Good Manners

[JMohegan]

A good parent is worth a ton of money, but, and I'll use a subjective argument here, my parents both worked, and I came out OK*. So, the end results are the same even if someone doesn't spend their life being domestic.

Agreed on the part in bold. It therefore follows that a good parental surrogate (i.e., alternate caretaker) is worth a ton of money as well.

How do you know the results are the same? That's a silly assertion. It depends entirely on the individuals and circumstances involved.

Maybe your mother would have been unsuited, in either temperament or skill, for the full-time task of rearing children. Maybe she would have been miserable in the stayathome role, and ended up a neurotic, self-absorbed, whiny bitch, like Betty Draper! How could you possibly know?

 

[teknight]

Agreed on the part in bold. It therefore follows that a good parental surrogate (i.e., alternate caretaker) is worth a ton of money as well.

How do you know the results are the same? That's a silly assertion. It depends entirely on the individuals and circumstances involved.

Maybe your mother would have been unsuited, in either temperament or skill, for the full-time task of rearing children. Maybe she would have been miserable in the stayathome role, and ended up a neurotic, self-absorbed, whiny bitch, like Betty Draper! How could you possibly know?

JM, I've already conceded the point that it's worth paying a lot of money for a good parent-surrogate.

And I've admitted to using an individual example, which doesn't carry much weight as an argument.

What point are you making in you 3rd paragraph? I'm being dismissive of it in part 'cause it's past tense (I've been raised) and my mom's awesome, so I'm having a hard time seeing your point.

You can't predict future outcomes? Yes. You can't choose your parents. Yes. You can check a parent surrogates' credentials though....but you're talking about none of those...What are you saying.

 

[intothewoods]

This is true. Also true for men who are staying at home to care for aging parents. In both cases, the altruism in their actions seems to be completely missed.

But I think the real concern is that the stay-at-home dads are going to hit on their stay-at-home wives, don't you?

Oh yes, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was just pointing out how isolating it is to be a stay at home dad.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Yeah. Cleaning a house, from top to bottom, might take time, but, barring some major handicap anyone could do it. Do you need an intensive training period to mop or run a vacuum cleaner? What's so difficult about any part of cleaning a home?...other than it being a time consuming activity?

what's so difficult about writing computer code? because plenty of people who can write computer code, or rebuild a transmission, or re-set a broken arm cannot properly clean a house. it has as much to do with what one is naturally suited for as learned skill. and we won't even get into cooking...if not for fast food and ready-made meals at the local grocery and astonishing number of people would be literally unable to feed themselves adequately enough to sustain life.

Making sure the kids are fed and clothed and aren't killing themselves can be done by a bunch of people.

Yes, raising a child to be a good human being (or whatever your goal as a parent might be) takes a lot more than that, but, I meant nothing more than what I've just said. To keep the kids fed, clothed, and alive takes very little energy.

i can't even comment on that one. if you sincerely believe that, just wow.

 

[teknight]

what's so difficult about writing computer code? because plenty of people who can write computer code, or rebuild a transmission, or re-set a broken arm cannot properly clean a house. it has as much to do with what one is naturally suited for as learned skill. and we won't even get into cooking...if not for fast food and ready-made meals at the local grocery and astonishing number of people would be literally unable to feed themselves adequately enough to sustain life.



i can't even comment on that one. if you sincerely believe that, just wow.

Inclination to clean house.....Hmmmm....Some are lazy, or might find the job demeaning since it's "women's work", but yeah, the tasks of sweeping, vacuuming and doing the dishes are simple enough that everyone can do them.
I never mentioned cooking.

I never said those three things were all it took for one to be a good parent or caregiver. Nor will they result in great kids. They are a bare-minimum of what's necessary. But, yeah, to keep an eye on the kid and make sure they eat their meals doesn't take that much. You wouldn't be doing a terrific job of it, but you don't have to give 110% for the kid to be alive.

 

[the captians wench]

what's so difficult about writing computer code? because plenty of people who can write computer code, or rebuild a transmission, or re-set a broken arm cannot properly clean a house. it has as much to do with what one is naturally suited for as learned skill. and we won't even get into cooking...if not for fast food and ready-made meals at the local grocery and astonishing number of people would be literally unable to feed themselves adequately enough to sustain life.



i can't even comment on that one. if you sincerely believe that, just wow.

*giggles* Lord help me if the masses figure out they can cook hamburgers at home. I'd be out of a job!

 

[teknight]

Apologies

I don't know what you are reading in what I'm writing. I'm not saying that any of you are horrible housekeepers, or lousy parents. I'm making a few very simplistic arguments, which indicate a few economic facts. If you don't like that, sorry.

 

[JMohegan]

JM, I've already conceded the point that it's worth paying a lot of money for a good parent-surrogate.

And I've admitted to using an individual example, which doesn't carry much weight as an argument.

What point are you making in you 3rd paragraph? I'm being dismissive of it in part 'cause it's past tense (I've been raised) and my mom's awesome, so I'm having a hard time seeing your point.

You can't predict future outcomes? Yes. You can't choose your parents. Yes. You can check a parent surrogates' credentials though....but you're talking about none of those...What are you saying.

I am disagreeing with your assertion that "the end results are the same even if someone doesn't spend their life being domestic."

I think it depends. The results depend on the relative skill, temperament, proclivity, and circumstances of the adult in charge, as well as the type of environment in which the child finds him/herself for the majority of the day.

Is a nanny better than a stayathome mom? That depends on the nanny, and the mom. Maybe they would both be fantastic caregivers, maybe not. Maybe one would be far superior to the other. It depends on the individuals involved.

Is daycare the best choice for a child? Again, that depends on the available options.

Of course, implicit in your assertion is this notion that it really doesn't matter who spends the majority of the day with a child, as long as there's no criminal negligence involved. That's the real root of our disagreement here. I think it does matter. I think it matters quite a lot.

 

[intothewoods]

*giggles* Lord help me if the masses figure out they can cook hamburgers at home. I'd be out of a job!

Yeah, I kind of have a little more faith in the will to survive.

 

[teknight]

I am disagreeing with your assertion that "the end results are the same even if someone doesn't spend their life being domestic."

I think it depends. The results depend on the relative skill, temperament, proclivity, and circumstances of the adult in charge, as well as the type of environment in which the child finds him/herself for the majority of the day.

Is a nanny better than a stayathome mom? That depends on the nanny, and the mom. Maybe they would both be fantastic caregivers, maybe not. Maybe one would be far superior to the other. It depends on the individuals involved.

Is daycare the best choice for a child? Again, that depends on the available options.

Of course, implicit in your assertion is this notion that it really doesn't matter who spends the majority of the day with a child, as long as there's no criminal negligence involved. That's the real root of our disagreement here. I think it does matter. I think it matters quite a lot.

Again I never said that the bare minimum that I chose to argue for was good or beneficial for the child in the long term. No. They might wind up being delinquents and criminals, or doctors. Probably more of the former, but I have no stats to back up that claim.
Those 3 things I pointed towards are just a very poor bare minimum of what's necessary...and yet, that sort of crap happens in orphanages and foster care institutions the world over. It's sad, but it's true.

As for your last paragraph- yeah, I've said it already- bare minimum doesn't result in a good, well-raised child. A good parent is worth a lot of money. So, where's the disagreement?

 

[JMohegan]

Disagreement embedded in the bolded part of the post below. I disagree strongly with that notion.

To reiterate - we are talking about the value of services provided by a stayathome mom, nanny, daycare center employee, or alternate caretaker. The value of services provided by the person who cares for the child while the wage earner(s) is/are off earning wages - i.e., the person who cares for the child for the majority of the day.

Not to denigrate the people that do that work, but the high wages are more a result of high demand than inherent worth in the work. Anyone can clean a house....and a good deal of people wouldn't fuck up looking after a child too badly**, so, the work itself does not add that much value. Again, compare to your doctors and engineers and plumbers and artists*.


*I do not mean the Justin Biebers of the world!!
** on 2nd thought, being a good caretaker should commend a premium, 'cause there should be more than "feed the kid" and "make sure they don't kill/maim themselves" in the equation. However, if housekeepers do only the first two things, then, they're replaceable, and as such, aren't providing a lot of value..

 

[teknight]

Disagreement embedded in the bolded part of the post below. I disagree strongly with that notion.

To reiterate - we are talking about the value of services provided by a stayathome mom, nanny, daycare center employee, or alternate caretaker. The value of services provided by the person who cares for the child while the wage earner(s) is/are off earning wages - i.e., the person who cares for the child for the majority of the day.

And I was using a bare-minimum example. That sort of crap quality work doesn't add much value to the child or society.
And, yeah, cleaning house doesn't add that much value. Otherwise, cleaning staff would get paid more.

I apologize for the...obtuse language I used, although, you're focusing on only part of what I said, and taking it out of context too.

 

[JMohegan]

And I was using a bare-minimum example. That sort of crap quality work doesn't add much value to the child or society.
And, yeah, cleaning house doesn't add that much value. Otherwise, cleaning staff would get paid more.

I apologize for the...obtuse language I used, although, you're focusing on only part of what I said, and taking it out of context too.

I agree that crap work adds no value to the child or society.

What I don't understand is why you keep focusing on bare minimums, when I'm talking about the value of services provided by stayathome moms like ES. What point are you trying to make?

 

[teknight]

I agree that crap work adds no value to the child or society.

What I don't understand is why you keep focusing on bare minimums, when I'm talking about the value of services provided by stayathome moms like ES. What point are you trying to make?

Frankly, this tangent got away from me. I was initially replying to ...Braschi's(?) comments about the halcyon age when our forebears used to barely scrape by and how worthy that was. That's where the toil thing started. The forebears toiled but had squat to show for it, since their marginal product was low. They didn't produce much value (even though diminishing marginal returns would make one feel different).
Then ES felt that she toils in her daily life. She's entitled to the feeling, but it's not what I was talking about....and it all exploded from there.

 

[JMohegan]

Frankly, this tangent got away from me. I was initially replying to ...Braschi's(?) comments about the halcyon age when our forebears used to barely scrape by and how worthy that was. That's where the toil thing started. The forebears toiled but had squat to show for it, since their marginal product was low. They didn't produce much value (even though diminishing marginal returns would make one feel different).
Then ES felt that she toils in her daily life. She's entitled to the feeling, but it's not what I was talking about....and it all exploded from there.

Ack! Okay. Apparently we've been having different conversations. That happens!

To clarify, let me know if you agree with the following -


In 2010, IF a stayathome parent does a crap job taking care of the child while the wage earning spouse is at work, then the staying at home adds no value (and may, in fact, be a detriment). However, IF a stayathome parent does a great job taking care of the child while the wage earning spouse is at work, then the staying at home adds great value.

Substitute language relevant to childcare alternatives involving daycare, grandma, a nanny, a neighbor, or anyone else in the twin statements above, and the same conclusions apply.

 

[teknight]

Not to denigrate the people that do that work, but the high wages are more a result of high demand than inherent worth in the work. Anyone can clean a house....and a good deal of people wouldn't fuck up looking after a child too badly**, so, the work itself does not add that much value. Again, compare to your doctors and engineers and plumbers and artists*.


*I do not mean the Justin Biebers of the world!!
** on 2nd thought, being a good caretaker should commend a premium, 'cause there should be more than "feed the kid" and "make sure they don't kill/maim themselves" in the equation. However, if housekeepers do only the first two things, then, they're replaceable, and as such, aren't providing a lot of value.

ETA: back to the toil thing: I was talking about the middle ages and before, not modern day housewives/husbands. But, whatev'.

The Underlined/Italicized text is where the drama started, actually...but it's all clarified on my 2nd thought- see the Italicized/Emboldened/Underlined part.

Ack! Okay. Apparently we've been having different conversations. That happens!

To clarify, let me know if you agree with the following -


In 2010, IF a stayathome parent does a crap job taking care of the child while the wage earning spouse is at work, then the staying at home adds no value (and may, in fact, be a detriment). However, IF a stayathome parent does a great job taking care of the child while the wage earning spouse is at work, then the staying at home adds great value.

Substitute language relevant to childcare alternatives involving daycare, grandma, a nanny, a neighbor, or anyone else in the twin statements above, and the same conclusions apply.

I've agreed with you many posts before. See above.
But in case the language up there was confusing (seems to happen in online shouting matches), let me reiterate. A 2010 parent/childcare alternative that does a great job adds great value (hence, should commend a premium). Doing a crab job is detrimental. Are we clear now?

 

[Braschi]

What you said was:

And again, I'll ask, where the heck do you live?

Here's one example, just one.

http://www.toysrus.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=2289910

Click boys, and then girls, and then come on back and try that again.


As for your tale of a psychologist and a high school with recess, I'd say all involved missed the salient points entirely. Those being:

1 - It is imperative for all healthy adults to have a means of supporting themselves, i.e., the capacity to hold down a paying job, earn rent, money for food, etc.

2 - One prepares oneself for a job or career with college/university/vocational training.

3 - "Housewife" and "househusband" are not paying jobs. They are a means of sharing responsibilities within a committed relationship.

4 - Even those who dream of performing the role of housewife or househusband must prepare for the possibility of delayed marriage, no marriage, divorce, unemployed or underemployed or low wage earning spouse, etc. Hence 1 & 2 remain imperative for everybody - regardless of gender.

That's not androgyny. That's common sense.

.

That was where I used to live, and it was a back-water third world country.

Anyway, I agree with you here; which is why I was initially supporting the psychologist (I believe I said this). Why I ended up on the other spectrum, however, was because everyone found that the choice of "housewife" first and evidently some means of employment second, as "wrong" at the same time arguing that everyone has the right to choose.

If everyone has the right to choose what to do in their lives and how to live their relationships, then we need to respect that to a degree, and yes, suggest that they take care of themselves. But the operative word being "suggest". Not harass.

Okay, so now you're insinuating that fluidity between the two ends of the gender spectrum means... that people are going to want to stop looking sexy to somebody?

You seem awfully offended by the idea of people not wanting to exclusively pick one or the other and follow through with all of the trappings and stereotypes...

Nope, not at all. I'm offended by people who denigrate those who actually happen to fit in a stereotype. Or like the trappings of fitting in the stereotype model.

In some contexts it is inappropriate and illegal to treat people differently because of their gender. That's not androgyny. At any rate, does that mean people are able to ignore all differences in gender? Hardly.

Your scenario is indicative of the default assumption that women and men alike should choose a career path for themselves. As you point out, there is no guarantee that you will find someone who wants and can afford to support you will you raise the children. Unfortunately, husbands may die, or become ill or disabled or laid off or any other host of reasons why you should have some means of providing for yourself. Now, the choice to stay at home and raise your children is sometimes denigrated. And yet, like I said in an earlier post, many women of a certain class and income level do leave the workforce and stay at home. When the time comes, it's not like you've chosen to go work for the circus or live on a commune. Your classmate will have found plenty who have made the same choice, and plenty of validation for that choice.

Yep. Heh, most of my former classmates are unemployed, and lots live with their parents. Actually, one of the most vocal of the anti-houswife group is now himself a househusband But that's "temporary, as he can't get work". I should look up what actually happened to that girl...

(Dude, I was also a stunt person for a lot of years, so, yeah, I think I can take care of myself juuuuuusst fine, thankyouverymuch.)

Awesome! I've always been curious about that kind of work. You're my kind of girl

What's this common courtesy you speak of? And what democratic election made it so common?
No one's saying you can't be courteous- the question is "What does it mean to be courteous?"

Those people back in the day didn't choose to live in shit. As such, their actions aren't saintly, nor heroic. The foremothers would have loved living as their modern counterparts, given the choice (which they lacked).
Toil isn't a sign of worthiness- get that obsolete idea out out of your head....or give up all the modern trappings, and be "pious/worthy." And here's why I know this to be a fact: if toil were somehow a good, then we'd have stuck with it, instead of creating all this modern machinery to perform the work for us. Toil only means that you're incapable of producing much of value.


Way to make stuff up:
People take off their hats 'cause medieval knights wanted to be recognized on the battlefield. they'd take off their helmets, or raise their visors so people would recognize them. It was a defense mechanism, a survival thing- they didn't wanna be killed by their fellow benighted knights (who, really, were a bunch of dumb brutes, for the most part). They were the masters of their day, and people would emulate their behavior to curry favor.
The Victorians were a bunch of stuck up, gilded idiots, who chose to mark "chivalric behavior" as something worthy of distinction.
And WTF is this shit about feminists denigrating wars? Listen here, you armchair Bohemian corporal, WAR IS HELLl. There's nothing redeeming about it, there's nothing heroic about. It's abject and disgusting. It's death, pain, disease, rape, famine and filth. If feminists want to obliterate it from society's make up, I say, more power to them.
But, don't listen to me: Chivalry died on the battlefield, in 1914. It was mowed down by German machine guns- efficient machines that signified progress.


And you just assumed everything about this character as well. Good job disproving your own point.

I think it's just sad that you can't express yourself correctly, 'cause, frankly, it's disrespecting your reader, your audience. But that's ad hominem and, as such, uncouth. When did you get to decide what "manners" are? Your phrasing is, once again, insulting, since, you come off as the authority on this stuff. Guess what? You're not.

You changed your behavior and you feel good about it. You've resolved your cognitive dissonance. Want an award?


Yeah, they present their fabricated notions as some sort of holy writ. You're right. You're not respectful at all.

Respect is not about acting like a machine in a given set of social situations. 'cause, if it is so, then those automatic doors at WalMart are some of the most well mannered things in the world. What you define as respect is merely an internal process: you perceive a situation, you react to it, and you feel good about it. Good job on being selfish and immature. Respect is about acknowledging the other person (which requires patience and brains). That's difficult, and, in a diverse society, it might not always be possible (with cantankerous nit pickers like me, it might be nigh impossible), but that's alright, 'cause tomorrow's another day.

And...if you wanna respect yourself, have the decency to learn and grow and adapt. Don't be a machine.

OK, I'll admit to not doing the best job at expressing myself. But, honestly, your reading comprehension has to be at least as bad.

Where did I say that feminists denigrate w- wait, where in the hell was I extolling the virtues of war? Seriously, all I said was that men went into battle for Queen and Country -with all the horrific things that implies- and somehow that's glorifying war? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[JMohegan]

The Underlined/Italicized text is where the drama started, actually...but it's all clarified on my 2nd thought- see the Italicized/Emboldened/Underlined part.

I've agreed with you many posts before. See above.
But in case the language up there was confusing (seems to happen in online shouting matches), let me reiterate. A 2010 parent/childcare alternative that does a great job adds great value (hence, should commend a premium). Doing a crab job is detrimental. Are we clear now?

For the record, I haven't been shouting.

Your language about commanding a premium wasn't confusing, all by itself. It was when you followed it up with this post to ES that I became confused as to your opinion on the value of childcare.

The following will be denigrating:
Mind boggling? No. People have been raising kids for hundreds of thousands of years, without a ton of knowledge. Does a good modern day parent strive to learn as much as possible in order to be a good parent? Do we put more energy into raising our kids 'cause we choose to raise fewer of them, since medicine and sanitation mean they'll live past 2 years old? Sure. But that doesn't mean that raising a kid is a science, or that it needs to be hard work (regardless of how harrowing it'd seem to someone that does it day to day).

And what's "working knowledge" actually mean?

 

[teknight]

OK, I'll admit to not doing the best job at expressing myself. But, honestly, your reading comprehension has to be at least as bad.

Where did I say that feminists denigrate w- wait, where in the hell was I extolling the virtues of war? Seriously, all I said was that men went into battle for Queen and Country -with all the horrific things that implies- and somehow that's glorifying war? Don't be ridiculous.

*Sigh* Quick request: could you just quote the relevant parts? Cuts down on a ton of text, and lets your reader know exactly what you're addressing. That'd be good manners on a forum.

Feminists/ War:

Granted, by then most of her power was vested in Parliament, but that didn't stop hundreds of thousands of men going into battle for "Queen and Country". Funny how "feminists" conveniently forget those parts of history.

If you just say they went to war for Queen and Country, after talking about chivalry, it sounds like you're extolling war. Whether you said that or not, my claim has some basis in your post, what with the largest empire and her Italicized Majesty.

Let's make this explicit since my powers of comprehension are so flawed:
What are those good for nothing destructive feminists omitting from their history books? What parts of history did they forget?

 

[Braschi]

*Sigh* Quick request: could you just quote the relevant parts? Cuts down on a ton of text, and lets your reader know exactly what you're addressing. That'd be good manners on a forum.

Sure thing, ol' boy:

What are those good for nothing destructive feminists omitting from their history books? What parts of history did they forget?

The red represents additions that misrepresent what I was (attempting) to say.

1) I did not say that feminists were good for nothing or destructive.
2) I did not say they wrote their own, biased history books.
3) I did not say or imply that they forgot history, but that they forgot to mention the parts that weren't particularly to their convenience. A rather common tactic employed by most political institutions.

Maybe if you didn't add so much into what I was (again, attempting) to say, it'd be a bit easier to understand?

 

[teknight]

For the record, I haven't been shouting.

Your language about commanding a premium wasn't confusing, all by itself. It was when you followed it up with this post to ES that I became confused as to your opinion on the value of childcare.

You weren't shouting. True. But are you going to tell me that all parents throughout history have had the ability and means to be as good as one can be in 2010? I'm just trying to tie it back to your previous post.
And I was reacting to a vague (and thus ominous to me) statement by ES: "Parents need a working knowledge of medicine, nutrition, education and psychology."
Again- throughout history, people have raised kids without a lick of medical knowledge, nutritional contents of foods and psychology. Let's argue that education is time period specific, so, that's a moot point. Regardless, these 4 quintessential parenting skills (much as they might be worthwhile today) haven't always been necessary (nor available) for kids to develop into adults, correct? That's what led to my further reductionist claims.

And her claim was ominous because, what constitutes "working knowledge"? Who decides? The parent? By mere virtue of being a parent? I'm putting words in her mouth, but, still such a vague statement still leaves room for a lot of interpretation. Granted, I'm not a parent, nor am I due to be one. As such, I've not looked up what resources are available, but pardon me if I'd chose to defer to specialists (much as they're fallible humans) on such topics as medicine and nutrition, and not assume that whatever I've cobbled together as "working knowledge" is adequate. (Ha. I probably sound like a nervous first time parent .)
I also happen to have a degree in Psych. It's only a Bachelor's, so it carries very little weight (I'm basically qualified to do jack in the field of psych, and I'll be the first to admit it), but saying that "parents have a working knowledge of psychology" is, frankly, insulting and mind-boggling. (I don't hold degrees in those other fields, or I'd probably feel as strongly.) The mere fact that, as a human being, you learn how to interact with kids, or, that as a human animal you know how to interact with your own young, and react to them, doesn't give you a working knowledge of anything.
Pardon me if going out and reading whatever's on the shelf at Borders or your local library doesn't automatically constitute good knowledge- regardless of how many PhDs the writer claims to have or what rank the book holds in Amazon's standings.
</rant>
Back to the point at hand (and pardon the repetition): all that "knowledge" and all these parenting skills one can acquire today may have been absent throughout most of human history- and yet kids still survived and grew and developed into "functional" adults- I use "" because what was considered normal 1000 years ago wouldn't fly today necessarily, so I'm just pointing out the disconnect-.

Should a good parent do their utmost? Totally. Is it absolutely necessary? I'd say history'd indicate otherwise.

 

[teknight]

The red represents additions that misrepresent what I was (attempting) to say.

3) I did not say or imply that they forgot history, but that they forgot to mention the parts that weren't particularly to their convenience. A rather common tactic employed by most political institutions.

Maybe if you didn't add so much into what I was (again, attempting) to say, it'd be a bit easier to understand?

Yeah, I added stuff to show my take on what you're saying-by showing my biases, I'm showing you how you're coming across to me.

You still haven't clarified anything. What exactly are feminists not mentioning? Queen Victoria's huge empire?
What do ancient men going to war for Queen and country have to do with feminism?

And, btw, since you reference a feminist agenda, that you disagree with- that makes that agenda malevolent (or, at the very least bad) for you. And how are the feminist disseminating their agenda as a political institution, if not through books?
Good ol' boys wanna know.

 

[JMohegan]

You weren't shouting. True. But are you going to tell me that all parents throughout history have had the ability and means to be as good as one can be in 2010?

Nope.

As we've already determined, we were, regrettably and unwittingly, engaging in two distinct conversations.

 

[the captians wench]

Frankly, this tangent got away from me. I was initially replying to ...Braschi's(?) comments about the halcyon age when our forebears used to barely scrape by and how worthy that was. That's where the toil thing started. The forebears toiled but had squat to show for it, since their marginal product was low. They didn't produce much value (even though diminishing marginal returns would make one feel different).
Then ES felt that she toils in her daily life. She's entitled to the feeling, but it's not what I was talking about....and it all exploded from there.

*relevant parts bold-ed for your convenience per your post on forum manners*

Personally, I believe hard work has a lot of value, be it physical labor or something that commands monetary rewards. If we base value solely on how much money a certain act brings we are missing all of the soft dollars that add in.

A good housekeeper does more than keep your place tidy. They keep you healthy. Think about all the dust mites and allergens that would build up if your place wasn't dusted properly. Let's say you do the "bare minimum", you don't move anything out of place, only clean around it. Think of all the mites that could fester themselves under your love seat. Sure you never see it, but you would notice eventually when you have more respiratory infections, which lead you to need medical attention, which costs that hard cash you seem to think is the only measure of value.

And what about cleaning the oven, is that a bare minimum? If not those drippings will attract bugs. Roaches can cause stomach ailments before you even know they are there. Which again means more trips to the doctor and more use of hard dollars.

So if you are speaking solely in hard dollars, you're missing the point of value. Value considers the soft dollars. Profit and loss considers soft dollars. A hard worker is valuable.

 

[teknight]

Nope.

As we've already determined, we were, regrettably and unwittingly, engaging in two distinct conversations.

It's Ok. I can accept that you were wrong!
I'm kidding, btw, and nothing more! It's just a joke, whether a good one or not.

I'm starting to get a feeling that this sort of drawn out back and forth is what's necessary for understanding in a forum based discussion....barring some preset time out where all the terms are neatly defined...(which would probably look much like the exchange we've just had).