Re:A catalog of wealth-creation mechanisms (2009)
by jkhdigital on Thursday October 07, 2021 @09:35AM
(#28786032)
The reason that the economy is defined in terms of transactions that involve an exchange of money is that such transactions can be quantified objectively. If no money is exchanged, then assigning a valuation to an activity is pure speculation. Of course, this doesn't stop bureaucratic number-crunchers from attempting to do so anyway (e.g. the inclusion of "owner-occupied implied rent" in CPI calculations) but it's not hard to see the slippery slope it creates. Assigning a name to something ("emotional labour") doesn't mean that it somehow becomes quantifiable in any tractable or objective manner.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A catalog of wealth-creation mechanisms (2009)
by geogra4 on Thursday October 07, 2021 @09:59AM
(#28786343)
Interestingly enough I believe this is partially why there was a "wages for housework" movement[0]
Re:A catalog of wealth-creation mechanisms (2009)
by bojangleslover on Thursday October 07, 2021 @10:16AM
(#28786551)
What about the fact that she owns half of all marital assets as they accrue?
Re:A catalog of wealth-creation mechanisms (2009)
by pjc50 on Thursday October 07, 2021 @10:51AM
(#28787047)
Wasn't always true in all jurisdictions, and certainly not in 1972 when the campaign started.
Even today there's a distinction between "is theoretically entitled to half the assets by court order on divorce" and practical day to day access to that money.