Many feminists urge a transition toward a dual-earner/dual-carer system in which women and men alike earn money and provide unpaid care for their families and communities. But is this possible in the current economic system?
Most measures of economic well-being in the United States are based on dollars earned or dollars spent, but we don’t live in an entirely market-based economy. The annual American Time Use Survey shows that we spend, on average, about as much time on unpaid work (defined as activities that someone else could be paid to do) as on work that earns a paycheck. These activities are often labeled unpaid work, domestic work, or unpaid care, but they also fit a category that Karl Marx referred to as “production for use” rather than “production for exchange.”
The persistence of “production for use” suggests that the transition to an economy primarily based on market exchange (typically referred to as “capitalism”) is still underway. Families and communities represent small pockets of a “commons” in which both time and money are shared, providing at least some mutual aid. Unfortunately, the patriarchal institutions that traditionally governed this commons often increased women’s physical and economic vulnerability.
Over the last 150 years, resistance to patriarchal power has motivated efforts to reduce women’s specialization in unpaid care. And surely many of its drudgeries need to be reduced. Some aspects of unpaid care, however, are central to the development and maintenance of human capabilities for affection, mutual respect, and cooperation. Many feminist voices (including Janet Gornick, Marcia Meyers, Joan Williams, and Nancy Fraser) urge a transition toward a dual-earner/dual-carer system in which women and men alike earn money and provide unpaid care for their families and communities. Such a transition would likely be more costly for most men than for most women. But increased economic inequality in today’s economy creates another obstacle to that transition for both men and women. Low-earners need long hours of employment to pay their bills and can’t afford to purchase care services that would allow them the flexibility required to effectively combine paid and unpaid work.
Married women in the United States entered paid employment rapidly between 1970 and 2000, gaining some economic independence, challenging patriarchal strictures, and contributing to the growth of the market economy. Yet capitalist development itself discouraged productive contributions that couldn’t be easily monetized. Individual success came to be equated to individual earnings, and economic inequality began to rise.
Changes in the gender division of labor exacerbated this trend for two well-known reasons. Differences in women’s hourly earnings are far greater than differences in the imputed (or monetary) value of an hour of unpaid work in the home, which economists usually set equal to a housekeeper’s wage. As a result, economic inequalities among women have increased. In addition, high-earning women tend to marry high-earning men, forming especially high-earning households.
Another, underappreciated factor has been a decline over time in the estimated value of unpaid care work relative to market income—what it would cost your household to purchase substitutes for the housekeeping and care services you provide compared to the money available from paychecks. Remember the adage, “a penny saved is a penny earned”? We describe the decline in pennies saved by unpaid work over time as the shrinking cushion of production for use compared to production for exchange. We explore this factor in a recent journal article focusing on trends between 1965 and 2018, and distilled our findings into a short readable post in The Conversation.
Our analysis defines household living standards using a measure of “extended income,” not simply in terms of market income such as earnings. Extended income is the sum of market income and a conservative estimate of the imputed value of unpaid work—multiplying the average number of hours of unpaid work times an average housekeeper’s wage in the same year.
This approximation is pretty crude, but keep in mind that a home-cooked meal is a substitute for one purchased away from home, and family-provided childcare and eldercare substitute for services that are costly.
When women enter wage employment, they have less time to devote to unpaid care. While fathers have begun to provide more childcare than in the past, they haven’t made up the difference. Even though average household hours of unpaid work remain high, they have declined over time as reliance on market earnings instead of unpaid work has increased. Because the estimated value of unpaid work represents a bigger proportion of extended income for low-market-income than high-market-income households, its decline increased inequality in extended income.
Between 1965 and 2018, the ratio of the income of high-income households (those at the 90th percentile of incomes) to that of low-income households (at the 10th percentile) grew by 40% when measured by market income alone. But once we account for the lost value of unpaid household work, that ratio grew by 66%. The extended income of low-income households actually declined slightly, even as their market income grew by 29%.
Single-parent families were hit particularly hard. The welfare “reforms” of the 1990s increased work requirements—and restricted the definition of “work” to paid activities. Single parents’ earnings increased along with their employment, but their time devoted to unpaid work declined, increasing their out-of-pocket spending on items such as childcare.
Hopes for a transition to a dual-earner/dual-carer society for anyone other than the very well-to-do have receded. Instead, we may be moving toward a single earner/no-carer world. Many young people are having a hard time buying a house, much less raising a family. Birth rates have fallen below replacement level. Many youth seem disenchanted with dating, and some pundits predict that, if recent trends continue, one-third of young adults will not get married and one-fourth won’t have kids.
Many conservatives seem convinced that feminists are to blame. But the larger problem is an economic system that underestimates the economic value of work that does not yield a profit.
Nancy Folbre is a professor emerita of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her research explores the interface between political economy and feminist theory.
Leila Gautham is a lecturer in economics at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom.
It is critical to understand these cuts in the broader context of the already highly dysfunctional U.S. health care system.
The disabled community has responded to the adversities they face by organizing for legal rights that protect their autonomy and access to public life. But these rights are increasingly under attack.
Let’s look at exactly what happened on Monday morning and what makes it is so suspicious.
It seems like a good time to compare the running tally of war dollars with the cost of relentless attacks on public care provision in the United States.
