Division of Labor

[Grandpa]

Division of Labor (in marriage)

Job of the ‘Ideal 1950’s Husband”

Breadwinner
Get an Education
Get (and bring home):

• Good Job
  
• Good Car
  
• Fridge
  
• Good Home in the Suburbs
  
• Frequent Holidays

Job of the ‘Ideal 1950’s Wife’

Homemaker
• Cooking
• Cleaning
• Bringing up the children to be smart and wholesome
• Entertaining
• Taking care of her husband's emotional and sexual needs.

Society was turned upside down.
World War 2 included mass entrance of women into factory jobs (typically male) and the ‘War of the Sexes” had begun.

In 1965, the average married woman in the states worked fewer than 15 hours a week in paid employment. For the typical woman, a stay-at-home mom, that would be zero hours. The average was pulled up by empty-nesters and the very poor.

Meanwhile, the average married man worked over 50 hours a week. The roles were neatly reversed for household work: married women did almost 40 hours a week of non-market work, men fewer than ten. This was division of labor all right, and it was division of labor along sexually lopsided lines.

The article goes on to point out the flaws of the “Division of Labor” model especially when you consider specialties and specialists.

The Economics of Scale (the more you do, the more you’re worth)

How many top lawyers do half a law degree and then work twenty-hour weeks? How many successful business executives work only Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesday mornings? And the top earners, at the peak of a long, full-time career, earn much, much more than those half-way through their careers. It is a harsh truth about the world of work that for many professionals, the more work you have done in the past, the more productive each additional working hour becomes: a perfect example of economies of scale.

The “crushing blow” to marriage comes later though.
When we consider ‘Comparative Advantage’ (division of labor according to relative advantage) it should become clear.

To understand this better an example of sharpening pins (staples?) and mounting them in paper is given. Two players: Elizabeth and James are in competition. This example was a little difficult for me to read and understand well but it makes sense as you consider it more.

If worker Elizabeth can sharpen two pins a minute and mount four pins a minute in paper, while worker James can sharpen one pin a minute and mount one pin a minute in paper, the logic of comparative advantage says that James should be sharpening pins, even though Elizabeth does the job faster. The relevant comparison is not whether Elizabeth sharpens pins faster than James but whether, relative to him, she sharpens pins faster than she mounts them in paper.

When you compare Elizabeth’s rate of 2:4 with James rate of 1:1 it starts to make more sense.
James needs to be a pin maker and if you find another 3 of him they can together make enough per minute to ‘feed’ Elizabeth, our star pin mounter.

The decision to make James a pin maker wasn’t made because he was better than her. It was made because he mounted pins into paper soooooo much slower than she did. And this is where my eyes started to open up.

The typical role models of the 1950’s weren’t because men were (or are) superior to women at all.
It was because they were not as good at homemaking, cleaning, cooking, entertaining, bringing up the children to become wholesome and smart (read healthy) and not as good at taking care of his mates' emotional and sexual needs.

As a single dad whose youngest son is now 21 years old (I’ve raised both my sons by myself since my youngest was three (3)), these thoughts make me cry.
Yeah, I did it and I did it well, even if I do say so myself, but I had a lot of help.
Throughout my childrearing years I continually marveled at the single women who did it better than me, with less advantages.

Where they were looked down on (she couldn’t keep her man) I was praised.
I had above average income and understanding employers.
It wasn’t all roses, it was the sweetest times of my life.
But even though I didn’t get the education from my mom that my three (3) older sisters did about homemaking, cooking (I still don’t know how to make pie crust like mom used to make) I was constantly supported by my friends, family and my extended network of friends (like co-workers and employers and the schools).

I’m rambling again (I can tell, kinda) but I’ll get to the point later.
Enuf for now.
Consider: when was the last time you heard a male refer to his 'childrearing years'?


~Grandpa

____________________________________
Footnote: Tim Harford, The Underground Economist

[Reise]

Division of Labor (in marriage)

Job of the ‘Ideal 1950’s Husband'

Job of the ‘Ideal 1950’s Wife’

Then Society was turned upside down.
World War 2 included mass entrance of women into factory jobs (typically male) and the ‘War of the Sexes” had begun.

Oops?

[Grandpa]

Division of Labor (in marriage)

Job of the ‘Ideal 1950’s Husband'

Job of the ‘Ideal 1950’s Wife’

Then Society was turned upside down.
World War 2 included mass entrance of women into factory jobs (typically male) and the ‘War of the Sexes” had begun.

Oops?

Good eye, of course you're correct (in this). I'll erase the word "Then".
I'll also ask you to say the "Amen" to my heartfelt prayers (even if you are not a believer):
That the Hearts of the Fathers be turned toward the children...
That the Hearts of the Children be turned toward the fathers.

*Smile
I honestly believe this is the one thing that can turn our world around.
~Grandpa

[Rainigul]

It's an informative paper, but it sort of just ends, and I don't understand your point. Is your point that the battle of the sexes is built off of a non-existant base? If so, then yeah, I guess so, and this battle of the sexes is only negative, because it really seems to have sparked sexism.

Before, women were payed just as well as men for their factory jobs (to my knowledge), but now with this whole battle, women now get paid significantly less for the same jobs.

Only problem is that I don't believe that we can reverse this effect, because so many people just won't believe it or will get pissed off or something.

[PileOfMush]

All things evolve... change. We may end up better off for the changes... we may not.

Although we've evolved away from it in the mainstream, I really do admire the two parent, single income model. This isn't at all about men and women... it never has been.

IT'S ABOUT THE CHILDREN.

Children these days are not being raised and educated about the world by their own parents. They're sent off to be babysat for the most impressionable years of their life. After that, they spend time in front of a TV or computer screen and spend almost no valuable time with their parents.

When parents get home from work, all too often the TV comes on and "Prime Time" replaces "Family Time"... then it's off to bed, kiddos. Or worse... the kids get to go off to their rooms and fire up the XBox or YouTube to leave the parents alone in peace.

The quality and character of "The American Family" has been getting noticeably worse every decade, and every new generation of children will suffer for it until something changes... and evolves for the better.

[Grandpa]

It's an informative paper, but it sort of just ends, and I don't understand your point. Is your point that the battle of the sexes is built off of a non-existant base? If so, then yeah, I guess so, and this battle of the sexes is only negative, because it really seems to have sparked sexism.

The 'point' that struck home to me needs a little background.

• 'Grandpa' was the 4th child born to his parents.
• Three older sisters, me and then 6 years later the baby of the family, my brother.
• I was never expected to do any household chores, not even cleaning my own room.
• Being the 'favorite' of my mother had its advantages but also it had long term disadvantages.
• I had no clue how to raise my sons when the task was thrust upon me.
• "Battle of the sexes" to me isn't win / lose.

It requires a paradigm shift to 'my way' of thinking.

It's very difficult for me to express this without seeming like I am preaching.
One of the things that women resent (and being an ordained minister and being able to marry people gives me a certain perspective) is their being required to 'obey' their husbands.
To me, it isn't my business.
I get to skirt the 'issues' by saying, "I'm sure you will do what is right" and smiling and not presuming to tell people what that is.
It isn't up to me, you see?

I can almost hear you saying /HUH?

But understand, the way that I think about both issues is simply this: It ain't my business.
God spoke many things to many different people.
Some things were said to women, some to men.
He spoke many things to 'priests' as well.
For me to shut my ears to what He said to me and then come down hard on women would be unthinkable.
What He said to husbands is, "Husbands, love your wives."
That has a command tone to my ear.
Would it be right then to me to ignore what was said to me and force women into some role of 'obey, slave, obey'?
What God said to me is, "There is none so deaf as my servant."

I hope I didn't lose you there, but if I did, it's not unusual.
Most Christian assemblies don't appreciate my view either.
I don't think it is right for me to go around pretending like I'm all white and clean inside and since I'm perfect I need to save the world now...
It ain't my business.
I know I'm getting way off track, but what I'm trying to say is that we need a paradigm shift to our way of thinking.

Let me ask you, "Men, what is a wife"?
"What is the function of a family?"

We've heard about 'dysfunctional families' and most of us would readily admit to having come from one, but what is it, exactly?
To me the function of a family is simple.
To raise wholesome, healthy children.
That's it.
Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Now, to get back to the article what's my point?
Men need to understand their position and function within the family.
If 'we' can understand that we are not the 'breadwinner' because we are better at it, but instead it is because we suck at homemaking, maybe we (men) can take a true position of leadership.
Elsewise, we should be thankful for the strength of women to help us through this crisis to our world.

I love ol' time values:

But hate the way we've misunderstood things.

Instead of thinking, "What is a good wife, and where may I find one?"
Would it not be more profitable for me to become good at homemaking, cleaning, cooking, entertaining, bringing up the children to become wholesome and smart (read healthy) and good at taking care of my mates' emotional and sexual needs?
How much better would our world be?
Can men in general consider their childrearing years?
If the economic 'rules' of our society demand dual income with kids, we as men need to accept this and go from there, yes?

~Grandpa

[Jstar1]

mhmm I agree with whats happening, women are not paying attention to the children enough. thats why we have so many jerks in school.

I don't see the point in getting a baby and then sending him/her to a nanny or some daycare shit to go work. I mean whats the point of having the baby in the first place?

[Reise]

Well then there's the situation where wives/mothers pay too much attention to their kids and you end up having these spoiled brats. Those sorts of women that'll snatch every dollar you make for the sake of the "family" which mostly consists of her and your kids.