Unique contributions to society

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Unique contributions to society
1504
Thu, 10-19-2006 - 4:12pm

In another thread, the "unique" contributions of SAHM's were alluded to but it wasn't stated what they are. Let's play a game and find out what they are. First, pretend that as of tomorrow, all moms SAH and detail what will be missing from society then pretend that all moms go to work and detail what will be missing from society. I'm really curious as to what people think a world without SAHM's orWOHM's would look like.

If all the moms who SAH went to work then the library would move story hour to the evening and summer vacation bible school would be held in the evenings so that all kids can attend and not just the kids of SAHM's. Banks would likely shift their hours to later in the day and you'd see more 24 hour stores. I think there would be more home cooking style restaurants too. I think day care centers would improve because of increased demand.

If all moms who WOH suddenly SAH, you'd see fewer service industries around because moms could do things themselves instead of paying for them. The nursing shortage would be more of a shortage. We'd probably have a shortage of teachers too. There'd be fewer government services because there'd be less tax dollars to pay for them. I can't think of anything else right now.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-12-2005
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 11:04am
What? I wasn't talking about unemployment of sahps, I was talking about what would happen if they all suddenly rejoined the workforce.You don't think it would have a negative impact on those who might actually then have to compete more to hold their positions?
Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 11:22am

You would think so; but the thread goes on....

Now I have to go to work, so I can start making my "unique contribution" to society for the day. ;)

Avatar for mom34101
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 11:30am

So am I, then, but I don't pretend I'm making some "unique" contribution" to society simply by working.

She says that wohms are making a "unique contribution" to society simply by working; therefore, they are doing something "more" than sahms, since everybody takes care of their kids. I was trying to point out that most sahms are actually taking care of their kids during the day when they would be working if they were wohms. So *most* sahms are doing something more. It's not something unique, but then, neither is working.

I'm sure there are sahms who have no kids at home and are sitting around doing nothing all day, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Most sahms I know go back to work when the kids hit school age, and I believe statistics bear that out. Of course you can tell me all about the exceptions, and that's fine--I can't argue with you about that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 11:41am
My point is, if you had used an example in which the lesser earner's position *wasn't* totally loony, then the outcome wouldn't be the same. If the example had been that the lesser earner wanted to move to an apartment because she feels that they are living too close to the edge, but the breadwinner wanted to live off of savings instead... what would the decision be? In your examples, the lesser earner had 2 strikes... less economic "power" and also a stupid idea.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-14-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 11:46am

but in this context working (engaging in paid work) is "unique"--sahps, by definition, don't do it, and wohps, by definition, do.

as i said, it doesn't affect the social value of childcare one bit whether it is being performed by a parent or a nonparent. a parent who engages a childcare provider to care for her children is making the same social contribution as a parent who never engages any nonparental childcare. the social value of childcare is embedded in whether it is done--not in who is doing it. when a wohp pulls out her wallet (or whatever) and sees to it that it is done, she is making the same social contribution as she does during those ever-so-rare moments when she does it herself.

this is where all those usual anti-woh rants actually do come into play. (generally--of course you could nitpick exceptions, though i would just have to quote your statement below in response) the childcare provider wouldn't do what she does for free; engaging childcare an economic transation. and what the childcare provider does is not equal to what the sahp does; it is less in that the very existance of the arrangment is entirely dependant on the efforts and will of they child's parent. now, the parent who locks her 2yo in her car in the parking lot while she works her cashier shift *is* failing to make the social contribution of providing care to her child; the parent who engages appropriate childcare during that same shift isn't.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-14-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 11:47am
i just answered your question. if shaps went back to work, they would no longer be unemployed, and therein lies the gist of your speculation.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2003
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 11:48am
Ok, then imagine noone ever SAH in the first place.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-30-2006
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 11:51am
ROFL!

Sabina


Sabina

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-12-2005
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 11:52am
Well then you missed the point. Sahps, imo, help those who woh by not providing more competition for jobs and dc services.Besides, it's obvious if parents go back to work then they aren't sah.You probably didn't need to post more than a sentence if that was the gist of what you were getting at.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-15-2006
Wed, 10-25-2006 - 11:53am
In both examples Mondo used, the decision that was made could strongly have been supported as "what was best for the FAMILY" and therefore won on that front, not won because it was what the power-earner wanted.

Pages