Re: Prenups WAS: Thinking Deep Thoughts

[Guest guest]

VISIGOTH@... wrote:

> The other problem is that a lot of people can't distinguish between

> " Love " feelings and " Rutting " feelings. Most people, especially younger

> people, are full of the rutting hormones that are trying to make them

> reproduce like wild monkeys. They aren't mature enough to understand

> that that powerful attraction isn't love, but lust.

>

>

Rutting????????????? I don't think you understand the term. There are no

feelings involved in rut. It is a biological act in the animal, not

human kingdom.

Ace

[Guest guest]

mikecarrie01 wrote:

> I read something once that listed out each duty that a housewife does

> and how much it would cost if someone was paid for each and it came

> out to $100,000 or something like that. I am very fortunate in that

> what I'm good at my husband isn't and what he's good at I'm not, so

> it works out really well.

This is one of those stupid comparisons that has no basis in logic. Cost

and value are closely related but not the only factor. What something is

worth is based to a large extend on what one could get paid for it on

the open market. I dare any homemaker or housewife to go out and find a

similar position that would pay her $100,000. There may be the few rich

families who might be willing to pay someone that amount of money to

take on the housewife duties but they would be the extreme exception and

then likely only because there was some attraction to the person, not

just because of the duties.

The problem with " facts " such as the above quote are that you can find

statistics to prove anything you want, that does not make them factual.

One of the " facts " that would rive up this figure is comparing what a

man would be willing to pay a call girl for sex. The problem with such

comparisons is simply that he is prepared to pay a call girl or mistress

so much money is specifically because she is not in his eyes or in his

life a housewife.

The other problem is that the value is only there if someone is prepared

to pay that amount. How many bread winners could possibly find the money

to pay such sums? On top of this one would have to subtract all the

benefits received by this housewife. The clothes, room and board,

keeping in mind that most paid housekeepers only get to call one small

room their own. Most housewives get to call the whole house theirs and

some of the cleaning, food preparation and laundry is for themselves and

can not possibly be included in this comparison.

Ace

[Guest guest]

Yes - but as you have pointed out the housewife/househusband does

many jobs. If I was to employ a sitter for my son - that is all they

would do, look after my son - they would not also do the housework.

If I employed a cook, that is all they would do, same with a cleaner

etc.

A housewife or househusband (a good one) does many things and if a

good one does it out of love, not reward, the rewards come from

having a happy family.

I am always surprised how people sometimes pity me saying how

terrible it must be raising a child with special needs - I never get

this attitude - it is not terrible - it is wonderful, he is my child

I love him, why would it be a hardship - I just don't get some

people's opinions.

> > I read something once that listed out each duty that a housewife

does

> > and how much it would cost if someone was paid for each and it

came

> > out to $100,000 or something like that. I am very fortunate in

that

> > what I'm good at my husband isn't and what he's good at I'm not,

so

> > it works out really well.

>

> This is one of those stupid comparisons that has no basis in logic.

Cost

> and value are closely related but not the only factor. What

something is

> worth is based to a large extend on what one could get paid for it

on

> the open market. I dare any homemaker or housewife to go out and

find a

> similar position that would pay her $100,000. There may be the few

rich

> families who might be willing to pay someone that amount of money

to

> take on the housewife duties but they would be the extreme

exception and

> then likely only because there was some attraction to the person,

not

> just because of the duties.

>

> The problem with " facts " such as the above quote are that you can

find

> statistics to prove anything you want, that does not make them

factual.

>

> One of the " facts " that would rive up this figure is comparing what

a

> man would be willing to pay a call girl for sex. The problem with

such

> comparisons is simply that he is prepared to pay a call girl or

mistress

> so much money is specifically because she is not in his eyes or in

his

> life a housewife.

>

> The other problem is that the value is only there if someone is

prepared

> to pay that amount. How many bread winners could possibly find the

money

> to pay such sums? On top of this one would have to subtract all the

> benefits received by this housewife. The clothes, room and board,

> keeping in mind that most paid housekeepers only get to call one

small

> room their own. Most housewives get to call the whole house theirs

and

> some of the cleaning, food preparation and laundry is for

themselves and

> can not possibly be included in this comparison.

>

> Ace

>

[Guest guest]

greebohere wrote:

> Yes - but as you have pointed out the housewife/househusband does

> many jobs. If I was to employ a sitter for my son - that is all they

> would do, look after my son - they would not also do the housework.

> If I employed a cook, that is all they would do, same with a cleaner

> etc.

Right, but no sitter, cleaner or cook makes $100,000 per year. A

homemaker does all and still does not make $100,000. per year. It's

simply a comparison that does not work.

To make a similar comparison, in my job I am a supervisor, a personnel

manager, a field service rep, a conduit installer, a software programmer

and a computer service technician. Oh and also an instructor.

So lets see a supervisor earns $60,000

A personnel manager $75,000

A field service rep $50,000

A conduit installer $70,000

A software programmer $50,000

A computer service tech $60,000

An instructor $70,000

That's a total of $385,000. Wait till I point this out to my boss. I

wonder if he will give me a raise?

The thing is that no one gets paid for doing several jobs at once. If

you combine 2 or more jobs you never get paid the combined total because

your time is divided among them. If you have several skills you may

command a better wage because you are versatile and can do several

different jobs but you never get paid the full time equivalent for both.

Ace

Ace

[Guest guest]

Okay I get your point - but it is true that many undervalue the role

played by homemaker.

> > Yes - but as you have pointed out the housewife/househusband does

> > many jobs. If I was to employ a sitter for my son - that is all

they

> > would do, look after my son - they would not also do the

housework.

> > If I employed a cook, that is all they would do, same with a

cleaner

> > etc.

>

> Right, but no sitter, cleaner or cook makes $100,000 per year. A

> homemaker does all and still does not make $100,000. per year. It's

> simply a comparison that does not work.

>

> To make a similar comparison, in my job I am a supervisor, a

personnel

> manager, a field service rep, a conduit installer, a software

programmer

> and a computer service technician. Oh and also an instructor.

>

> So lets see a supervisor earns $60,000

> A personnel manager $75,000

> A field service rep $50,000

> A conduit installer $70,000

> A software programmer $50,000

> A computer service tech $60,000

> An instructor $70,000

> That's a total of $385,000. Wait till I point this out to my boss.

I

> wonder if he will give me a raise?

>

> The thing is that no one gets paid for doing several jobs at once.

If

> you combine 2 or more jobs you never get paid the combined total

because

> your time is divided among them. If you have several skills you

may

> command a better wage because you are versatile and can do several

> different jobs but you never get paid the full time equivalent for

both.

>

> Ace

>

> Ace

>

[Guest guest]

Okay I get your point - but it is true that many undervalue the role

played by homemaker.

> > Yes - but as you have pointed out the housewife/househusband does

> > many jobs. If I was to employ a sitter for my son - that is all

they

> > would do, look after my son - they would not also do the

housework.

> > If I employed a cook, that is all they would do, same with a

cleaner

> > etc.

>

> Right, but no sitter, cleaner or cook makes $100,000 per year. A

> homemaker does all and still does not make $100,000. per year. It's

> simply a comparison that does not work.

>

> To make a similar comparison, in my job I am a supervisor, a

personnel

> manager, a field service rep, a conduit installer, a software

programmer

> and a computer service technician. Oh and also an instructor.

>

> So lets see a supervisor earns $60,000

> A personnel manager $75,000

> A field service rep $50,000

> A conduit installer $70,000

> A software programmer $50,000

> A computer service tech $60,000

> An instructor $70,000

> That's a total of $385,000. Wait till I point this out to my boss.

I

> wonder if he will give me a raise?

>

> The thing is that no one gets paid for doing several jobs at once.

If

> you combine 2 or more jobs you never get paid the combined total

because

> your time is divided among them. If you have several skills you

may

> command a better wage because you are versatile and can do several

> different jobs but you never get paid the full time equivalent for

both.

>

> Ace

>

> Ace

>

[Guest guest]

greebohere wrote:

> Okay I get your point - but it is true that many undervalue the role

> played by homemaker.

>

That is probably true but whenever I see this statement I wonder who is

supposed to be paying them. Our economics is based on the premise that

the person benefiting from our services is the one responsible for

paying for those services. There is a further concept that says we are

responsible for those children we bring into the world until such time

as they are able to look after themselves. Further to that we have the

divorce courts who are very quick in ordering fathers to cough up

support payments with very little thought to their ability to meet those

payments.

The question becomes, to whom are these women a greater value. How can

we improve on this without taking it away from those who are already

working hard for their value.

Look around, every union worker claims to be under valued, every food

services worker is under paid, teens can only find demeaning work at

minimum wage. How are homemakers in an different position than many

others? Everyone seems to think they are under paid. Where is all this

additional money to come from? There is only one place, higher prices

for the good we buy and then the cycle starts all over again.

Ace

[Guest guest]

Well like I said in a previous post the rewards of good housekeeping

and child care are not necesarily financial - if it is done out of

love and appreciated by others that is kind of reward. Seeing the

benefits your family reap from being cared for and nutured - by this

I don't mean doing every little thing for them, it is also good to

encourage independence in my opinion.

In a fair home the burdens would be shared and subsequently lightened

and the family would be supportive of one another - I know this is

idealism on my part, but I do believe it can happen and for some it

does - I believe they are very blessed to be in that position, for

many others it does not work so well. Some women do not appreciate

what men do and some men do not appreciate what women do - you get

good and bad people of either gender. You will get some men that will

take advantage and you will also get some women that will take

advantage too.

> > Okay I get your point - but it is true that many undervalue the

role

> > played by homemaker.

> >

>

> That is probably true but whenever I see this statement I wonder

who is

> supposed to be paying them. Our economics is based on the premise

that

> the person benefiting from our services is the one responsible for

> paying for those services. There is a further concept that says we

are

> responsible for those children we bring into the world until such

time

> as they are able to look after themselves. Further to that we have

the

> divorce courts who are very quick in ordering fathers to cough up

> support payments with very little thought to their ability to meet

those

> payments.

>

> The question becomes, to whom are these women a greater value. How

can

> we improve on this without taking it away from those who are

already

> working hard for their value.

>

> Look around, every union worker claims to be under valued, every

food

> services worker is under paid, teens can only find demeaning work

at

> minimum wage. How are homemakers in an different position than many

> others? Everyone seems to think they are under paid. Where is all

this

> additional money to come from? There is only one place, higher

prices

> for the good we buy and then the cycle starts all over again.

>

> Ace

>

[Guest guest]

The biggest reward when we are talking about a partnership is that the

partner who gets everything done for them (usually the man)

appreciates it. When one is taken for granted it can be rather soul

destroying, its like a put down, being made to feel useless when

actually there are a lot of time consuming skills involved in looking

after a home and caring for kids/cats etc;.

Kate2

In , " greebohere "

<julie.stevenson16@...> wrote:

>

> A housewife or househusband (a good one) does many things and if a

> good one does it out of love, not reward, the rewards come from

> having a happy family.

[Guest guest]

I was pleased to catch a few episodes of a new series recently by a

former TV hostess, Anthea I think it was who was presenting

her own show called 'perfect housewife'. Although the title sounds

corney when you got into it, it really was quite interesting. Yes

housework 'interesting'. I managed to pick up a few tips that have

helped me get organised with two extra cats in the house now.

Somehow Anthea made the role, or job, or whatever you wish to call

it, seen quite skilled and well worth doing. That sort of thing can

only help in the cause of raising the value of such labour.

I applaud her and hope she does another series.

Kate2

In , " greebohere "

<julie.stevenson16@...> wrote:

>

> Okay I get your point - but it is true that many undervalue the

role

> played by homemaker.

>

>

>

>

>

> > > Yes - but as you have pointed out the housewife/househusband

does

> > > many jobs. If I was to employ a sitter for my son - that is

all

> they

> > > would do, look after my son - they would not also do the

> housework.

> > > If I employed a cook, that is all they would do, same with a

> cleaner

> > > etc.

> >

> > Right, but no sitter, cleaner or cook makes $100,000 per year. A

> > homemaker does all and still does not make $100,000. per year.

It's

> > simply a comparison that does not work.

> >

> > To make a similar comparison, in my job I am a supervisor, a

> personnel

> > manager, a field service rep, a conduit installer, a software

> programmer

> > and a computer service technician. Oh and also an instructor.

> >

> > So lets see a supervisor earns $60,000

> > A personnel manager $75,000

> > A field service rep $50,000

> > A conduit installer $70,000

> > A software programmer $50,000

> > A computer service tech $60,000

> > An instructor $70,000

> > That's a total of $385,000. Wait till I point this out to my

boss.

> I

> > wonder if he will give me a raise?

> >

> > The thing is that no one gets paid for doing several jobs at

once.

> If

> > you combine 2 or more jobs you never get paid the combined total

> because

> > your time is divided among them. If you have several skills

you

> may

> > command a better wage because you are versatile and can do

several

> > different jobs but you never get paid the full time equivalent

for

> both.

> >

> > Ace

> >

> > Ace

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

> The thing is that no one gets paid for doing several jobs at once. If

> you combine 2 or more jobs you never get paid the combined total

because

> your time is divided among them. If you have several skills you

may

> command a better wage because you are versatile and can do several

> different jobs but you never get paid the full time equivalent for

both.

>

>This is true, but the point of the article I read was that if the

husband had to go out and hire several people to do all the jobs his

wife did, it would come out to $100,000 a year. Rarely do you find one

employee or independent contractor who washes dishes, cleans house,

washes windows, does laundry, irons clothes, cooks meals, takes care of

the children, runs errands and shops for the family, and whatever else

I'm leaving out. In your example you paid each person full wages to get

to the $385,000. The $100,000 is a total of part-time wages for the

average amount of time spent doing each household/childcare duty.

[Guest guest]

>

>>

> " That is probably true but whenever I see this statement I wonder who

is

> supposed to be paying them. "

No one is supposed to be paying them. The point is they are saving

money for the household, not sitting around eating bon-bons and

watching soap operas (well, I'm sure SOME of them are!) By assigning a

monetary figure to their 'jobs', a value is given to their work. In

today's society, a paycheck often determines value and people are

judged by what job they have, how much they make, and what car/house

they have. This '$100,000 for a housewife' illustration helps put their

value in today's society's terms.