What Would Happen if "Unpaid Labour" Were Monetised?

Co-authored by Ankit and Sadhika on Septemper 21, 2024

The debate surrounding unpaid domestic labour, particularly in the context of women's contributions to household work and child-rearing, has taken on a new dimension in recent years. Feminist theorists, most notably in the 1970s, argued that unpaid domestic labour, largely performed by women, was an unseen, unvalued contribution to society. The argument behind this perspective is that by monetising domestic labour, we can uplift women’s social status, assign proper value to their work, and reduce gender inequality.

A prominent Indian politician, Shashi Tharoor, also resonates with this view by emphasising that unpaid domestic labour should be recognised as a critical economic contribution, yet remains unacknowledged in conventional economic metrics like the GDP. What makes this stance surprising is that it comes from a figure of his stature—a former Under-Secretary-General at the UN and a respected author on Indian history, culture, and politics—who enjoys bipartisan popularity for his eloquence, even while belonging to a party not currently in power. However, his focus on this issue, framed through an economic lens while omitting the economic implications of putting such an idea into practice, raises questions about his recognition as a “Global Leader of Tomorrow” by the World Economic Forum. It also suggests that his agenda may be more politically motivated than economically grounded. 

Economic Definition of Work and Labour

The economic definition of work and labour traditionally revolves around activities that generate income in exchange for goods and services. This definition often excludes unpaid domestic labour, even though it involves tasks crucial for the functioning of households and society. Raising children, maintaining the home, and caregiving are classified as "non-economic" activities because they are not exchanged for money. Advocates for rebranding domestic work as economic activity call this very definition into question.

The True Nature of Unpaid Domestic Labour

At the heart of this debate is an underlying assumption that unpaid labour exists purely as a result of patriarchal systems. However, this ignores the fact that children are dependent on their parents until they reach adulthood, and laws such as child labour restrictions prevent minors from earning wages until they can legally work. Domestic labour, especially that involving childcare, is unpaid because parents are expected to provide for their children as part of this dependency dynamic.

Unpaid labour persists partly due to societal acceptance of child labour laws. For instance, a mother may invest 18 years of unpaid work raising her child, often sacrificing her own career ambitions. To pursue those aspirations, she can either (a) wait until her child is grown, (b) balance her career with parenting, or (c) defy child labour laws by expecting her child to be self-sufficient before reaching adulthood, thereby reducing the number of years she engages in unpaid domestic labour.

The Issue of Quantifying Domestic Labour

While the intention behind turning domestic work into paid labour is to value women’s contributions, it may actually devalue their work by reducing it to monetary terms. Many aspects of parenting and caregiving are deeply qualitative. The nights mothers stay up with sick children, or the emotional support provided during stressful times, cannot easily be assigned a price tag. By monetising these actions, we risk reducing the profound mother-child bond to mere transactions, which many would consider both ungrateful and a misunderstanding of the nature of these relationships. 

Further, forcefully imposing the idea of monetizing domestic labour could serve certain ideological agendas rather than the interests of women. It may make women more dependent on the state or their husbands for payment, rather than empowering them as equal participants in household decision-making. If mothers' contributions to the household were evaluated solely on their monetary value, the intrinsic worth of motherhood—rooted in love, care, and dedication—would diminish. This would reinforce the very capitalist mentality that these ideas aim to challenge, prioritising profit and remuneration over human connection and social bonds.

Consequences of Turning Unpaid Domestic Labour into Paid Labour

The idea of transforming unpaid domestic labour into paid labour comes with unwanted consequences. First and foremost, it begs the question: Who will pay for it? If domestic labour becomes paid, this implies there must be an employer, but who should this be? The father/ husband? This would likely result in the financial burden falling on men, exacerbating their economic stress. As wages are stretched to cover household work, men may experience progressive poverty. The family as an economic unit would face collapse, fundamentally altering its dynamics.

Alternatively, if the state were to pay for domestic labour, a different set of challenges would emerge. It would make men, particularly fathers, dispensable. This is a trend already observed in some Western countries, where state welfare programs sometimes act as substitutes for familial responsibility. As the state steps in as a provider, the social contract between husband and wife becomes irrelevant. In his essay, The Frivolity of Evil, Theodore Dalrymple talks about how the handouts of a welfare state encourage social pathology (alcoholism, criminality, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, single parenthood, increased divorce rates) by absolving men of all responsibility towards their family. He states:

“As for the men, the state absolves them of all responsibility for their children. The state is now father to the child. The biological father is therefore free to use whatever income he has as pocket money, for entertainment and little treats. He is thereby reduced to the status of a child, though a spoiled child with the physical capabilities of a man: petulant, demanding, querulous, self-centred, and violent if he doesn’t get his own way.” 

A Better Alternative: Skill Monetisation

Rather than monetising domestic labour itself, an alternative approach can be to help women monetise the skills they acquire through household work. In India, many women already use their skills to contribute to the economy by running tiffin services, providing cleaning, cooking and childcare services, or participating in cottage industries like Lijjat Papad. Lijjat Papad is a successful women-led cooperative in India, providing employment to thousands of women from underprivileged and rural areas. Founded in 1959, the enterprise empowers women by engaging them in the production and sale of papads, enabling them to earn a livelihood while contributing to the community's economic growth. Similarly, roti-making enterprises employ women in backward regions, offering them opportunities to make traditional flatbreads for sale. These businesses employ poor women to produce homemade food items, which are then sold to their target audience—typically bachelors and students living away from home. These roles allow women to retain their identity and respect while also earning an income, without undermining the family unit.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, turning anything into an economic activity means it will follow the laws of economics—demand and supply, competition, and profit, especially in a capitalist society. Motherhood isn't a subscription service that can be cancelled if the "customer" (father/husband) is dissatisfied with the "service provider" (mother/wife), nor is it something where he can take his business to a different provider. This notion edges toward a dystopian scenario, where motherhood operates like a plug-and-play model, with competition between providers driving them to seek better opportunities for profit. Such a system would come at the expense of the physical and emotional well-being of not just the child, but the family and society as a whole. We play with this idea casually, at our own peril.