend to be more active and interested and involved in it.

 

When I have been deeply vested and passionate about something, I gave it my all.

 

When I'm not, I have to question whether its worth the loss of family time and limited income to keep putting that much of me into it.

 

Lately, I'm saying no a whole lot more.

 

Because far too often people seem to think being busy is a virtue and I simply don't think it is.

[Murphy101]

Imagine your 10 kids are hungry and there's no food in the house.  You'd be amazed what you/your husband would be willing to do to get what you need to buy the food.   No job would be too menial or the pay too low.   That's how a sizable percentage of the population gets by.   They're called the working poor.   When the workers are making minimum wage or less, it's usually due to greed on the part of the ones making the most in the same organization.

 

 

No I wouldn't be amazed. My dh nearly put himself in the ground doing that when we had 3. Thankfully we are not that bad off these days. I'm very much aware of the working poor.

 

I get this.

 

What I want to know is are we as a society okay with that? Are we okay that a huge number of our population has to risk their health and their youth just to put 3 square on the table and a decent roof?

 

I don't think I am, but yet I don't know.... Mostly I find it pathetic out society hasn't evolved to do better yet.

 

The company that runs the sewer (city public works or whatever) pays them enough money so that somebody takes the job rather than deciding to stay home. You'd have to pay enough to make it worth it to somebody.

Well that wasn't always the case. For example, the train tracks and bridges that were first laid in the states. Only the truly desperate took those jobs. Right up there with the start of coal mining. They might have been paid, but only minorities who couldn't get jobs in any other capacities were desperate enough to do it and many died. Was that okay? I mean they were paid and since they could not get any other job, they took it. But it sure did look like a shady fine line between those jobs and indentured servitude in many ways.

 

There needs to be a welfare system in place for people who are unable to work, for example because they have a physical or mental disability. And you structure it so that an able bodied person who simply does not want to will not receive benefits. Thus, you "make" them work. Many people would prefer not to work if they did not have to earn money. Any system that does not take this element of human nature into account is doomed to fail (been there, seen it happen)

  

 

I agree. How do we define able to work?

 

I am not aware of any time or place in history where there was nobody who wanted to be paid to do the scut work.

 

OK, once in a blue moon the garbage men go on strike.  People complain to the city officials, and some way or other they are back picking up garbage in short order.

 

I keep hearing about all these jobs that "nobody wants to do," but I've not seen this in real life.  There will be someone whose need for money exceeds his disgust for sewage.

Yes. But being desperate doesn't mean they can do the job, much less do it well or ethically.

[regentrude]

Another aspect to the "not want to work"...What about people who are in a situation where working is more trouble than it is worth?  For example, they have a couple of kids.  The day care costs more than what they get paid.  Or they work long hours for nearly no money and never see their family.

 

It's not always about being lazy or not wanting to work.  I think people deserve to have lives that are not just about toiling away as a cog in a wheel.

 

Society could decide that they want to encourage people to have larger families by providing tax credits, subsidized daycare or whatever. Society could institute programs to help out families who have fallen on hardship (for instance death or illness of the main earner).

 

But I do not think I can, or should, expect society to support me just because I have chosen a family size that I can't support by working, or because I'd like to work fewer hours or stay home altogether. Because as soon as you claim that society is responsible for supporting my family size and lifestyle choices, society will also want to get a say in those choices. The freedom to make such personal decisions comes with the financial responsibility;  putting the responsibility on society as a whole opens the door to society limiting personal freedoms. I do not think we want to go there...

 

Btw, work can be  a part of a great live and does not have to be "toiling as a cog"; I dislike this dichotomy. It is the main goal for my kids' education that they will find a way to enjoy the work they will do.

[regentrude]

Well that wasn't always the case. For example, the train tracks and bridges that were first laid in the states. Only the truly desperate took those jobs. Right up there with the start of coal mining. They might have been paid, but only minorities who couldn't get jobs in any other capacities were desperate enough to do it and many died. Was that okay? I mean they were paid and since they could not get any other job, they took it. But it sure did look like a shady fine line between those jobs and indentured servitude in many ways.

 

Any deliberate discrimination aside, this is fundamentally a basic feature of a market economy: supply and demand.

If you have a skill that is in high demand, you can pick and choose and command a higher price for your labor.

If you don't have a skill that is in demand, you can not. The market works for human resources as it does for any other goods.

 

Having been subjected to a socialist planned economy that looks good on paper, but does not work because it does not take basic human nature into account, a market economy with the hardships tempered by a welfare system and adjustments like minimum wages etc,  seems to me the only functioning system. We can improve the details, but I have yet to see a proposal for a viable fundamental alternative.

[Murphy101]

I'm okay with not giving tax credits for larger families or for giving daycare credits.

 

I don't think it's right to say we have a choice, but society is only going to support one choice - going to work for pay and putting kids in daycare.

 

To me genuine choice would be either:

 

This much money will be offered for either daycare or to make staying home easier, whichever the mother feels more inclined to think is best for her family.

 

Or

 

No subsidy for either. Why should I pay taxes to subsidize someone else's daycare? Why should someone else be subsidized to stay home? I don't think either option is lazy or better.

 

ETA: just to cover my bases. I don't care if it is the mom or the dad staying home or whether it is for one kid or ten. :)

[regentrude]

I'm okay with not giving tax credits for larger families or for giving daycare credits.

I don't think it's right to say we have a choice, but society is only going to support one choice - going to work for pay and putting kids in daycare.

To me genuine choice would be either:

This much money will be offered for either daycare or to make staying home easier, whichever the mother feels more inclined to think is best for her family.

Or

No subsidy for either. Why should I pay taxes to subsidize someone else's daycare? Why should someone else be subsidized to stay home? I don't think either option is lazy or better.

 

In my home country, there is currently a big debate going on about issues like this. There is a fixed amount given to families for each child, and that is a well accepted and undisputed part of redistribution and has been for many years (birth rates are very low, so the society wants to encourage larger families). The controversial proposal is a premium to parents who stay home and do not use the (generally subsidized) daycare. It is controversial because it is feared that precisely those families will use the extra money who are not making an effort to give their children a quality early childhood education at home, and whose children are at risk and would most profit from attending a preschool, because they have issues that have them unprepared to enter school (especially German language proficiency)

It is a very difficult problem that is not easy to decide; I would be in favor of this for me personally, and for my SAHM friends, but for society as a whole it may not be an overall positive outcome.

 

And, as always, as soon as society begins to redistribute money with a certain goal, there will be financial constraints: for example, it might be significantly cheaper to subsidize daycare for single mothers than to pay for them to stay home, and society may decide that it is prudent to support only the less expensive option. Whenever somebody else pays, you lose the ability of free choice; that's par for the course.

 

[Murphy101]

Hmm. Here daycare subsidy usually doesn't cover the entire cost of daycare anyways. Just like foodstamps is rarely enough to buy food for the entire money. It is expected to suppliment, not entirely cover it.

 

I don't think either should be considered cheaper as I wouldn't expect either to completely cover the entire cost.

 

The idea is it would help.

 

ETA: I must say it also rather chaps me to think people would deny genuine equal choice bc of presuming some in society won't do as they want. I take it for granted some won't, but it doesn't change what I think is right in general.

 

From an American and a catholic standpoint, education has always been valued. Even in the darkest of times and the most isolated of prairies, if at all possible, most people tried to educate their children as best they could. Did some not do that? Yes. There are always some. But I'm not buying that society as a whole would be okay with not giving their kid the best education they could. Though I do buy that they'd spend more time arguing what that is than doing it. ;p

[SKL]

I think people have forgotten how much of our lives are already influenced by government involvement.

 

The very idea that anyone else should pay so I can do what I want is a distortion IMO.  In a philosophical discussion, we should start with a base of zero "incentives," subsidies, and similar distortions.

 

Unless one has no understanding of human diversity, one cannot believe that there is one family structure or daily routine that is best for everyone.  Nor that there is a set of shared values / priorities within a very large group.  That's why it's considered better for government to be determined by vote of many rather than few individuals.  And why the US founding fathers understood that less is better when it comes to government involvement in local or individual matters.

 

As a single working mom, I have my own perspective on what is good for kids.  In my experience, the vast majority of kids will thrive without having a parent home all day; and seeing a parent go to work has benefits.  I don't believe there should be a subsidy for having a parent home with the kids.  If a family chooses to set up its lifestyle that way, it's on the family to cover the costs.  And things like that need to be considered in advance - not after the kids are born and the parent decides it's a pain to arrange for child care and get oneself to work.  A failure to think ahead is a failure whether it concerns childcare solutions or other job-related needs (transportation, qualifications, etc.).  It is fine with me if an individual or group decides to help out someone who has made such a mistake, but IMO it is wrong to feel entitled to it.

 

While we don't have a lot of individual control over what's possible in the work world, I think it's pretty amazing how as a rule, as my grandma would say, "for every a$$ there is a seat."  There's someone, somewhere who wants to pay for what I am willing to contribute.  And there's someone willing to contribute whatever I want to pay for.  I don't know how much of this is the nature of humans, and how much is the result of thousands of years of brilliant human engineering.  It's cool, but that said, I don't feel comfortable with statements like "everyone deserves" bla bla bla.  I don't think an able adult "deserves" the right to anything that infringes on the rights or property of someone else.

[Onceuponatime]

Kind of off on a tangent, but I've always thought that the dirtiest grossest jobs should pay very well. I think garbage men, meat plant workers, and public restroom cleaners should be compensated handsomely. I'd be very willing to make less money than them, just so I wouldn't have to do those jobs.

[tabinfl]

what happens if there are a bunch of people that love making and playing video games, movies, books, etc. but not so many that love growing food, Raising animals for slaughter, and such?

We end up with a bunch of twenty-somethings with creative writing and sociology degrees, 50 grand in student loan debt, and no jobs. :p

[chiguirre]

Well we are essentially headed in that direction (subsidizing someone's daycare).  In my district you can send a kid to school full time starting when they are about 3.  I do know of programs for kids even younger than that which are free as well.  They call it school, but really?  Nah, it's daycare IMO. 

 

And I agree, not really fair and not a real "choice". 

 

Is that because your local school is a Title 1 school or is it a state or local program? In my ISD the only kids who can go to the public school preschool are either disabled or qualify for Head Start. Everyone else has to pay for a private program or go without.

[Murphy101]

Well we are essentially headed in that direction (subsidizing someone's daycare).  In my district you can send a kid to school full time starting when they are about 3.  I do know of programs for kids even younger than that which are free as well.  They call it school, but really?  Nah, it's daycare IMO. 

 

And I agree, not really fair and not a real "choice".

 

 

Heading there? Your state must be slow. ;). Mine literally has subsidies for daycare for those who are low income. You can apply in the same office as you would apply for WIC and SNAP benefits. And yes, I agree, head start is another example that's been proven time and again to have no lasting benefit.

 

Is that because your local school is a Title 1 school or is it a state or local program? In my ISD the only kids who can go to the public school preschool are either disabled or qualify for Head Start. Everyone else has to pay for a private program or go without.

No, it depends on the state. Many states have head start type programs in every elementary school now. It's highly demanded because for all intents and purposes, it's pretty openly viewed as free daycare. All the advertising and discussion is about how low income parents need a free education option for kids while they are at work. Though it often doesn't work for the demographic because low income people are well known to often have erratic and evening schedules, not an 8-3 day job.

[regentrude]

I can only go by my own situation/circumstances.  I have 2 kids.  I was making plenty of money when I worked to support 2 kids and myself.  I was also working 12 hour days and never saw my son.  I liked what I did, but I couldn't stand the long hours.  I didn't have much of a choice in that industry.   Thing is in this country people don't get much time off.  They don't get much flexibility.  Work policies don't tend to be family friendly. 

 

You have something that offers flexibility, a chance to spend time with your family, and makes enough money.  I would say this is the exception and not the rule.  So it seems wrong to say well people are just doing it wrong if they aren't happy with their situation.

Huh? I think you are missing my point. I never said people are "doing it wrong" if they are not happy with their situation. All I said that we should not expect society to take responsibility for one's family's needs because that is dangerous as it will inevitably cause society to want to meddle in personal choices (such as dictate the family size one should have, the choices one should make).

 

As an aside, since you addressed me personally: while it is true that people in the US get less time off, the labor market is infinitely more flexible and it is much easier to combine family and work than in my home country, where people are entitled to longer vacation if they have a job, but where every job requires a certified qualification with several years of training. You can't just go teach daycare - you have to have a three year early childhood education degree.  You can't just work in an office - you have to have a three year secretary degree. And so on. Heck, you have to go to school to train to be able to work as a cashier in a supermarket! Learning on the job does not exist.

Overall, I see many more work opportunities in the US that allow parents to accommodate a family than back home. The vacation time is only one side of the medal, the other is that qualified part time jobs hardly exist. There, I'd either have a full blown academia career with 60 hour weeks, or I'd be not working at all; the many options for part time employment that exist in the US do not exist there (pretty much all my local homeschooling friends work part time. )

[Murphy101]

Yes indeed.

 

Of course it depends on whether you've seen the newer versions of the little red hen. Some actually admonish her for not being kind enough to share after they just say they are sorry. :/

[AimeeM]

That may be due to the receptionist job duties being different than when you were a teen.  I've seen it change dramatically...back when I was first employed the receptionist helped visitors, answered the phones and called the copier fixer dude.  Now, she has administrative work to do on the PC, schedules conferences and takes care of whatever details the managers need help with.  Essentially, she's taken on the duty of an executive secretary.

And some accounting work. Many times when I see a Wish to Hire ad for a secretary it includes (in the job description) bookkeeping duties.

[SKL]

I thought that way until kid #2 came along. He would not have thrived or survived in a daycare...he needed stimulation that the daycare couldn't provide, he needed a more structured day, and he had sensory issues and food allergies. Even the experienced person who cared for #1 while I worked part -time couldn't handle #2 for more than two hours. Some young children are just not wired for group daycare placements. Others have special needs. These details cannot be planned out ahead of time.

 

2nd point - many jobs involve travel and long hours. If your spouse has one of those, and you have a job where mandatory overtime crops up, you find yourself in a situation where someone has to pick up the children. Who is it going to be? Not everyone has a living, fully functional grandma that is able to do so at low cost. Daycare costs a lot when it turns into a near-residential situation. Do we make all the long haul trucker's wives go to work? How about the Navy wives? Actually I think many would like to work part-time, but really can't find a situation that works out or startup their own business (due to the community's constraints on zoning).

 

The 'subsidy' I'd like to see for sahp's is just SS disability....right now if they become disabled and they don't have disability insurance, it places a burden on society and tremendously strains the family's finances (obviously means/wealth restrictions placed on any such aid).

 

To your first para:  Of course some special needs require an exception, and that's why I said "vast majority of kids."

 

To your 2nd point:  When you're a single parent, you learn about all kinds of ways to deal with the unexpected.  You keep the phone numbers of people you might need to impose upon in an emergency.  You open an account with Care.com or the like.  You bring your kids to work at times.  Or whatever makes the most sense under your circumstances.  There are many working single moms whose schedules are not consistently nine-to-five, hence there are many services available to help them.  But thinking ahead is key.

[AimeeM]

Heading there? Your state must be slow. ;). Mine literally has subsidies for daycare for those who are low income. You can apply in the same office as you would apply for WIC and SNAP benefits. And yes, I agree, head start is another example that's been proven time and again to have no lasting benefit.

 

 

No, it depends on the state. Many states have head start type programs in every elementary school now. It's highly demanded because for all intents and purposes, it's pretty openly viewed as free daycare. All the advertising and discussion is about how low income parents need a free education option for kids while they are at work. Though it often doesn't work for the demographic because low income people are well known to often have erratic and evening schedules, not an 8-3 day job.

Headstart is a bummer in many areas for precisely that reason. My little sister utilizes one for her son. It's still very hard for her to work because she has to arrange pick up and child care for her child for after school. Child care vouchers are hard to come by there as well.

[SKL]

And, at the risk of insulting someone out there, I didn't have kids so I could never see them.  They aren't my trophies.  My job at that time didn't allow me any flexibility and I had to work long hours.  I was glad I had the choice to quit.

 

I also quit my job when I became a mom.  I took a different job that kept me close to my kids most of the time (I hired a nanny but worked at home).  I put the kids in daycare/preschool when I decided they would benefit more from that than from staying home all day.  That worked out even better than I expected.

[AimeeM]

To your first para:  Of course some special needs require an exception, and that's why I said "vast majority of kids."

 

To your 2nd point:  When you're a single parent, you learn about all kinds of ways to deal with the unexpected.  You keep the phone numbers of people you might need to impose upon in an emergency.  You open an account with Care.com or the like.  You bring your kids to work at times.  Or whatever makes the most sense under your circumstances.  There are many working single moms whose schedules are not consistently nine-to-five, hence there are many services available to help them.  But thinking ahead is key.

Caveat: I'm not in favor of the government subsidizing stay-at-home parents. Not at all.

 

I disagree that the vast majority of children do not need or benefit from having a parent at home - even nixing the special needs. My nephew sobs for hours every day when his mother drops him at preschool/daycare. My own daughter remembers when I worked (she was a young child) and any time I considered getting a job in later years she cries and begs me not to go. I'm not sure where the benefit is. She still sees her father go to work and she is very aware of all I do around the house and for them (my husband and children) - she is under no delusion that not working is living in the lap of luxury and knows what hard work affords us... all without seeing mom go to work.

 

But perhaps I read your previous replies wrong (I'm only on my second cuppa, lol).

[SKL]

Caveat: I'm not in favor of the government subsidizing stay-at-home parents. Not at all.

 

I disagree that the vast majority of children do not need or benefit from having a parent at home - even nixing the special needs. My nephew sobs for hours every day when his mother drops him at preschool/daycare. My own daughter remembers when I worked (she was a young child) and any time I considered getting a job in later years she cries and begs me not to go. I'm not sure where the benefit is. She still sees her father go to work and she is very aware of all I do around the house and for them (my husband and children) - she is under no delusion that not working is living in the lap of luxury and knows what hard work affords us... all without seeing mom go to work.

 

But perhaps I read your previous replies wrong (I'm only on my second cuppa, lol).

 

I need to be careful because I find myself often misunderstood.  I do not think there's anything wrong with being a SAHP nor do I disagree that there are benefits.  I just feel that for most families, it is not a "need," but rather a choice.  It's not something the rest of us should have to contribute toward (barring special needs).

 

[SKL]

But the taxpayers don't fund everything to the extent of "ideal."  Nor should they, in my opinion.  Aside from the fact that "ideal" is not the same for every family.

[SKL]

And more to my point, at some point an adult needs to feel responsible for supporting his family.  Needs and wants.  Even things your kids would die without (food, shelter, responsible supervision).  It's part of being an adult.  Of course we have safety nets for people with special needs, catastrophic health situations, folks who are between jobs.  But the general mindset that "this is ideal, therefore the government must subsidize it" is wrong IMO.

[SKL]

My child is not considered special needs. The vast majority do seem to be like him -- needing intellectual stimulation (remember the "I'm bored" boys that murdered the Aussie runner in OK recently??), guidance, quality food,fresh air, hard exercise etc on a regular schedule and so on. It's not possible to get here, unless I hire a nanny. Day cares just do not have what he needs, whether they are rural or city. The quality isn't that high.

Your second point only works for certain circumstances. Children do not come to work in my profession nor do they hang out in conference rooms...wouldn't be safe for them to be there unsupervised. Also, please understand that boys are different from girls. Even if they could come to work with a parent, many boys are not going to color and read all day. Mine would be back in the shop with the mechanics/maintenance guys asking to drive the forklifts etc or out running around the building jumping from stairwells to get in the exercise they need. The more likely scenario for the single parent is working from home when the nanny is unavailable. 

 

And 9-5?? I would love to find a job that was only 40 hrs a week and had no on-call expectations.On-call was fine with babies as I was up anyway, but w/o compensation I won't be on-call again unless I"m hungry. Very hungry. As in my garden failed , the fox ate the chickens and I'm too old to knock over one of those deer that came for the garden delicacies.

 

OK I was just giving examples.  There are millions of single working moms and there are services that have been created to fill the needs that this demographic has.  Dealing with the unexpected is a challenge but usually not an insurmountable one.  Sometimes dads have to take off work for emergencies or negotiate better shifts, too - it's not the end of the world.

 

I know many, many moms - single and married - who prefer to work for pay than to be a SAHM.  These moms pay taxes.  A government policy subsidizing SAHMs is a tax on these working moms and their families.  A transfer of wealth from me to someone who doesn't need work clothes, work transportation, etc. would be very difficult to justify to me.

 

As for the quality of daycares, good ones do exist, but there is a broad spectrum for sure.  All the more reason to not increase taxes on working moms, so they can demand and purchase quality child care.

[SKL]

I don't care if anyone pays me to SAH, but come on, we all do this.  We all subsidize other people one way or another.  I don't begrudge anyone that. 

 

When I was fresh out of college I didn't have health insurance.  I always thought it was rather unfair that poor mothers got insurance, but not poor singles.   People in many categories don't get fair treatment (even though, like I said, at some point for the most part they pay into the system).

 

It's not a matter of begrudging, it's a matter of not considering it to be a rational policy.  I think this is a philosophical discussion we're having here.

 

No, the world isn't fair, but taxes would be pretty high if someone didn't demand a compelling rationale for policies that cost tax dollars.

 

Another point.  If there were a transfer of wealth from working moms to SAHMs, this could induce some women to quit their jobs.  Now some people might think that's a great idea, but I would be very cautious about that.  As about any government policy that influences private decisions.

[Guest]

Why can't people just do what the love and share the result?

 

For example, if a farmer loves to farm, why can't he just farm for the joy of it and share what he reaps and in return other share with him, not barter, just give furniture from the carpenter and so forth. Notice the question is why must people work. It never occurred to my kids to ask that. Yet. The concept that everyone needs purpose is well ingrained here. ;)

 

Now I know the answer.

 

The answer is because that always dissolves into slavery or indentured servitude. Because there is always work that no one wants to do.

 

But I'm curious..

 

Opinions? How does the view of not just work, but meaningful work, affect your views of economy and commerce in our society?

 

I think some of it would be because some work has greater value and necessity than others, so that would feed into supply and demand.  Everybody needs the dentist and the plumber (;) I'm being funny cuz dh is a plumber), but a lot of people may be unconcerned in having hand-knitted gloves, even if the gloves are lovely. 

 

Additionally, there is work that requires a long, expensive training period, so that work is of greater value than work that requires no particular skill. 

 

Also, as you point out, there is work that is not really chosen or preferred; it is only done when a better option is not available. 

 

There is a guy living in a cave in Utah or some such who has committed to living a life entirely without money. He has a website (that he set up at a library computer). Pretty poignant, though inconceivable to me. 

[Dandelion]

 

Why can't people just do what the love and share the result?

For example, if a farmer loves to farm, why can't he just farm for the joy of it and share what he reaps and in return other share with him, not barter, just give furniture from the carpenter and so forth. Notice the question is why must people work. It never occurred to my kids to ask that. Yet. The concept that everyone needs purpose is well ingrained here.  ;)
 

 

In early times, it was initially more of a barter system.  I assume that it evolved into the "work for pay" system we have today because that's a more effective and efficient system.  

 

Why?

 

(1) As has already been noted, not everyone wants to do certain jobs.  The "work for pay" system provides an incentive for people to do the more undesirable (but necessary) jobs when there is a market for them.  Demand drives supply.

 

(2) Bartering can be very inefficient.  If I have to negotiate with the farmer every time I want to get some produce, and find a product/service I can provide that the farmer will accept in trade, that puts a greater burden on me than just paying the farmer.  Being able to pay for the product allows me to spend my time doing work I might prefer over work that the farmer might insist upon in trade.

 

(3) The "work for pay" system levels the playing field in many respects.  Back to the example of the farmer, not everyone will be able to provide a product/service that the farmer might want to barter for.  This might prevent people from accessing the farmer's goods.  Whereas if they can come up with the money, they will be able to buy the goods.

 

 

The answer is because that always dissolves into slavery or indentured servitude. Because there is always work that no one wants to do.
 

 

I don't agree that slavery or indentured servitude is the inevitable outcome.  Again, I believe we've arrived at the "work for pay" system because it's a better system (given the current alternatives).  Not as a way to get away from slavery or servitude.

 

Or let's go the reverse. Lets say some able workers decided they just didn't want to work. Not there. Not anywhere. It wasn't about incentive. They just didn't want to work. They'd rather be on welfare. But you take away welfare. Then what? How do you 'make' them work?

I am not proposing a moneyless society. But I think the concept interesting to contemplate. It somewhat goes hand in hand with how do we make people work?

 

People work when there is an incentive for them to do so.  

 

For some people, the satisfaction they get from their jobs, and just from working in general, is enough to incentivize them.  They have internal motivation, and the external motivation (in the form of pay, benefits, etc.) is an added benefit. 

 

The majority of those who lack internal motivation (per your example of people who just don't want to work) will still go to work when external motivation is strong enough.  When you need to buy food, pay bills, etc. and you're not being supported by anyone else, you will eventually find a way to make money and take care of your needs.  Barring disabilities or other circumstances that make it impossible for someone to work, people should be working to take care of themselves and their families.  

 

I am not proposing a moneyless society. But I think the concept interesting to contemplate. It somewhat goes hand in hand with how do we make people work?

 

I don't think we "make people work".  That runs counter to individual rights and liberties.  What we can do is ensure that the rewards of working are greater than the rewards of not working.  And that opens up an incredibly complex discussion involving political, economic, and societal factors that I'm not sure would be allowed on this board.  ;)

 

ETA: I just noticed that the OP specifically said "share, not barter".  My assumption for the above reply was that the alternative to paid work would be a barter system. Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of people are altruistic enough to just share.

[Scarlett]

I have often heard that if you want to work find the job no one wants to do.

 

I think one problem is society is so huge.....everything is done in mass quantities.

[Murphy101]

And, at the risk of insulting someone out there, I didn't have kids so I could never see them.  They aren't my trophies.  My job at that time didn't allow me any flexibility and I had to work long hours.  I was glad I had the choice to quit.

Well I don't want to insult anyone either..

 

For my dh and I, we have always had the view that our priorities should be reflected in where we spend our time and money. My dh works because its important to him to provide as best he can for me to stay home and for us to home school. I do my best to watch finances because I don't want him to feel a slave to bills and have those become a greater priority then being home with us. And it's a major reason one of us will always stay home. And I will be very honest, I'd go on welfare before I'd ever quit homeschooling and go to work for pay while my kids are in PS. I'm not even slightly ashamed of admitting that.

 

When you're a single parent, you learn about all kinds of ways to deal with the unexpected.  You keep the phone numbers of people you might need to impose upon in an emergency.  You open an account with Care.com or the like.  You bring your kids to work at times.  Or whatever makes the most sense under your circumstances.  There are many working single moms whose schedules are not consistently nine-to-five, hence there are many services available to help them.  But thinking ahead is key.

 

 

 

But the taxpayers don't fund everything to the extent of "ideal."  Nor should they, in my opinion.  Aside from the fact that "ideal" is not the same for every family.

Sure taxpayers don't fund everything I or you think ideal, but they certainly do fund things they believe just, should be encouraged, or think beneficial to society.

 

My gripe is I think it's mismanagement of fund to subsize an employee making poverty wages so their employer can perpetuate the problem and further subsidize their very poorly paid daycare.

 

If the person just wants a job bc they don't want to stay home, great.

 

But I do think it can be very beneficial for a child to have a parent home instead. If the parent agrees, I have no problem shifting the daycare subsidy to the sahp

 

 

There are millions of single working moms and there are services that have been created to fill the needs that this demographic has.  Dealing with the unexpected is a challenge but usually not an insurmountable one.  Sometimes dads have to take off work for emergencies or negotiate better shifts, too - it's not the end of the world.

 

I know many, many moms - single and married - who prefer to work for pay than to be a SAHM.  These moms pay taxes.  A government policy subsidizing SAHMs is a tax on these working moms and their families.  A transfer of wealth from me to someone who doesn't need work clothes, work transportation, etc. would be very difficult to justify to me.

 

As for the quality of daycares, good ones do exist, but there is a broad spectrum for sure.  All the more reason to not increase taxes on working moms, so they can demand and purchase quality child care.

  

 

Wow. That's a very very middle class perspective. I don't know any low income parent who would agree with it. The services are laughable and few. Ad the number 1 reason my dh saw he employees terminated was related to childcare and healthcare appoints. For many, it very much is insurmountable.

 

I have often heard that if you want to work find the job no one wants to do.

I think one problem is society is so huge.....everything is done in mass quantities.

Idk that's true. Road work, plumbing, many of the "worst" job are so yucky specificly because they require an individual to get down and dirty rather than a group effort to assemble.

[justamouse]

Because people will always be greedy and those greedy few will make the rest suffer. There is no Utopia this side of heaven. 

[justamouse]

I have often heard that if you want to work find the job no one wants to do.

 

I think one problem is society is so huge.....everything is done in mass quantities.

 

This. 

 

Worldwide corporations (for some services/products) ruin everything. 

 

If every town had farmers that grew the food, butchers, bakers and such, we could employ SO many more people. Guilds.  And what you would be able to purchase would be of such higher quality--because it had to be.  But you have Cargill and Conagra, and Nestle, and ... 

 

I walk around my old historic towns and look at all of the shops that employed people. The canals that brought stuff in. I don't think they had it so bad.  I would give up my computer and air conditioning to see more people employed at things that truly helped communities. 

 

Sometimes I think we've just rebuilt the Tower of Babel. 

[Scarlett]

Well I don't want to insult anyone either..

 

For my dh and I, we have always had the view that our priorities should be reflected in where we spend our time and money. My dh works because its important to him to provide as best he can for me to stay home and for us to home school. I do my best to watch finances because I don't want him to feel a slave to bills and have those become a greater priority then being home with us. And it's a major reason one of us will always stay home. And I will be very honest, I'd go on welfare before I'd ever quit homeschooling and go to work for pay while my kids are in PS. I'm not even slightly ashamed of admitting that.

 

 

 

 

Sure taxpayers don't fund everything I or you think ideal, but they certainly do fund things they believe just, should be encouraged, or think beneficial to society.

 

My gripe is I think it's mismanagement of fund to subsize an employee making poverty wages so their employer can perpetuate the problem and further subsidize their very poorly paid daycare.

 

If the person just wants a job bc they don't want to stay home, great.

 

But I do think it can be very beneficial for a child to have a parent home instead. If the parent agrees, I have no problem shifting the daycare subsidy to the sahp

 

 

 

Wow. That's a very very middle class perspective. I don't know any low income parent who would agree with it. The services are laughable and few. Ad the number 1 reason my dh saw he employees terminated was related to childcare and healthcare appoints. For many, it very much is insurmountable.

 

 

Idk that's true. Road work, plumbing, many of the "worst" job are so yucky specificly because they require an individual to get down and dirty rather than a group effort to assemble.

That was two different mangled thots. :/. I meant people can find jobs if they are willing to do the jobs most people dislike.

 

Second that, the overall problem of the economy and families suffering in different ways is that everything is so BG.

[I.Dup.]

And I will be very honest, I'd go on welfare before I'd ever quit homeschooling and go to work for pay while my kids are in PS. I'm not even slightly ashamed of admitting that.

 

I would as well. I would also sell my body before handing my kids over into a situation I didn't believe was best for them. I would and have done anything I could to provide for my kids and keep them safe. Putting them in daycare and in situations where I could not watch over them while they are young and vulnerable, is in my opinion, putting them in danger.

[SKL]

Hmm.  Well if everyone felt that it's OK to go on welfare so they could homeschool, there would be an awful lot of people on welfare.  Not sure where the welfare money would come from.

[Χά�ων]

We all make sacrifices to ensure our children have a better future.