Wages for Housework Act

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator TNF

[TNF]

Too often we ignore the very real contributions made by stay-at-home parents to our labor force. Without their unpaid labor, modern capitalism probably wouldn't function. This recognizes that labor and provides families with additional aid to help them make ends meet.

[Simfan34]

Okay, but $31,200 a year seems a bit much, yes? In addition this also applies to children over the age of 16, so in a family like mine were talking $62,400 a year! Surely you recognise this is a lot of money?

[TNF]

Okay, but $31,200 a year seems a bit much, yes? In addition this also applies to children over the age of 16, so in a family like mine were talking $62,400 a year! Surely you recognise this is a lot of money?

If anything, $31,200 a year is too little. But it's a start. And so what if it's a lot of money? This is a nation awash with cash. Tax the millionaires and the billionaires and give stay at home parents the recognition and aid they deserve.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

This assumes that every non-working member of the family a) does housework and b) does enough housework to earn over $30,000 a year - above the current minimum wage IIRC, does it not?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If families can afford to have a spouse stay home and take on the majority of the housework, can't we safely assume that the individual with formal employment covers all the living costs (and then some) of the houseworker? To provide a minimum wage salary to a person whose needs are already covered just doesn't make sense.

Not to mention, wouldn't this basically be a grant for rich people? I mean, I like that these folks would be getting back some of the money we take from them with our ridiculous tax rates, but I think this money is much better spent on other projects.

[TNF]

This assumes that every non-working member of the family a) does housework and b) does enough housework to earn over $30,000 a year - above the current minimum wage IIRC, does it not?

Yes, it does. It doesn't matter if they actually do housework specifically, though. There are a lot of unpaid labor activities that are absolutely necessary for capitalism to function, and yet they don't get any real recognition by society. And yes, it would be a higher salary than that of the minimum wage. Which is all well and good, because it will cause wages to rise along with it.

If families can afford to have a spouse stay home and take on the majority of the housework, can't we safely assume that the individual with formal employment covers all the living costs (and then some) of the houseworker? To provide a minimum wage salary to a person whose needs are already covered just doesn't make sense.

Not to mention, wouldn't this basically be a grant for rich people? I mean, I like that these folks would be getting back some of the money we take from them with our ridiculous tax rates, but I think this money is much better spent on other projects.

This isn't a grant for rich people, it's a grant for everyone. This is going to help a lot more young people and people between jobs than it is going to help a lot of rich people who don't work. But beyond that, this is a bill designed to give people the option of staying at home to help raise children, something that has increasingly been less of an option since the 1970s. It does so without penalizing looking for a job either, because one can still receive the aid that comes with it if they have children old enough to help out around the house.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What does the total cost of this look like?

[bore]

You seem to be advocating a 30 grand a year unemployment benefit, rather than anything to do with staying at home more specifically.

[DemPGH]

What does the total cost of this look like?

That's a concern that I have as well.

I'm also wondering if there shouldn't be a limit to something like this or if there would even be an incentive to find work.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What does the total cost of this look like?

That's a concern that I have as well.

I'm also wondering if there shouldn't be a limit to something like this or if there would even be an incentive to find work.

It also seems innefficient to create yet another program. If we were to do something like this it would make more sense to do it as an extension of the minicome.

[President Tyrion]

What does the total cost of this look like?

That's a concern that I have as well.

I'm also wondering if there shouldn't be a limit to something like this or if there would even be an incentive to find work.

It also seems innefficient to create yet another program. If we were to do something like this it would make more sense to do it as an extension of the minicome.

Yeah, I'm all for fleshing out the UBI, but I'd rather do it in that form, rather than in smaller pieces of legislation.

[TNF]

So then let's turn this into a discussion on a UBI, then. That's something I would be fine and dandy with, as it would be much more inclusionary than this bill is.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Is Nixcome not a full UBI? I've been under the impression that it was. If it's not, it should be, and probably at or around the poverty line.

[TNF]

Is Nixcome not a full UBI? I've been under the impression that it was. If it's not, it should be, and probably at or around the poverty line.

Nixcome is a negative income tax, which is not the same thing. It's use is limited to persons receiving welfare, if I recall the debates surrounding it's implementation correctly. I don't think that we should limit ourselves to pegging the UBI to the poverty line, personally. I think, if anything, it should be enough to permit someone to choose not to work if they don't want to. This will not only have the effect of making work a choice rather than something that is forced on all of us, it will force wages upward, because employers will have to offer something to their employees to get them to choose employment, rather than choosing just to collect the UBI.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Is Nixcome not a full UBI? I've been under the impression that it was. If it's not, it should be, and probably at or around the poverty line.

Nixcome is a negative income tax, which is not the same thing. It's use is limited to persons receiving welfare, if I recall the debates surrounding it's implementation correctly. I don't think that we should limit ourselves to pegging the UBI to the poverty line, personally. I think, if anything, it should be enough to permit someone to choose not to work if they don't want to. This will not only have the effect of making work a choice rather than something that is forced on all of us, it will force wages upward, because employers will have to offer something to their employees to get them to choose employment, rather than choosing just to collect the UBI.

How about 125% of the poverty line? Then we won't have to adjust it every few years (though this does raise concerns about price increases and suchlike, and while I've seen good assuasions of those concerns, I don't think a UBI has ever been tried IRL).

[TNF]

Why would prices increase? It's not as if a UBI would dramatically increase labor time, cause supply to fluctuate, or interfere with distribution.

[President Tyrion]

Why would prices increase? It's not as if a UBI would dramatically increase labor time, cause supply to fluctuate, or interfere with distribution.

Increased consumer buying power, in general, and there might be less supply because of a more taut labor market.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Thank you for your contribution, Mr. Napoleon, sir.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So people who actually take the initiative to work and make something for society are going to be taxed at an outrageous rate just so the state can pay for people to stay at home and do nothing if they so choose? Who the heck is going to work? This plan would necessitate a tax squeeze on even the lower income brackets. I don't see a scenario where this would not be disastrous and destructive.

Work is what builds up our civilization and lets us enjoy the good things we have. We can debate measures to more appropriate reward work and return the fruits of labour to the labourers, but removing work as a tool for advancement will send everything we've built down the drain.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'd work, for one, and I'm sure you would, Mr. Hagrid.

[Deus Naturae]

I'd work, for one, and I'm sure you would, Mr. Hagrid.

You might, but are you seriously denying that people wouldn't quit working if the government literally payed people to do nothing?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd work, for one, and I'm sure you would, Mr. Hagrid.

I'm not so sure. If the state was paying me enough to live comfortably without having to work a job, the long-term "fulfillment" probably wouldn't trump the short-term convenience of staying home. Again, some kind of small basic guarantee is one thing, but a large amount that makes work completely optional is just asking for trouble.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'd work, for one, and I'm sure you would, Mr. Hagrid.

I'm not so sure. If the state was paying me enough to live comfortably without having to work a job, the long-term "fulfillment" probably wouldn't trump the short-term convenience of staying home. Again, some kind of small basic guarantee is one thing, but a large amount that makes work completely optional is just asking for trouble.

But it wouldn't be necessarily "comfortable", just enough to get by. And people will always want more money, won't they?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd work, for one, and I'm sure you would, Mr. Hagrid.

I'm not so sure. If the state was paying me enough to live comfortably without having to work a job, the long-term "fulfillment" probably wouldn't trump the short-term convenience of staying home. Again, some kind of small basic guarantee is one thing, but a large amount that makes work completely optional is just asking for trouble.

But it wouldn't be necessarily "comfortable", just enough to get by. And people will always want more money, won't they?

"Just getting by" and "choosing not to work if you don't want to" don't really correspond, at least not  with my understanding of the terms. If it's an amount that covers rent in a sh**tty apartment miles from downtown, one meal a day, and very little transportation, then I'd see why you'd work. I don't know if that's what TNF has in mind...

Also, you can add me to the camp that thinks prices would increase. Yes, wages would be higher, but I don't believe the money would go as far. I'm assuming that as wages and prices go up, the UBI would also go up, so it's just a dog-chasing-its-own-tail scenario, isn't it? Also, how would this change affect government revenues? It's difficult to keep track of what we've done with our tax code, but maybe it's already so stilted that it wouldn't make a difference...? Certainly UBI would be a big expense, especially on top of Nixcome.