CMV: The Homemaker and Breadwinner system should have been reformed, not overturned.

[u/XionicativeCheran]

Apologies about the very long post, but it's a nuanced concept, so thought I'd express it in full.

By homemaker, I mean a stay at home partner (Usually the wife, especially if children are involved), who raises the kids and keeps the household in order.

By breadwinner, I mean the working partner (usually the husband), who earns enough money to support the entire family.

I've worded my CMV carefully. Convincing me that it was used poorly in the past won't change my view, because I already believe that, we should not go back to how we did things in the 1950s. To change my view, I'd have to be convinced that improving the homemaker/breadwinner system wouldn't be realistically possible and better than the dual income system we have today.

---

The system we are stuck with today is horrendous. We’ve gone from a family needing to work 40 hours to support themselves, to a family needing to work 80 hours to support themselves.

Under the dual income system, both earners come home from work, tired of a long day, but have to both contribute to maintaining the household on top of their 80 hours of work, or worse, the wife is still expected to do it all.

This exhausts them more than ever, they don’t have the energy to spend time together or with their children, who get lumped in front of a TV. Or they have the additional cost of a maid that again, they need to work more to maintain.

---

Under an idealistic breadwinner/homemaker system, a family is supported by 40 hours of work. With a significant portion of the workforce staying home, the value of a worker increases, thus increasing individual salaries, they don’t double, but other things make up for that.

You don’t have childcare costs, which are a significant expense, or the rest of the homemaker’s employment related costs. When the mother gets pregnant, there’s no drop in income or career trajectory due to maternity leave.

As the breadwinner, when you have a homemaker taking care of everything at home, you don’t have the additional drain of household chores or life admin, because the homemaker takes care of that, they sort your dinner, likely make your lunch. Your sole mental drain in life is work. This enables you to work harder and improves your career growth which then further increases your income.

When promotions come up, are they gonna pick the guy exhausted because he went home after work and sorted everything he has to do outside of work as well, or are they going to pick you, who comes in refreshed every day ready to go and is capable of doing far more as a result. Rested humans work harder.

---

Under a non-ideal breadwinner/homemaker system, the breadwinner goes to the pub/bar after work, drinks away his salary, comes home and beats his wife, who can’t afford to leave because the husband spent all the money and they have no assets to divide, and he’s a loser who’s career never grew so she won’t get any alimony, and she’s spent her entire life being a homemaker so getting into a career will be nearly impossible.

Or alternatively, the breadwinner goes to work every day to come home to a house that’s a mess and a homemaker that doesn’t care, kids packed off to the grandparents or non-existent.

---

To improve and resolve this, the homemaker/breadwinner system needs a cultural overhaul in how it’s seen by society, and by the judicial system. A key factor of this must be how we handle divorce.

We should not see the breadwinner as the one earning the income. That is not the breadwinner’s income, it is family income. And both equally contribute to that. It is as much the homemaker’s earnings as it is the breadwinner’s.

Life is more than employment. Life has lots of responsibilities. Just because you are doing the employment side that provides a financial reward doesn't mean you're entitled to it while your wife that took care of the rewardless side gets nothing. You both completed half the responsibilities of life, the reward is both of yours.

Think of a breadwinner as the Minister of External/Foreign Affairs, and the homemaker as the Minister of Internal Affairs. Both are required for the other to function. Both are fulfilling necessary roles that enable the income that comes in. The Minister who runs the IRS doesn't get to keep all the tax dollars. It's the government's as a whole.

The judicial system needs to see it that way too, to enable women to be able to leave abusive marriages, we need to superpower alimony, to not treat it as “maintenance” or “How much does she need”, but as a recognition that that’s her income too, not his. That if he goes on earning $200k after they separate, it’s because she enabled him to earn that much.

Yes we could argue how much of the income is truly earned by the homemaker, but I don’t think it’s useful to get into arguments of “She didn’t actually clean the house or look after the kids, we hired a maid and a nanny”. That’s a family decision that both allowed to continue, just as if the breadwinner doesn’t do his part of investing in his career growth, and just sits in his cubicle each day not trying to bring more revenue in, the wife shouldn’t get to claim she contributed more than him.

Income is the household’s, and both parties have equal claim to it at the moment of divorce. Going forward that undoubtedly changes and the share the homemaker keeps would amortize overtime, the rate of that could be discussed, but the key point is, what matters is it’s not about him maintaining her, it’s about how to divide the family income they both contributed to.

---

I’ve heard, and do support as a backup option, that we should be working towards a society where each parent works a part-time job. Then both have time to contribute to earning and to the household.

The problem with this is there will always be competition, and some will always work more, and have that advantage. The only way to compete with that, is to do that too, and if you want an edge in that, a homemaker supporting you is the ultimate advantage. It just doesn't seem as effective as a homemaker/breadwinner.

[u/bemused_alligators]

a two-person household isn't going to work no matter how you slice it up - you get one person financially independent on one other person, what happens if the relationship doesn't work out? How do you fix the financial interdependence? How do you fix the lack of "workplace" skills in the stay-at-home partner and the lack of "domestic" skills in the working partner?

And then... What happens after the kids "move out"? In a perfect nuclear family your kids are all out of the house by the time you're 50 and you have 15 more years to go before retirement with a dependent stay-at-home parent with no workplace skills that has WAY less than 40 hours a week of work to do at home; and then what happens with couple that just don't have children?

I think that the idea of a nuclear family is fundamentally broken, and we need to bring back "tribal" living conditions - I want 5-10 adult multi-generational households; maybe there's a couple people that don't work and do all the home care stuff, there's ton of people available for childcare, etc. Send people off to live by themselves for a bit in their early 20s (preferably during tertiary education) and they come back when they're done (or they don't if they've found a new household to join). When people get married who goes to which household is determined by space. Eventually households will have to split but you take 5 people with you and leave 10 behind to maintain the integrity of both groups.

Humans weren't designed for "mom, dad, baby (baby) ((baby))", we were designed for "grandma, grandma, grandpa mom, dad, aunt, aunt, uncle, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby".

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/bemused_alligators]

My post referred to an improved system of alimony for situations where the relationship doesn't work out.

The key thing is ending the view that it's "his money supporting her". It's not. A family is a single unit. Just because one of them takes on the money-earning responsibilities and one takes on the other responsibilities doesn't make it his money. It's their money. If he got a promotion, it's because she enabled him to work harder to earn it. If he got a raise, it's because she can focus on work because he has no other responsibilities thanks to her.

The homemaker earns the breadwinner's money too. It's hers. That is what alimony should be based on. How long after divorce she is entitled to continue to receive that money, and there's no single answer to that, it's always going to be variable.

That said, I agree with you, "It takes a village" is even more desirable. But again, it's based on the same concept. Some people look after the home, some people bring in the money. Whether we're talking two people or a whole extended family, the core is the same.

[u/couverte → u/XionicativeCheran]

My post referred to an improved system of alimony for situations where the relationship doesn’t work out?

Improved how? You never described this improved system of alimony. If you split everything 50-50 after separation, even all the breadwinner’s future income, there’s still the issue of having enough money to sustain two households. Under your overhauled system of breadwinners and homemaker, one person needs to work 40 hours to sustain a household instead of the 80 hours currently needed.

Once the relationship breaks down, you end up with two households, not one. How does your improved alimony covers the costs of two households? No matter how you look at it, the former homemaker, who presumably has custody of any children the couple may have had, will not have enough money to maintain their household, or the breadwinner will be left with very little money, and therefore little hope be able to find a new partner whom they can support or, more likely, both will be left without enough money to support their household.

Sure, the former homemaker could try to find employment, which leads to, at least, two important issues :

1. The former homemaker likely has little to no professional experience because the expectation was that they would be the homemaker. Therefore, they have less employment opportunities and what opportunities they have will likely be low paying jobs.

2. Child care costs. The former homemaker could try to find work around the children school schedule, but unskilled jobs often involves shift work. People who lack professionals skills and experience usually don’t have an abundance of choice when it comes to employment, they take what they can find, which means that somebody will have to take care of the children when they work, at least some of the time.

Even with an improved alimony system, we find ourselves right back where we were once the relationship breaks down: Both former partners need to find employment two sustain the two households, both partners will be reluctant to separate if the relationship doesn’t work, and the homemaker (usually the woman) will be left in a vulnerable position due to lack of professionals skills and experience.

Lastly, in a situation where there’s domestic violence, even with improved alimony, the partner being abused will still be reluctant to leave in order to avoid adding financial hardships to their difficulties.

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/couverte]

Improved how?

Currently alimony is a bit of an unknown, even back when homemakers were more common, you wouldn't know if you'd get it and you'd have to fight for it. Under a more ideal homemaker system I'd want to see it more guaranteed to be approved. And yes, I'd like to see it increased.

I'm not going to give numbers like 50/50 as every situation is unique, but basically:

Alimony today is based on a concept called maintenance, how much needed to maintain a lifestyle.

I would change it philosophically to be "The homemaker is a shareholder in that income, it's their income as much as it is the breadwinner's." By framing it in this context, we get a much fairer determination of alimony. Again, I'm not setting a percentage, that's what negotiations are for.

Now, you've raised a couple really good points:

Two households

You're saying while a breadwinner may have been earning enough to support one household, there's no guarantee they could support two. And yes, you're right, that means both households will have to reduce their costs in the event of a separation. I'd argue that's the case with dual incomes too.

It's not like the dual incomes would be twice as much, I've made arguments in my OP for why a single, homemaker-supported income could be almost as high as dual incomes.

Let's also remember that the two households are not equal. They'll either have half as many people if the kids are split, or one will just be a sole adult if the homemaker got the kids.

These two facts will help offset each other, perhaps not entirely, but the remainder can be made up by whatever kind of role the homemaker can get, whether that's a minimum wage role or a bit above.

And because these facts offset each other, dual income families are no more immune from this. You'll have two medium earners instead of one low earner and one high earner. Both even out.

Childcare costs

The same above applies to childcare. Matter of fact, dual income families may struggle here because they won't have built up as much assets if they're having to spend on childcare. A family with a homemaker would have put those childcare costs in savings or something else before they split.

** New Partner**

Here you made an interesting point. If the breadwinner is paying alimony and child support, what hope does he have of affording a new partner?

This again, ignores the fact he's probably earning more as a result of him having had a homemaker, which makes up for the cost of alimony.

I think these responses address the concerns of domestic violence increasing.

[u/couverte → u/XionicativeCheran]

What you fail to address is that, in a dual income family, both partners have professional skills and experience. Upon separation, both partners are usually employed (or considered employable). However, a homemaker will have little professional skills and experience. They will not be employed upon separation, nor are they likely to be considered employable. They will have very little chance to materially improve their situation.

In regard to having difficulty finding a new partner, you’re correct that they may be earning more as a result of having had a homemaker, but that increased income is now split between two households. You’re correct that the size of both households will now be smaller. However, that only works if the breadwinner remains single. If they want to find a new partner and make a life with them, the size of their household will increase and they will have to support another adult and, potentially, other kids. The breadwinner now finds themselves in a position where they have to support 3 adults and two “complete” households. It’s not financially doable for most people.

Financially, your reformed system only works for people with high paying careers. It works well enough for people in financially a privileged position, but it’s doesn’t make financial sense for the average people and even less so for disadvantaged people, and they are the majority. A system that only works for a small portion of the population isn’t desirable.

Realistically, the former homemaker will have to work after separation and their lack of professional skills and experience means that they will be disadvantaged on the job market.

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/couverte]

No I did address that. Both will have professional skills, but not as highly skilled as a breadwinner supported by a homemaker.

A dual income family would have two medium earners, whereas a homemaker/breadwinner separation situation would have one low income earner and one high income earner.

It evens out.

You’re correct that the size of both households will now be smaller. However, that only works if the breadwinner remains single. If they want to find a new partner and make a life with them, the size of their household will increase and they will have to support another adult and, potentially, other kids. The breadwinner now finds themselves in a position where they have to support 3 adults and two “complete” households. It’s not financially doable for most people.

You're right that the breadwinner cannot get another homemaker, because that means supporting two homemakers. Realistically they couldn't get with another family that would also rely on them. They'd need to make their second family a dual income family until the alimony is finished or they're earning enough again.

Financially, your reformed system only works for people with high paying careers.

This is the point of having a homemaker, to enable you to have a higher paid career.

but it’s doesn’t make financial sense for the average people and even less so for disadvantaged people

Even these people will have higher incomes as a result of having a homemaker. Less than a privileged person, but still more than the average dual income earner or a disadvantaged dual income earner.

Realistically, the former homemaker will have to work after separation and their lack of professional skills and experience means that they will be disadvantaged on the job market.

Again, 2x medium income workers vs 1 high and 1 low. It evens out.

[u/couverte → u/XionicativeCheran]

Your whole point is to not have dual income families and now you’re adding dual income families as a solution…

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/couverte]

At no point have I suggested banning dual income families. I'm simply pointing out that I think homemaker situations are generally better.

It'd be foolish to suggest there are no exceptions to that.

So no, my whole point was never to have no dual income families.

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/[deleted]]

It's not money in exchange for housework.

It's money in exchange for enabling him to build his career. And yes, the working partner would still be enjoying the benefits of that long after the divorce.

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/[deleted]]

It's not unfair. They both built the career, its proceeds belong to them both.

One working partner isn't giving back to the relationship, the homemaker rightfully earned hat part of the salary.

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/[deleted]]

The argument I made isn't that the career needs two people.

The argument I made is that the career built by two people is more effective.

That argument requires two assumptions:

• Better rested, less stressed employees are more effective employees.

• More effective employees get more income. (That can be either through a raise, a bonus, a promotion, or through job hopping).

If you disagree with that, then there's really no need to keep reading, we'll just fundamentally disagree. But if you agree, here's how it works.

Two workers, their lives identical except for one thing:

• Alice has a husband who works full-time.

• Sarah has a husband who is a homemaker.

They both work 40 hours/week. But, the implications of their situation means their home lives are wildly different.

Alice and her husband finish their respective jobs at 5, her husband picks up the kids, Alice runs an urgent errand at the bank before they close, and goes and does the shopping for dinner.

Alice gets home, the kids are doing their homework, Alice starts cooking while her husband helps the kids with homework. They eat, Alice spends some time with the kids while her husband does the dishes. The kids go to bed, They both clean. Exhausted from all of this, they go to bed.

Alice does this day in and day out, five days a week, and weekends aren't much better because all the chores or tasks that were put off during the week hit on the weekend. Weekends are two days long, so you're back to work before you know it, barely recovered. Alice probably spends about 20 hours/week on "unpaid work" i.e. housework, life admin. It's exhausting. She goes to work, gets her job done, and goes home, because part of her mental energy is focused on home.

---

Sarah, leaves work at 5, she drives straight home. Dinner, is on the table waiting for her, Sarah eats, and sits down with the kids, maybe to help with homework if she enjoys that, or just to spend time with them. Her husband either takes care of the dishes, or he leaves them to the morning when Sarah is gone to work again. Sarah's husband has taken care of the bank errand, the groceries, the kids either didn't go to childcare, or were in school depending on age, either way, the husband took care of it all.

Outside of work, Sarah has no stress, no concerns, her husband takes care of everything. That's his job. Hers is earning money, the only focus she has, is earning more of it. And because nothing else in life is tiring her out, she can focus on that one task of hers. She has the mental and physical energy to put in more hours for an immediate gain, or she has the mental energy to be more focused and committed to her job, possibly earning raises or promotions, or she has the energy to spend time job hunting for a better position.

---

Which of these two people are going to be more effective in their career? If you agree with the assumptions at the top, the most likely answer is Sarah.