April 16, 2013

New Reader Alert – this blog is a sequential release of a longer written piece. Each segment works hard to ‘stand alone,’ but inevitably, they make more sense in context, which means reading from the beginning post through to the latest post, which is actually the current ‘end.’ Thank you for stopping by – please leave a comment; it would be great to hear what you think about these ideas.  With appreciation, Laurie

My heart is in Boston today.

At the heart of our decline is the fundamental truth that we have willfully ignored and stubbornly denied, gripped as we are by a powerful collective cognitive dissonance: We foolishly deny the immutable connection between having a designated person who keeps the home fires burning – a homekeeper - and stable, healthy, and enduring families, economies and communities. 

A corollary of that dissonance is seen in the complete lack of conversation about the damage that is done to labor markets when they are flooded with cheap labor (it bears repeating: wages are determined the same way as other prices are: by supply and demand), which of course ultimately wreaks havoc on families because it impacts both the husband’s and the wife’s income if both are in the wage market; however she will only earn a fraction of those lower wages because the gender gap predictably follows male earnings – when male earnings go down, female earnings correspond to retain the 20 – 30% gap. The loss of the homekeeper, combined with a cheapened labor force is a recipe for disaster, and we can see the results of the disaster everywhere we look.

Things have to change. We must seriously reconsider returning to the sustainable model of traditional labor division that has cradled human civilization since its birth. To that end I have come to the radical conclusion that what the United States needs is not more jobs, but fewer people competing for those jobs in the labor market. I am calling for a movement that culminates in a voluntary reduction in the American labor force, specifically, for women to stay home and operate their homefronts in a more logical and productive management of their assets - like the family business that the homefront is.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

April 13, 2013

New Reader Alert – this blog is a sequential release of a longer written piece. Each segment works hard to ‘stand alone,’ but inevitably, they make more sense in context, which means reading from the beginning post through to the latest post, which is actually the current ‘end.’ Thank you for stopping by – please leave a comment; it would be great to hear what you think about these ideas.  With appreciation, Laurie

Serfdom in Modern America:

Forging Our Own Chains

In the beginning, armed with premises which I now understand were faulty, I had originally planned to write In Defense of the Homemaker, a stirring call to women to abandon the insanity of the workforce and to return to their hearths, their children, their gardens – my book was to be a manifesto for modern domesticity and its multiple, detailed, social benefits – and for a fresh start for a culture which clearly is in grave trouble. 

I felt, and do still feel that women returning to homekeeping would be the solution to many of our current social ills, but as I plunged into my research I began to realize that I had the right solution, but for the wrong reason. My plan to rally readers around a unifying concept of the nuclear family, harking back to the days when Dad worked, and Mom baked pies, and we could afford to send our children to college, even if we had not gone ourselves, wasn’t a bad plan, it just blamed the wrong people for the problem we needed to fix.

I planned for my book to be a harsh repudiation of books like Linda R. Hirshman’s Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World, which I consider hopelessly cruel, anti-woman and anti-family for its message that “opting out” of the workplace is a form of deliberate self-betrayal, and that security can only be derived from paid employment, rather than from family bonds. Hirshman argues that Feminism failed in its transformative mission because it hasn’t insisted that women work. 

Naturally Hirshman’s message was aimed at upper middle class, college-educated women who could earn far more than the vast majority of their less-educated sisters, who would automatically reject this manufactured debate as entirely ridiculous (the lowly-paid sisters who make up the majority of the female work force would instantly recognize the eerily Marxist ‘glorification of labor’ propaganda and dismiss it with the contempt it deserved).

Hirshman presents ‘rules’ to women, to revive Feminism’s transformative mission; one is to have one child – if you must – but not two, and second, to force your husband to do his ‘share’ of the household chores (cruelly ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the lowest-paid women in the work force are single mothers). Many of these women who earn pitifully low wages will likely need their children’s support in their elderly years, and Hirshman’s advice to diminish their families below what well could be their own future subsistence levels indicates the dismissal of these women which shines through clearly in her exhortations. Her total ignorance about the fact that our birthrate has been below replacement levels since the mid-1970’s shines yet more light on her ‘choicer’ class tunnel vision which does not require her to wonder from where the women will come who will be so happy to live for work in the future.

Hirshman also wastes little ink on how children actually fare in daycare, or how the majority of women workers actually fare in their perpetually under-rewarded efforts in the market, as they continue to earn substantially less pay across all fields, decade after decade, in an infinitely predictable arc across the decades. 

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

April 5, 2013

New Reader Alert – this blog is a sequential release of a longer written piece. Each segment works hard to ‘stand alone,’ but inevitably, they make more sense in context, which means reading from the beginning post through to the latest post, which is actually the current ‘end.’ Thank you for stopping by – please leave a comment; it would be great to hear what you think about these ideas.  With appreciation, Laurie

Serfdom in Modern America:

Forging Our Own Chains

From the gender wage gap, to the tax code, to the costs to taxpayers for institutionalizing our children from babyhood to young adulthood (in order to facilitate the participation of the tax-paying, second-class workforce in the first place), we are losing the modest lifestyle, wealth and security that most families used to be able to take for granted.

 In the United States today the lowest 2 quintiles of the population – 40% of Americans – own a miniscule, barely measurable 0.3% of all wealth. Even worse, many two-income families are going into actual consumer debt just to survive because they cannot earn a living wage that will cover the replacement of the lost services in a home when a homekeeper joins the labor force. 

In exchange for this impoverished lifestyle we work longer hours than ever, institutionalize our children from pre-school through high-school, push personal ‘productivity’ to ludicrous limits, eat a poisonous diet, and rush from task to task, fearful, harried, guilt-ridden, always behind, and always in a hurry. No other country in the world gives workers so little return for so much work, and we are a hot mess because of it. Unfortunately, current conditions clearly demonstrate that the movement that liberated women “to work,” actually enslaved them and impoverished their children.

A lowly paid female labor force based on the idea of liberation, of all things, has been a terrible failure with devastating consequences for all involved. While it may sound counter - intuitive in a weak economy to urge workers out of the market, and while I know full well that many women do not have the choice (irony of feminist ironies) to do something so radical, I propose that we still have to start somewhere, and the sooner the better. 

If those women (or their husbands, if that is what works best in their families, although it will be a very rare family where a woman can earn as much as her husband) who can stay home would, we believe there would be an immediate improvement in our economy. Wages would rise for those men and women who remained in the market, and possibly, just possibly, the persistent gap in wages between men and women would eventually narrow, leaving those women who do stay a little more to help their families. 

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

March 17, 2013

New Reader Alert – this blog is a sequential release of a longer written piece. Each segment works hard to ‘stand alone,’ but inevitably, they make more sense in context, which means reading from the beginning post through to the latest post, which is actually the current ‘end.’ Thank you for stopping by – please leave a comment; it would be great to hear what you think about these ideas.  With appreciation, Laurie

Serfdom in Modern America:

Forging Our Own Chains

In only fifty years, the United States has gone from being one of the healthiest countries in the world to one that is raising children who are currently projected to have shorter life expectancies than their parents, courtesy of a raging first world epidemic of obesity.  It is no coincidence that the explosion in the size of the snack and convenience food industry, including the ‘drive-thru’ restaurant, occurred precisely as women entered the labor market. The resultant obesity epidemic shows how poorly (and lethally) that attempt filled the vacuum. And if that weren’t dire enough, over a third of the people who live in the United States now exhibit clinical symptoms of diabetes and heart disease, another ticking bomb that will soon blow up in our faces, much the same as the financial crisis did in 2008.

Women’s health is declining rapidly in the United States, too, with women in some regions of the country losing an unprecedented two and a half years of life expectancy between 1997 and 2007, alone. For life expectancy to decline in a developed nation is rare, and setbacks on this scale have not been seen in the U.S. since the Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918.[1] It is also no coincidence that kindness, trustworthiness, empathy, civility, and the other attributes which make up the oeuvre of moral and civic behavior are missing in generations of increasingly impoverished children who ‘do time’ in stranger daycare, where every day begins with parental abandonment. These children exhibit more violent and antisocial behavior than children who are raised in the home setting, and are the weak links in our society, prone to violence and dangerous attention-seeking behavior which puts us all at risk.

Families lost an estimated 40% of their wealth in the financial meltdown of 2008 - and, it is not alarmist thinking to fear that another financial crisis may occur in the near future, possibly on an even larger and more devastating scale than we have seen to date, in which we could lose even more of our diminished resources.  The structural problems which led to the financial meltdown have not been corrected; no titans of Wall Street have been imprisoned to send even the faintest of messages to the rest that we will not tolerate their excess and thievery. This loss of wealth and uncertainty about the future is a calamity which we will show is attributable to a massive failing in our family and educational systems - both of which turn out citizens too ignorant to protect their interests from government and corporate theft, welfare and abuses. We are not educated enough to protect ourselves at the ballot box anymore, and we are turning out citizens who are too ignorant and credulous to understand the subtle ways that we are tricked into doing harm to ourselves when in that box. When they even make it to the box, that is.
 

---

The two-earner employment game is rigged against families and women, and the average non-professional family is in fact going into debt by having a second wage-earner. The steady loss of income American families have experienced since the 1960’s, combined with the gender pay disparity between male and female wages (It takes until April 20 of the year for a woman to catch up to the earnings an equally qualified man in the same job had earned by the previous December 31^st), has resulted in a fundamentally unsustainable economic system for the family with two wage earners, unless both are highly paid professionals who can purchase services to replace the absent homekeeper (but this is certainly not the norm among American workers). This system has large hidden costs beyond discounted or lost earnings, including the very real loss to the family of needed services, services which are either not provided, or are provided at a non-discounted cost to the family by contracted service providers, and paid for with post-tax wages which can completely consume the discounted dollars a homekeeper can earn in the marketplace.

[1] http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/nation/la-na-womens-health-20110615

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

March 13, 2013

Serfdom in Modern America:

Forging Our Own Chains

The fifty-year abandonment of the traditional single-earner plus homekeeper partnership model of family economics and division of labor, has negatively and dramatically affected family security, health, and wealth, and is at the root of most of the challenges we currently face as a society.  Paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, I ask this question: Are we better off now than we were fifty years ago? Sixty years ago? Seventy? Is life now better by measurable indicators than it was then? Have the changes in the way we live conferred a better quality of life, stronger families, or greater family wealth upon us since our homekeepers entered the wage market?

Has our shift from an economic and family management model that depended on one partner working outside, and one inside of the home, to a family model that depends on two income earners outside of the home, led to more prosperous or secure lives for families? Are we happier? Healthier? Are our children ok? The answer, based on statistics that outline a grim picture of child and female poverty, and overall declines in Americans’ health (made orders of magnitude worse by the current economic situation), is a resounding no. We are not better for these changes; we are actually much worse for them. Our national health and wealth have suffered dramatic losses over the last fifty-plus years, due to the negative effects of the most dramatic shift in family social structure to ever occur in our culture, or to our economy: the flight of our homekeepers into the labor market.

Slave Nation is an analysis of what has happened to those women, and their families, in the wake of the great diaspora from the home into the labor force, and into what we, the authors, term modern day serfdom. This serfdom is due to many factors, including an overcrowded labor market, unequal pay, work and government policies that unfairly affect women, loss of security nets and the additional taxes that families pay in order to have their mothers in the workforce. We believe that the facts we will present here clearly demonstrate that the flood into the marketplace of ‘paid’ (wage) labor was the end of freedom for these women, and the beginning of an era of unimaginable loss of wealth and security for their families.

In Slave Nation, we will address the loss to the family structure, the social fabric, our health, our wealth, our social justice apparatus, our critical thinking skills, our ability to self-govern, and our knowledge base that has occurred in the wake of homekeepers being alternately pushed and lured into the marketplace - by economic necessity in the case of the former and by employers who were salivating for the cheap, reasonably educated workforce the women represented, in the latter. We will then expose the falsehood of the economic ‘necessity’ of having two income earners in a family by detailing how little of the second paycheck (if any) is left over once a family adjusts for the wage gap, taxes, lost social security survivor’s benefits after a spouse dies, transportation expenses, wardrobe costs, and additional services that have to be purchased due to the absent homekeeper, in a game that is guaranteed to be lose-lose for families.

We will examine how these losses have weakened the family unit and we will look at who is gaining what we are losing, and what measures they employ to orchestrate that reverse of fortune. We will explore reasons why we as a society passively allow this theft, and we will outline specific values and truths that we need to promote to strengthen our families and communities so that we cease to be vulnerable to those who intend to exploit us if they can.

We will then propose methods that we can employ to reconstruct the society (and the protections for women and children which used to be an inherent part of that society) which fell apart in the wake of the homekeeper diaspora. The methods, are multi-pronged, using withdrawal from the labor force by as many workers as possible combined with voter-driven policy change to make homekeeping a more accessible choice for families than it has been these last many decades.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/