• OurToothbrushM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The three sector model bends over backwards to not acknowledge marxist economics that make more sense here. You really should read marx on the theory of labor value and commodity production. There is no such thing as a raw material.

    Now, housework. The argument in favor of including things like housework is more that economics was founded by men with men in mind. They weren’t necessarily thinking of “women’s work” as something with much value. Factoring it in attaches a value, regardless of who actually does it.

    It also provides a more accurate picture. Let’s say someone has a choice. In scenario A, they stay home, cook, clean, raise the kids, and generally act as homemaker. In scenario B, they have a job, pay a cleaning service, buy prepared food, and send the kids to daycare. If you’re just measuring GDP, scenario B is going to be clearly better because more transactions happen. But if you measure their labor in scenario A, you will get a clearer picture.

    This is a good example.

    For political reasons I do believe it should be measured, however for the purpose of a forum discussion it is a very complicated topic where it would be better to just exclude domestic service work given the data we have right now doesn’t in any way measure domestic work outside the formal economy.

    If you’re interested in developing your ideas further from this good starting point I would really suggest picking up some writings of Alexandria Kollontai or reading transgender Marxism.