691
How much is the child
Wildly popular topics "how much baby" — a favorite folk entertainment, what would like on this subject wrote.
Yes, the child is very, very expensive, it is generally unfeasible in modern capitalist country. But not for the reasons that bychno write this kind of articles.
People passionately argue the issues, do I need a breast pump, whether paid labor and an envelope for the baby, or enough old blankets. Morality zealots horrified perverted to consumers who do not want to have a baby without a car seat and a separate changing table. Others argue that no, it is urgently needed, and the author is absolutely right, and free gynecology's just a hell of Mordor and those who think otherwise — typical misogyny.
In fact, all of these things have absolutely no value when people decide to have a baby. All of these things at the same time — somewhere in the fifties. Work, there is a possibility — then there will be a paid health service, and children's clothes from couture. Will not work — so wrapped in a blanket, and bathing will be in the old basin, and the amount of happiness from this little affected.
But, however, the decision to have a child (or not have) is really, first of all it is financial.
With all these ridiculous costs in a comparison is not a simple trivial fact: the woman as the source of family funding for a year, two or even five completely switched off from life.
The problem is not in the graph "expenditure", but just the opposite — in the column "income". And so he can immediately Polovinnaya — of course, it all depends on how much the woman was earning before, and how important her earnings in the family budget.
So we're back to the problem of free female labor for family care. This free labor, among other things, took all the working time that a woman could spend on paid labor. Even if a man's wages compensates for this and allows something to accommodate the entire family — still life level drops sharply.
Literally a family, say, middle-lower class can throw in the lower. We remember that time is money, and it's literally, if we are talking about working time. Now, women reproduction selects a time which is money. And it struck first at the woman deprives her as own funds right now, and the possibility of good earnings in the future. But in the second turn is a blow to the man, and thus deprived of a significant part of their earnings to family in General could somehow survive.
Compared to this, all the questions, "how much is a breast pump" and "whether to take a used stroller or a new" — a purely technical detail. But the problem free working time to care is a problem for almost all classes and social strata except medium and big bourgeoisie, where the woman (and man) do not sell their time, and lives only by exploiting the working time of other people.
This explains a great many facts:
1. The birth rate is higher in societies where women have no education and do not work outside the home, not because there are religious precepts and the highest morality, but because the woman and so made no financial contribution to the family, so that the child's birth family has nothing to lose.
2. In developed countries the birth rate is particularly low among women with higher education (in Germany 50% of women with I/o do not plan to have children in principle, among less educated women wishing to have a child much more). Not because they are all feminists and bitches, but because the woman with/about many earns, and the refusal of her earnings — a strong blow on the financial situation of the couple.
3. The birth rate is relatively higher in those developed countries where there is a wide network of nurseries and kindergartens, that is, a woman drops out of the labor process, at least not completely and not for long.
The problem of labour in child care is always decided in different ways:
Now, however, in developed countries, this situation became impossible, parents are required by law to provide care and supervision, or the child enters the orphanage. "
So all the cries of "wanton women who do not want to give birth" is absolutely meaningless. Yes, it is possible to give birth without strollers, and without beds, and without pay-gynecology. You can not buy baby clothes. But I can't have him yelling in a closed flat one or under the supervision of seven, for example, sisters and to go to work (as did our grandmother, who "in the field and nothing"). With the child long enough someone should be. And kindergartens the situation is getting worse from year to year, and the idea that any separation from the mother's breast for up to seven years — a serious injury, is increasingly gaining supporters.
And all the financial problems, I repeat, are not from what the child too much to buy and spend on it — but exclusively from the fact that the mother ceases to earn/earns less, or is paid for an expensive babysitter.
And I don't understand how people don't see this in General, simple, basic things.
You can still think that because some women manage to earn money, even having the baby on hands. Well, Yes, some find work at home. Some as you can. As a rule, if they have already got the groundwork of a good education, experience of the respective work. But even these moms understand that baby will still be a day to go 6/8/12 hours of pure work (to feed, walk, wash). And this is working time, which is subtracted from the time net earnings, and in the first place — out of time for rest and recuperation of the mother. This is not a joke, this is serious.
And here it is — the real answer to the question "how much is the child." As much as would the mother in the time she spent caring for him.
And the way out of this one socialism and the widespread development of a network of children's institutions, associations, parents, social solidarity, the ability to take sick leave, maybe the first year of child care. This is the only thing that will create real output from individualistic impasse, where child — only problem parents.published
Author Yana Zavatskaya
P. S. And remember, only by changing their consumption — together we change the world! ©
Join us in Facebook , Vkontakte, Odnoklassniki
Source: blau-kraehe.livejournal.com/457823.html
Yes, the child is very, very expensive, it is generally unfeasible in modern capitalist country. But not for the reasons that bychno write this kind of articles.
People passionately argue the issues, do I need a breast pump, whether paid labor and an envelope for the baby, or enough old blankets. Morality zealots horrified perverted to consumers who do not want to have a baby without a car seat and a separate changing table. Others argue that no, it is urgently needed, and the author is absolutely right, and free gynecology's just a hell of Mordor and those who think otherwise — typical misogyny.
In fact, all of these things have absolutely no value when people decide to have a baby. All of these things at the same time — somewhere in the fifties. Work, there is a possibility — then there will be a paid health service, and children's clothes from couture. Will not work — so wrapped in a blanket, and bathing will be in the old basin, and the amount of happiness from this little affected.
But, however, the decision to have a child (or not have) is really, first of all it is financial.
With all these ridiculous costs in a comparison is not a simple trivial fact: the woman as the source of family funding for a year, two or even five completely switched off from life.
The problem is not in the graph "expenditure", but just the opposite — in the column "income". And so he can immediately Polovinnaya — of course, it all depends on how much the woman was earning before, and how important her earnings in the family budget.
So we're back to the problem of free female labor for family care. This free labor, among other things, took all the working time that a woman could spend on paid labor. Even if a man's wages compensates for this and allows something to accommodate the entire family — still life level drops sharply.
Literally a family, say, middle-lower class can throw in the lower. We remember that time is money, and it's literally, if we are talking about working time. Now, women reproduction selects a time which is money. And it struck first at the woman deprives her as own funds right now, and the possibility of good earnings in the future. But in the second turn is a blow to the man, and thus deprived of a significant part of their earnings to family in General could somehow survive.
Compared to this, all the questions, "how much is a breast pump" and "whether to take a used stroller or a new" — a purely technical detail. But the problem free working time to care is a problem for almost all classes and social strata except medium and big bourgeoisie, where the woman (and man) do not sell their time, and lives only by exploiting the working time of other people.
This explains a great many facts:
1. The birth rate is higher in societies where women have no education and do not work outside the home, not because there are religious precepts and the highest morality, but because the woman and so made no financial contribution to the family, so that the child's birth family has nothing to lose.
2. In developed countries the birth rate is particularly low among women with higher education (in Germany 50% of women with I/o do not plan to have children in principle, among less educated women wishing to have a child much more). Not because they are all feminists and bitches, but because the woman with/about many earns, and the refusal of her earnings — a strong blow on the financial situation of the couple.
3. The birth rate is relatively higher in those developed countries where there is a wide network of nurseries and kindergartens, that is, a woman drops out of the labor process, at least not completely and not for long.
The problem of labour in child care is always decided in different ways:
- in the early days of capitalism the mother took the children with him to the factory, tied to a chair, or the children unattended running down the street;
- Russian peasant woman again took the children with her in the field (we all remember: "a Cry is heard from the neighboring prosinecki... Baba there, bestreplica of kosinki: we need a child to swing).
- or the child was left under the care of little girls, which at the same time and was a housewife. Already at seven, even five years, the child himself became a worker.
Now, however, in developed countries, this situation became impossible, parents are required by law to provide care and supervision, or the child enters the orphanage. "
So all the cries of "wanton women who do not want to give birth" is absolutely meaningless. Yes, it is possible to give birth without strollers, and without beds, and without pay-gynecology. You can not buy baby clothes. But I can't have him yelling in a closed flat one or under the supervision of seven, for example, sisters and to go to work (as did our grandmother, who "in the field and nothing"). With the child long enough someone should be. And kindergartens the situation is getting worse from year to year, and the idea that any separation from the mother's breast for up to seven years — a serious injury, is increasingly gaining supporters.
And all the financial problems, I repeat, are not from what the child too much to buy and spend on it — but exclusively from the fact that the mother ceases to earn/earns less, or is paid for an expensive babysitter.
And I don't understand how people don't see this in General, simple, basic things.
You can still think that because some women manage to earn money, even having the baby on hands. Well, Yes, some find work at home. Some as you can. As a rule, if they have already got the groundwork of a good education, experience of the respective work. But even these moms understand that baby will still be a day to go 6/8/12 hours of pure work (to feed, walk, wash). And this is working time, which is subtracted from the time net earnings, and in the first place — out of time for rest and recuperation of the mother. This is not a joke, this is serious.
And here it is — the real answer to the question "how much is the child." As much as would the mother in the time she spent caring for him.
And the way out of this one socialism and the widespread development of a network of children's institutions, associations, parents, social solidarity, the ability to take sick leave, maybe the first year of child care. This is the only thing that will create real output from individualistic impasse, where child — only problem parents.published
Author Yana Zavatskaya
P. S. And remember, only by changing their consumption — together we change the world! ©
Join us in Facebook , Vkontakte, Odnoklassniki
Source: blau-kraehe.livejournal.com/457823.html
