Bryan Caplan argues the 50/50 husband/wife domestic work norm runs afoul of the principle of comparative advantage.
What if a man has a much higher wage than his wife, but can’t clean, cook, or shop to save his life? Should he still do half the cleaning, cooking, and shopping? Wouldn’t husband and wife alike be better off if he specialized in bringing home the bread, and she specialized in baking it?
Well, maybe not. Maybe the wife would be better off with the sense of increased social status and independence that comes from labor market participation. Maybe the wife hates cooking and cleaning and would like to realize some of her potential as a human being through satisfying work that engages her talents. Imagine a possible world in which Bryan makes less than his wife. Is he making pot roast?
Moreover, part of the 50/50 point is about social expectations. If girls are expected and encouraged to semi-specialize in domestic labor and boys are expected and encouraged to specialize completely in some kind of non-domestic career and always burn the toast, it comes as no surprise when it turns out that it is generally more efficient for the husband to head to the office while the wife heads to the kitchen. But in this kind of case, the efficiency of the arrangement is evidence of a prior injustice, not of general hunky-doryness.
As Heinlein said, “Specialization is for insects.”
Any man who “can’t clean, cook, or shop to save his life” has chosen to be an insect.
As Heinlein said, “Specialization is for insects.”
Any man who “can’t clean, cook, or shop to save his life” has chosen to be an insect.
Also, false dichotomy alert. Why does either of them have to specialize in cooking, cleaning, and shopping? Why couldn’t they be better off both specializing in bringing home the bread, and using the resultant increased income to get takeout meals, hire a maid service, and pay delivery fees?
Also, false dichotomy alert. Why does either of them have to specialize in cooking, cleaning, and shopping? Why couldn’t they be better off both specializing in bringing home the bread, and using the resultant increased income to get takeout meals, hire a maid service, and pay delivery fees?
On the other hand, there’s nothing magically best about the 50/50 distribution. It smacks of dogmatic egalitarianism to me.
Couples should figure out what distribution works best for them (and it will probably change over time).
On the other hand, there’s nothing magically best about the 50/50 distribution. It smacks of dogmatic egalitarianism to me.
Couples should figure out what distribution works best for them (and it will probably change over time).
Comparative advantage is a good way to look at the problem. To translate 50/50 to “exactly half of every task” is a logical jump akin to the argument that trade causes inequality — a complete blindness to the notion that bargaining and trade can improve everyone’s lot.
I like to cook, and my wife loathes cooking. It is perfectly reasonable, then, for us to make the exchange that I do the cooking and she cleans up after. (This creates an incentive problem with respect to dirty dishes, of course, but the savvy married person will generally be able to handle it).
50/50 is, conceptually, the right place from which to start bargaining. This means that it will almost never be the right place to stop bargaining.
Comparative advantage is a good way to look at the problem. To translate 50/50 to “exactly half of every task” is a logical jump akin to the argument that trade causes inequality — a complete blindness to the notion that bargaining and trade can improve everyone’s lot.
I like to cook, and my wife loathes cooking. It is perfectly reasonable, then, for us to make the exchange that I do the cooking and she cleans up after. (This creates an incentive problem with respect to dirty dishes, of course, but the savvy married person will generally be able to handle it).
50/50 is, conceptually, the right place from which to start bargaining. This means that it will almost never be the right place to stop bargaining.