Housework, unpaid labour?

[spartan]

Would you say that housework is unpaid labour?

I would say that it is but i think that paying people to do housework would be difficult as people can claim that they did housework just to get money when they in fact havent.

What do you think?

[BIG BROTHER]

Yeah there would be a lot of people who would want to take advantage of that. But honestly that doesn't change the fact that most people who do house worker(mostly wifes) are you could say terribly underpaid. Well not even underpaid, they get no pay.
This remainds me of a frase someone once said, about the workers being a slave and the women the slave of a slave.

[Cult of Reason]

Would you say that housework is unpaid labour?

I would say that it is but i think that paying people to do housework would be difficult as people can claim that they did housework just to get money when they in fact havent.

What do you think?

If you are the only person in a house, then you are working for yourself.

If you are doing the housework for someone else who is the main bread-winner for your familiy, a very common (though decreasingly so) situation in the West, then you are effectively paid: food, water, electricity, lodging etc.. Of course, the pay could be horribly low for the amount of work done (but, then again, it must also be pointed out that the housework is still for yourself as well, in general).

If you work and do housework, and there is also another bread-winner who does not do housework, then there probably is an (more of an) inequality.

Every human relation is now reduced a money relation. ;)

[MarxSchmarx]

I would say that it is but i think that paying people to do housework would be difficult as people can claim that they did housework just to get money when they in fact havent.


A single parent living with their kids is by definition doing housework. Unless they use the money we pay them to hire a nanny or a maid...

Now as far as things like cleaning your own closet, no, I don't think society should pay you for that.

[AGITprop]

Running a home is full-time work.
Cleaning, cooking, raising children.
I think someone who stays home full-time to care care of such things should be paid a wage for their legitimate labour.

[Bastable]

Running a home is full-time work.
Cleaning, cooking, raising children.
I think someone who stays home full-time to care care of such things should be paid a wage for their legitimate labour.

Ahh yes, but what if they are sick one day and can't do any house work? then their partner (the breadwinner) could come along and say, "Oh, well i'm not paying you for a job not done, no money for you tonight" or even if they decide they didn't do a good enough job.

It would be a world gone mad...:scared:

Better if they both work together, share outside and housework, mutually getting everything done:), now that would be better.

[F9]

If you take care only yourself its not a labour,its something that you need to survive!If although you have a family and the woman makes them all cleaning,cookingetc then yes its a labour and she should get "paid".
I dont know in other countries but down here housewives are paid every month although they are not so much money.

Fuserg9:star:

[Dimentio]

Well, since when is it emancipation to reduce everything down to wage labour? If I move together with a girl, and she have a work while I have not, I will of course stay home and clean while I am searching for a job. It's my apartment to...

[Red_or_Dead]

Housework should be divided among the members of the household, taking into consideration who works, who has school, ect., and distributing accordingly.

I dont see any point in society paying wages to people who dont have a job, and are at home doing housework, he/she might be "paid" from the other member of the household, who does have a job.

[spartan]

I suppose that the Technocratic response to housework would be to have robots do it all:D

[Cult of Reason]

I suppose that the Technocratic response to housework would be to have robots do it all

Yes, but that is the secondary phase (or possibly later, or not at all (if you mean android stuff, not simple things like the hoover-bots that are now commecially available! :))). The first thing that is done is to try to reduce the total amount of housework that must be done. Giving everyone a dishwasher, for instance, would not only wipe out tedious minutes at the sink, but would also, almost counter-intuitively, be less energy intensive than a hand-wash. Perhaps surfaces could be made standard that are a s hostile to bacterial growth as possible (less susceptable to scratching, easier to wash etc.)?

In general, the Technocratic approach can be described as 1. try to reduce the requirement and 2. then service what is left.

[Sam_b]

There needs to be a definition here: whether or not we are talking about in a capitalist or socialist society.

The problem is that capitalists do not view being a 'housewife' as a full-time position, wheras it has been pointed out that it can be in many cases a full-time persuit. Thus it should be treated in a classless society as level with, for example, factory work and the like (the list is of course endless).

It is a poor argument to say that it would be exploited in such a society - however it invariably would in a capitalist society. The argument about 'lazyness' and 'human nature' with regards to socialism has been argued to death and the left has won this argument.

[mikelepore]

It doesn't make sense to pay people to do housework if everyone does it, and everyone also pays it. It would be like telling every member of a group to pay one dollar in order to raise the money needed to give a dollar to every member of the group.