Thanks for all your contributions, its great to see such a blossoming argument and your points have all been very relavent.
The running of a home, far from being just simple chores, has been and remains one of the bedrocks of a functional society. Without the work of a homekeeper, other family members would not be free to go to work and invest in a career for themselves. This would harm the family structure and the economy. The importance of this role means that the home labourer is entitled to some compensation. If the work had to be provided at market rates the cost would run to hundreds of billions of pounds or dollars a year.
Society should always try to reward its citizens for vital work in some degree at least. Under a capitalist system the value of goods and services is recognised in financial terms, so a wage would recognise the important contribution of homemakers. As well as being important, housework is physically taxing, time consuming and in balancing the needs of a household, a relatively specialised task. These features are all valued highly by the marketplace, and it is a pure accident of history that homekeepers have not been included in this.
No-one knows for sure what they are signing up for upon entering a marriage or relationship. The circumstances of a family can change dramatically over time so one member may end up doing work they never expected. If so, then their work may be voluntary in the sense they are not physically coerced, but it is not a situation they previously gave any consent to. If business partners sign a contract which circumstance means is no longer representative of the work they do, then the partners should have a right to re-negotiate. It is the same with a partner in a relationship.
Firstly, physical coercion is still regrettably common in the home, and rarely reported when it exists. Secondly there are more subtle forms of power imbalances between family units. It is estimated that men own over 90% of the property in the world, and they are almost always still the dominant wage earners in a household, both in amount and likelihood of working. This means women in particular can be left in an unequal bargaining position when compared to their partner. This means the voluntariness of domestic agreements can be highly questionable. Even if divorce is possible, it is understandable that the more vulnerable partner may want to avoid it at all costs, for cultural reasons, or to prevent harm to children. So it does not constitute the element of consent the opposition is looking for. As such it is important that we give homekeepers at least the option of recompense.
The improvements in the rights of women all stem from the state 'interfering' in social matters. Pre-nuptial agreements, custody and property sharing upon divorce are all legal measures in family law. Equalising the rights, roles and access to wealth in the household is an important step towards empowering women, and ensuring equal opportunity for future generations by showing that household roles are not defined by gender.
Conservatives are always keen in public on promoting the family and on the advantages of mothers being able to stay at home to bring up young children. This proposal would provide positive encouragement for couples to make the decision that one of them should stay at home to care for their children, as it provides an economic incentive for one of them (typically the woman) to do so. At the same time it ensures that although family income will be the same, the homekeeper retains their own income and so receives proper recognition for their work. This will serve to maintain their status within the relationship, and make it easier for them to return to the workplace in the future if they so choose.
That is some input on my part. I thought I'd go on the pro-incentive side for now at least to balance it up a bit as most people seem to be against the motion.
