Home economics
If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
The Greek word oikos, from which our “economics” derives, describes home life. Economics started as the science of planting crops, doing chores, and managing the family. As work moved out of the home, this changed. Economics became the interrelationship between households in the marketplace. In fact, our commercial focus expanded so much that economics now excludes oikos!
We are often tempted by the allure of outsourcing our home economics to market economics, but the economic shift from oikos to market has led to subpar economic outcomes. Despite huge rises in GDP per capita in the West from the 1950s to now, people are far more likely to struggle with cost of living now than they did then? How is that possible?
Here’s my theory: Markets drives our economic system, but home economics add a lot of value that market economics cannot. Economic measures all too often ignore the value of work done outside of the marketplace. If we moved more economic activity from the markets to the oikos, we would be better off.
So let’s bring back “home economics.”
Domestic products are higher value than commercial products
Work done at home is often more valuable than work done by the most efficient possible labourer. For example, think of the difference between a freshly-cooked meal and ready-to-eat food. We may tell ourselves that the ingredients are the same, that they’re cooked by the same method, and that they have the same nutritional contents. In our hearts, we know that’s garbage. Fresh food is tastier and healthier. We may be able to produce more of it, but distributing food production to its most “efficient” location reduces the value of the food produced.
We can think of many more examples of the increased value of decentralised production: the backyard I landscaped is perfect for my hobbies; a homemade desk doesn’t have the emissions output of transporting a flatpack from China; my home-grown herbs are pesticide-free. These are all real, tangible benefits.
But the benefits of decentralised go beyond the tangible too.
I recently read a story in which an AI robot tells the kids bedtime stories. The author was a techno-optimist. To him, the robot was adding value - since the parents were too tired to tell the story themselves, the robot did it. Plausible! But even though we can’t measure a bedtime story in dollars, intuition shows us the problem with this scenario. The story the parents made up themselves is obviously more valuable.
We all know the difference between “a mother’s touch” and a sterile environment. The Irish constitution, in a controversial passage, reminds us of this: “By her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.” Without a mother’s touch, the common good can’t be achieved: The mother’s touch has value that the market cannot produce.
So next time you’re thinking of buying something you could make yourself, think of the full value, because market economics can’t provide all the value that home economics does. The ready-to-eat meal is not only €5 more expensive than cooking yourself. It’s also €2 less healthy, €1 less tasty, and €2 less satisfying. Add it all up, and you’ll make the choice for home economics a little more often.
Economic measures don’t reflect value
These improvements in product value are only part of what economic measures miss. For example, GDP doesn’t count labour that’s not done on the marketplace. A pair of trousers repaired with a patch doesn’t add to GDP. A pair of trousers thrown away and bought anew does. An enjoyable conversation with a friend doesn’t add to GDP. A Netflix subscription paid does. But in reality, they produced the same economic value (one pair of trousers; one month of entertainment).
Over the past fifty years, we have seen a large increase in female workforce participation, driving GDP growth. But female workforce participation does not measure the value women produce, it only measures the value women produce in the marketplace. So a lot of that “added value” was actually just a renaming. It shifted production from an economically-invisible column (home economics) to a visible one (market economics).
This shift from home economics to market economics results in good economic measures but bad economic outcomes. Consider two examples:
Despite a huge increase in personal wealth saved, we are facing a “pension crisis” all over the world: Old people do not have enough money saved to take care of themselves. This will cost huge amounts of GDP. How different would this look, if children worked just a little less, and took care of their elderly parents?
Despite a huge increase in personal income, we are facing a “childcare crisis:” Parents of young children have to slave away to make enough money for education. How different would this look, if workers worked just a little less, and took care of their children?
Despite a huge increase in GDP per person, we are facing a “cost of living crisis:” People, especially the low-income youth, feel unable to afford basic necessities. How different would this look, if it were acceptable to patch a pair of jeans instead of buying a new one?
My alternative scenarios would be bad for the “aged care” / “childcare” / “GDP” measures that market economists want to increase. But we would sure spend a lot less resources caring for people left at home, if we weren’t so busy chasing after resources in the market. It would be more efficient to shift more of our focus from market economics to home economics.
We can’t fix these issues ourselves. Some of them require broad social changes. But there are initiatives we can take ourselves. I have heard of home-schooling co-operatives where one parent teaches maths on Monday, and the other teaches science on Tuesdays. Local, grassroots initiatives like these may have the power to change society broadly. Certainly, though, they have the power to change your own life!
Outsourcing labour is not as efficient as it seems
Decentralising labour can also often be rather less efficient than it appears. Let’s say you have eight hours of chores to do, a maid costs $10/h, and you could earn $20/h doing the books at a local firm. Easy, right? Go work for four hours and take the afternoon off! Unfortunately, it’s not so easy.
Firstly, we need to convert your eight hours’ chores into money: We’ve said the maid costs $10 / hour - $80; She needs to travel for half an hour each way - now $90; You pay her employment taxes and HR costs, typically 100% of pay - $180; Add sales tax (11%, for easy calculation), and we get a total cost of $200.
Secondly, we convert that money back to your hours: We’ve said you earn twice as much as the maid, $20 / hour - 10h; After tax, you might keep $15/h - 13.3h; You also need to work for 40 minutes to manage her - 14h.
Thirdly, we add fringe benefits: Your spouse pays less income tax at the margin; You don’t have to deal with finding people to do the work; You get greater flexibility to do other things you don’t outsource.
After calculation, it seems like outsourcing chores costs about twice as many hours as doing them. That’s even if the market values your labour twice as highly as a maid’s. So, by working at home, you are 4x on value produced!
There are also less tangible costs involved with increasing market economics. Think of the physical and mental health benefits of mowing the lawn yourself. Think of the time you would have spent enjoying dinner instead of stressing about work. Think of the skills you develop by working on your car yourself.
This same calculation applies to all sorts of things we like to outsource. Was it efficient to buy takeaway, to hire a gardener, or to let the mechanic fix it? Perhaps. But it’s not as often the case as you’d think.
I encourage you to take a sceptical stance towards outsourcing your labour. And take a rather less sceptical approach to the economic cost-benefit analysis of a housewife. She may be producing 4x more value than you!
Bring back home economics!
Home economics classes, focussing on cooking, cleaning, sewing, and more, are a relic, the realm of the 1950s girl. I never had the chance to take one at school. But “home ec” reflects a forgotten reality: The oikos, the home, is key to the economy.
At the moment, our economics focus on the market, but domestic work adds a lot of value that you can’t get by outsourcing it to the market. We’d be a lot better off returning economic focus from the market to the oikos.
So bring back “home ec!”
For more on housewives, read ’s “The Workforce Participation Myth.”
Doing things yourself is really the only way to get out of the slavery society wants us in. Having that extra cushion of money, the skills, and confidence to do things yourself - the adaptability to circumstances - is what it takes. I haven't seen any other way to avoid Usurious debt and getting ahead than the blood, sweat, and tears of raising your own children, your own food, and doing your own housework.
If you haven't read his essay, Shadow Work by Ivan Illich, is a good one to read.