Daddy, are we there yet? How Mrs Gates got Bill to drive the kids to school

It's Bill.

That's who she thinks should share the responsibility for childcare.

Snowflake.

I bet she doesn't mention the unpaid labour that men do around the household.

Killing spiders to start with. Rest of the world is fine, but in Australia, we'd need hazard pay.

Her extremely rich husband perhaps could pay for a chauffeur?

This is an issue with calculating national productivity that I don't fully grasp myself: your own housework and child care don't count as economic activity, but if you hire someone to do that for you, it does. So the UK government wants to improve economic statistics by having both parents work while children attend out-of-home day care that is partly subsidised by non-parents' taxes and partly very expensive for the parents themselves, because mathematically this is much better than someone staying home with their own kids, but in real-life terms less obviously so. I'm not saying Bill Gates should have been forced into the full time househusband role; I'm saying it's complicated.

If it takes a village to raise a child then maybe put it onto the local tax...

"[...] as to who she thinks should be paying her to parent her own brats ... "

The structure of a developed civilisation is a ponzi scheme. We all need to invest in the next generations - particularly if we want to live reasonable lives in old age. Matching breeding rates and education to achieve an optimum sustainable level is a challenge for the future - starting now.

If a developed cooperative society can hold itself together for a while longer - then AI and genetic engineering may replace the human race with something else.

Historically civilisations have always been playing a game of snakes and ladders.

Re: Chinese whispers

Indeed. Reality:

Mother: *notices a father dropping off kids returns home*

Mother: Hey hubby, I saw another Dad dropping his kids off today.

Father: Cuck.

Slave box on a toytown estate

Thanks for that brilliant summation of so much modern housing, those places creep the hell out of me and you've helped me realise exactly why. Not rich, but counting my blessings not to be in that situation.

One thing I had to look up was PCP, seems to mean 'Personal Contract Purchase', judging from the context, though the thought of Phencyclidine was more amusing.

Re: Raising children is an example of "unpaid labour"?

The history isn't quite as simple as that - pre-industrial revolution the "cottage industries" were exactly as described - home-based working done by usually women. The notion that we've always been in a situation where it was viable for men to work and women to mind the house (or the other way around) is a bit of a myth for most of history.

As for both parents needing to work - yes there's a certain amount of unnecessary toys that are "needed", but it's also the case that over the last 30 years salaries have been growing slower than housing costs - see: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2018/10/16/u-s-household-incomes-a-51-year-perspective

Re: Raising children is an example of "unpaid labour"?

I kind of agree with your first two paragraphs, but I have to disagree that it is greed/desire for better things that is driving the two-income family. Very rarely will any single income cover "a 3 bed semi and a Ford Cortina and a decent life". It generally takes two+ full-time incomes to cover a 2 bed flat, a mostly-running beater and "what's a life? I have to get ready for my other job".

I am not saying that there aren't those that match your final paragraph, but middle-class has always been like that.

"If someone has to go out to do work, the other parent got to look after the kids"

You would be right if in most societies women both did (and still does) a lot of work plus looking after the kids. It is true that most heavy works were performed by men (especially hunting, which gave social status as well...) - but women did a lot of agricultural work too, plus weaving, sewing, grinding cereals, etc. etc - as they could keep the children close (even on their bodies...), or have it cared by elder women.

It wasn't until a single man could earn enough to feed a family, and the industrial revolution reduced the number of hands required for some tasks, that women were left to care of the house only.

Patriarchy did exploit women for a long time - although it's really not much different from how apes behave.

Still many women worked in specific jobs even when machines became widespread, because more apt to perform them.

Anyway human children require a lot of parental care to grow - we just need to decided if we want a society were parents take care of them, or parent leave them into collective structures with people paid to take care of them. There are no other choice - but not having children - it's not compulsory.

Re: Raising children is an example of "unpaid labour"?

"This was just how physical ability worked"

There's another physical ability involved. In a family with an unweaned child it was necessarily the mother who did most of the child care. Once the child was weaned the next one often arrived about 9 months later.

Re:all the extra money has been spunked on more expensive housing

Basically the vast majority of women in the country are working solely to make bankers and to a lesser extent estate agents better off. Even as a means of saving money for the care home fees mortgages are appallingly expensive. House price escalation has delivered nothing for the owners.

Re: Raising children is an example of "unpaid labour"?

I would say that with the exponential rise of house prices, in part fuelled by TV shows telling the boomer generation that they should spend their pension dividends on more houses, and with the PCP for a 3 series working out cheaper than that of a Mondeo (modern day successor to Cortina), I would say that 2 people are working struggling to afford the 2019 3 bedroom semi and a Cortina (3 series).

You can't possibly be in a relationship. No way.

I think the popular saying is a fallacy - that if Bill Gates walks past a wallet in the street, he loses money if he stops to pick it up, because it is taking time out of his existing activity of getting richer and richer every day. Actually, he gets richer even while he is doing something else. That is capitalism; ordinary people are employed by, in effect, a big pile of money. The big pile of money, and the person who owns it, are enriched by your laboring; the benefit to the person who does the work is secondary.

Likewise, taking time to drive the kids to school does not retard growth of Bill Gates' pile of money; it does it by itself (with help from various human beings who are not important, as I explained).

For the slim chance for potential professional networking with Mr Gates, I would happily move the kid to that school and drive them in early and wait :D

Oof, calling contraceptives woman-empowering is going to get a lot of people after her goat...

Ooooooh, I think you've really missed the point here.

Also, I think that's pretty much illegal everywhere. (Except maybe Jersey; so long as you don't get caught).

I am not going to neither up- or downwote you.

I think Mrs Gates includes in Labo(u)r "stuff that needs doing to make the family work". And the point is that in _many_ families both work outside the home but the woman does the major part of household tasks, whereas hubby takes responsibility for the World Situation and sports results. In the countryside in Africa, in many places women do the larger part of farming work.

This is nothing new, but I think it is fair enough it is repeated. And yes, access to family planning empowers women. Why do you think conservative men are often against (this is as much to an earlier post)?

I believe her point is that it is mostly done by the women. She could have worded it better, rather than "unpaid" she could have said "unbalanced". If both parents are working, why is the mom expected to do the school run, cook, clean, etc.

There are exceptions, but societally, we tend to expect a working mother to do all of the work of a stay-at-home mom, and the father has little societal pressure to pick up any of the slack.

That is the point that Mrs. Gates was trying to make.

Sounds like money and privilege have skewed her view of the world. In the working world (not the high dollar exec world) everyone needs to pitch in for household chores and care of the kids. It's not really 50-50 but more like 110-110 of the effort. But then, what she's writing about seems to encourage entitled children. I'm guessing it's not a public school they go to otherwise there would be bus service provided by the school district.

Get real, Mrs. Gates.

We need more parents with that kind of attitude. I really really see the difference passed down to children whose parents are like that.

It's not about getting paid, but about using your time for unpaid duties. That's OK if it's evenly distributed, but 90% of childcare and household chores in most societies are done by women, even if they have a job. They have less time for paid work, so stay behind in their career, which re-enforces their role as the one who will make further career sacrifices, so it's self-perpetuating.

Surprised that either of them take their kids to school.

I live on the edge of a "good school district" in startup land.

A colleagues kids had their friends over - one of the friends announced that the nanny had crashed the Range Rover again

In civilised countries, the children can cycle or walk to school by themselves.

If they are too young to cycle or walk by themselves, either a parent can cycle with them, or a group of parents can take it in turns to organise a "walking bus" to accompany the children walking to school.

(It's sadly very true that many of the English-speaking countries still seem to demonstrate the truth of Gandhi's comment about western civilisation, however.)

Re: What?

Sh'e's missing the important bit about labor and wages (like so many do).

You get paid for labor because its sold just like any other commodity. In order to sell your labor you have to have someone to sell it to who's willing to pay the price that you're asking for it. If you want really get to the nuts and bolts its not a matter of how someone 'feels' -- you can't sell that -- but who's labor is worth more. Melinda probably has so much money (and Bill isn't exactly paid by the hour....) that she didn't cost out exactly how much a "40 minute school run cost".

This idea that you can put an arbitrary value on you labor just because its you tends to afflict members of the middle classes who've never had to deal with the realities of the labor market. They grew up in a nice comfortable home (paid for by their parents), went through education (paid for by someone else) and maybe continued to be subsidized so never quite made the connection with the harsh realities of everyday life. When it hits it hurts (but then its just 'someone elses' fault....).

Re: What?

"We all do unpaid labour as a or for our family"

It depends. She's in an income bracket where she can pay someone to do the washing, the cleaning, the cooking, the gardening....

""thanks for the fascinating insight into how Capitalism is fabulous for the top 0.001%" Said everyone else."

So, when are you moving to Cuba or Venezuela?

(Fact: Sweden is not a socialist country: it is a capitalist country with strong social programmes.)

Re: Daddy, are we there yet?

That was RC1. The final released version reach 100% at least 5 minutes before arrival.

Re: The school crawl more like..sounds about right.

Bill lives over in Medina and Lakeside School is up by Haller Lake. In the North end of Seattle. So the 520 bridge and I-5 in 40 mins as a school run sounds about right. I did the opposite school run from Madison Park, across the lake from Medina, to Mecer Island. About 20/25 mins each way.

As for the idea that more dads turned up at Lakeside on the off change of running into Bill on a school run. Thats not the way it works in Seattle. One would often see Bill and/ or Melinda with kids in the village in Madison Park. Apart from a polite nod or hello the locals would not make a big deal about the Gates being about. It was considered very rude to invade their privacy when they were doing family stuff. And rightly so. The only person who acted weird in Madison Park in my expedience, in the LA way, look at me - but I hate it when you notice me, was Jeff Bezoz when he lived there. A pretty unpleasant person by all accounts.

Re: powerless women

Do you realise "yours truly" refers to the writer/signer of a text? In other words, you are saying there that YOU, Waseem Alkurdi, are priviliged folk not bothering to share the load.

Re: Poverty and wealth

"In one financial year, Microsoft made $600 million in India... and the Gates Foundations gave it $150 million,"

That's terrible! How much money did you earn last year and did you give it all away? No? I thought not.

Re: Poverty and wealth

Imagine what the Indians could save using better, and cheaper, OSes...

Re: I must admit, I rarely if ever drove my kids to school

In my childhood in England in the 1950s we all walked to school - abut half a mile (500m) without our parents from about the age of 7. Earlier if a slightly older sibling was walking with us. We weren't alone as the neighbours' kids mostly went to the same school. We had to cross several roads - which weren't deserted. The main bus route road through the town did eventually have a "Lollipop Lady".

Nowadays my neighbours won't let even their 10 year olds walk half that distance alone - with only one quiet street to cross. I try to teach the kids the crossing ritual "look left, look right, look left again, if the road is clear - quick march".

Re: Taking kids to school?

Bill & Melinda Gates have nothing on Greg Maddux, the former Atlanta Braves pitcher. When his child reached school-age, he examined the local schools, both public and private, and decided that none of them met his expectations. His solution was to found his own school for his child/ren to attend.

Re: Paid? Hell, I want a raise and a bonus!

You get child benefit don't you? So you're already getting paid for them.

Re: Living in a capitalistic structure. . . . .

Regardless of whether the Gates' are fabulously wealthy or not, the point is valid if perhaps a little overstated. Across the globe there are very few examples where non-capitalist countries out-perform capitalist ones on standard of living and general quality of life. Of course the definition of "capitalist" here is fairly broad and includes the countries of Europe, for example, which in many cases include a good dose of socialism with their underlying capitalist structures.

I think much of this expression of the quality of capitalist life is a necessary addition to her main statement about tax inequality, put there mainly to avoid the wrath of the right-wing loonies in America who would otherwise jump down her throat and brand her a communist for ever daring to suggest that America's tax system should in some way be re-jigged to actually provide some real benefit to the poor, rather than just dropping more money in the pockets of the rich (Trump tax cuts??).

I would like to think (perhaps very optimistically) that this is a shot across the bow, a warning that perhaps the ultra-billionaires of the world are finally starting to realise that the pendulum needs to swing the other way. America is probably the worst in this regard (of anything bigger than a crackpot dictatorship like Brunei or half the Middle East), where wealth inequality is spiralling out of control.

Re: Gender inequality and innovation

If your drugery jobs are low paying, you are selling the wrong drugs...

At least thats the message the media and police seem to be pushing, every time they brag about how many millions in street value their latest drug bust has removed from the economy.

On the other hand, te missus has a high(er) paying job of drudgery, and compensates by going on expensive holidays, while myself has a more engaging / interesting / lower paying job, and wants to use my time off to rest...

Re: Gender inequality and innovation

Most "people" go out to jobs of low paying drudgery.

FTFY

Re: Dear Cthulhu save us

"As for this bull--it about "unpaid work", what reject kind of parent cries about unpaid work when it comes to rearing children?? You discuss with your partner what the best plan of action is, and you proceed according to your best ability. Any parent griping about their kids being unpaid work should have their children taken away from them."

Yes, exactly that. You invest in your children future. The "payment" is when or if they succeed in life (for whatever their or their child's personal definition of succeed is)

The school are idiots for not providing school buses from at least some appropriate locations (such as nearby rail/metro stations or bus interchanges, I do get that this sort of private school is inherently not really going to have a properly "local" pupil catchment area as such), so that neither parent actually needs to drive all the way there and further clog up the roads with an unnecessary and long trip.

The logical solution would be for the parents of pupils at the school to get their children to their nearest rail/metro/bus stop that in turn gets them to a school bus pick up point, but, well, that's private schools for you, and the USA for you (notwithstanding that public transport is at least not entirely crap in at least some US metropolitan areas, although it could still be better).