This Op-Ed from the NY Times yesterday sparked some major office discussion this morning. The premise is this: a few European countries offer a U.B.I or universal basic income to provide a steady cost of living income to qualifying people. The argument in this article is that women deserve a U.B.I. as reparation for “reproductive labor.”
“The feminist argument for a U.B.I. is that it’s a way to reimburse mothers and other caregivers for the heavy lifting they now do free of charge. Roughly one-fifth of Americans have children 18 or under. Many also attend to ill or elderly relatives. They perform these labors out of love or a sense of duty, but still, at some point during the diaper-changing or bedpan cleaning, they have to wonder why their efforts aren’t seen as “work.” Disproportionately, of course, these caregivers are women. Notwithstanding the advent of the stay-at-home dad, it’s still mothers who do most of the invisible labor of cleaning, schlepping, scheduling and listening.”
Interesting, right. The author, Judith Shulevitz, goes on to say that the whole argument about working mothers and work place flexibility is misguided. It’s not that being out of the workplace should be seen as detrimental in fact, it should be valued and monetarily rewarded by society.
“…the problem is not that employers hate women and children. It’s that they make a common assumption about motherhood: It’s a lifestyle choice, not a wage-worthy job, and no one other than parents should pay for it.”
What do you think? We would love to hear from our network about their thoughts on the U.B.I. Respond on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/The-Second-Shift-346930705470892/?ref=bookmarks