March 5, 2020

The New York Times juxtaposes Elizabeth Warren's dropping out of the presidential race with the vast monetary value of women's "unpaid" labor and the news that the Democratic Party does not yet belong to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The top of the home page looks like this now (click image to enlarge and clarify):



1. You don't need me to tell you that Elizabeth Warren has dropped out. The NYT take: "Though her vision excited progressives, that did not translate to enough excitement from the party’s more working-class and diverse base....  Ms. Warren’s political demise was a death by a thousand cuts, not a dramatic implosion but a steady decline.... She invested heavily in the early states, with a ground game that was the envy of her rivals. But it did not pay off...."

2. We're told, in an opinion piece, "Women’s Unpaid Labor is Worth $10,900,000,000,000/If American women earned minimum wage for the unpaid work they do around the house and caring for relatives, they would have made $1.5 trillion last year." I've seen pieces like this all my life, and I'm impressed but not impressed. We all do many things for ourselves — and maybe for family members — that would be expensive if we had to pay someone else to do it for us. But that doesn't mean there's a way to collect money for it. It's a savings of money. If I walk instead of taking a cab, I save money, but I can't get paid for it. There are graphs showing that everywhere in the world women spend more hours in the day doing unpaid work than men do, but they're counting as work the time women spend with their own children. They are contributing value to the family economic unit, not getting ripped off. The man isn't taking unfair advantage if he's working to get money to contribute to the unit. The issue isn't an imbalance of money, but only whether one is working harder than the other or one is more fulfilled than the other.

3. "Why Democrats Are Still Not the Party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/In contests for party control between progressives and moderates, electoral and governing results speak for themselves" — this is "news analysis" by Jennifer Steinhauer. The "still" implies that it should be AOC's party or that it's only a matter of time before it is. From the text: "[M]any Democrats began to fret early on that the far left was going to do to them what the Tea Party had done to Republicans a few years back: Run them out of town, one primary at a time. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez previously suggested that Democrats who were not sufficiently loyal to an emergent brand of progressive politics should have others like her run against them in a primary. She is now suggesting that, exit polling be damned, Mr. Biden’s latest string of successes is because of the strong-arming of corporate lobbyists...."

138 comments:

The Bergall said...

It was because she's annoying.......

Bay Area Guy said...

Needed Liz Warren to bury the hatchet with Bernie BEFORE Super Tuesday....

Methinks it's over for Bernie. He got scalped by the Democratic machine.

Michael said...

Women’s unpaid labor. Indeed. So do men get overtime when after a day’s paid labor they come home to wash the dishes or take out the trash or plunge the toilet or clean the cat box or walk the fucking dog?

rhhardin said...

Women could take the money they earn doing housework and pay somebody to do the housework.

MartyH said...

You, a law professor! understand economics better than whoever did the $10 trillion study.

tim maguire said...

That's a surprising bit of insight---that AOC represents the left-wing version of the Tea Party. The rest is garbage.

And you are obviously right about unpaid labor (except I don't see how any part of you could be impressed considering that it is completely dishonest).

rcocean said...

So, there isn't a glass ceiling in the Democrat party? Nice to know. Warren addressed that in her remarks saying "Women are in a bind" if they complain they are labeled "whiners" if they don't say anything then "Millions of Feminists get mad". I may have got the last one garbled.

But it shows she still doesn't get it. We don't want our Presidential candidates "complaining". You're supposed to be leading US. We're not supposed to feel sorry for you. Yes, Poor Liz Warren, someone was rude or sexist to her. Guess we'll elect you to the most powerful position in the world!

Politics ain't beanbag. Your opponents are going to attack your weaknesses, and crying "You can't say that, I'm just a girl" doesn't cut it. You want to play with the big boys? Then be ready to take some hits.

rcocean said...

Here's how Warren should have answered the question "Did you feel sexism hurt your campaign?"

I'm not here to complain about being mistreated. I'm tough enough to take anything. I got into this race because I think my policies will make life better for all Americans and make a difference. Etc.

Nonapod said...

Speaking as a male who has done a whole lot of "unpaid labor" over the course of his life in the form of yard work, house painting, daily housework, not to mention countless hours of IT work (building, seting up, repairing, and fixing issues with friends and families PCs, smart phones, tablets, TVs, stereos, and all electronics) I can't even imagine what that would translate to in terms of actual monetary wages. A whole lot, I'd imagine.

David Begley said...

“Love is expressed more in deeds than in words.” St. Ignatius Loyola

Nothing about getting paid.

Above line, of course, in my script.

Achilles said...

I love it when people tell me how much their time and effort are worth.

Warren wants to force people to pay her and her friends what she thinks they are worth.

The left always wants to control what people are worth.

Browndog said...

2 Days Ago:

The Hill
‏Verified account @thehill

Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Joe Biden: "No matter how many Washington insiders tell you to support him, nominating their fellow Washington insider will not meet this moment. Nominating a man who says we do not need any fundamental change in this country will not meet this moment."

BarrySanders20 said...

Even the going away photo shows her waving in that goofy frantic way.

“First colored woman
On Harvard Law faculty.”
Objection. Hearsay


hawkeyedjb said...

Bye-ku for Warren:

Sexist, racist us
Injun never gets a break
It's the white man's way

Achilles said...

Bay Area Guy said...
Needed Liz Warren to bury the hatchet with Bernie BEFORE Super Tuesday....

Methinks it's over for Bernie. He got scalped by the Democratic machine.



Bernie would have won on Tuesday outright if it wasn't for Warren.

They are pulling her out now but it is too early. They think they have stopped the Bernie Bros.

They are wrong.

BarrySanders20 said...

After that debate
Liz tried to kneecap Bernie
Got own Wounded Knee

Ann Althouse said...

The worst imbalance is if one person in the couple doesn't want sex with the other and provides sex anyway. Then it's work and the pay rate is that of a prostitute. You figure out what level prostitute.

But it still doesn't make much sense as long as the couple is a single economic unit. He takes the money — let's say $1,000 — out of their shared account, she receives it, and she puts it back into their shared account. Nothing happened!

rcocean said...

Warren needs "Time to think about who to endorse".

IOW, "May I hear your opening Bids, Gentlemen?"

Browndog said...

Other than allowing an opportunity for feminists to scream on behalf of feminists, Warren dropping out of the Presidential race is of no consequence.

BarrySanders20 said...

Liz won’t be Big Chief
Not enough votes in pow wow
Squaw sit back of bus

gspencer said...

Okay, Lizzie, NOW's the time to start slugging down those beers.

Granny Warren = a POS

Achilles said...

Warren failed because she is just not a genuine person and has zero integrity.

Her entire life was a lie.

Her career was based off of stealing affirmative action benefits from minorities. She grew up with all the privileges of being rich and white and lied to abuse a program meant to help poor minorities.

She was a mediocre mind at best. She was a corporate lawyer.

Her academic work was shoddy and fraudulent.

She only made it as far as she did because the people who support affirmative action programs and leftist political ideology in general are really stupid.

Limited blogger said...

check, check, and check

rcocean said...

Every married couple make their own bargain. And nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Including not staying married. Not only that, but what if your spouse gets sick and you spend the rest of your life caring for them? Who's paying for my time in that case?

Its just absurd. I'm tempted to believe most of these NYT's articles about "unpaid labor" are just an excuse for women to bitch about about how their husbands don't vacuum the rugs. (Which I don't).

BarrySanders20 said...


"But it still doesn't make much sense as long as the couple is a single economic unit. He takes the money — let's say $1,000 — out of their shared account, she receives it, and she puts it back into their shared account. Nothing happened!"

To make sense of it you have to look to the funding source the D's always assume will pay -- the government should pay! Tax others, collect the revenue, engage in graft and corruption, return a small portion to favored constituencies, wash, rinse, repeat.

Arashi said...

So what I have learned in the last few weeks about Democrats. They, as a group, are racist, mysoginist, and homophobic at the very least. But, they are for the blue collar working man of all races and sexes and orientation and citizenship.

I am not sure, but I don't think those separate groups of 'facts' are in alignment with one another.

What I really want to know - what has she, mayor pete and amy been promised by the DNC elites, and why is that not a quid pro quo?

rcocean said...

"Other than allowing an opportunity for feminists to scream on behalf of feminists, Warren dropping out of the Presidential race is of no consequence"

Well, it will help Bernie but it may be too late. I think Obama will lower the boom on Bernie after next Tuesday, if he loses big.

rehajm said...

Talking about sex...

We're told we need to accommodate the female genetic imperative. Women have and raise children because it satisfies. Yet they demand payment as 'work'.

Equal time for the male imperative. Equal pay, since we're on the subject...

Narr said...

It has always impressed me, the way (vulgar dumbed-down) Marxism forms the basis of the whole left feminist argument: because labor has value, which in a capitalist economy is one pole of the cash nexus, then labor that women do can and should, maybe must, be monetized . . . Like most Marxian analysis, it's circular.

Narr
Women should make money doing each other's laundry

rehajm said...

AOC is being primaried by at least Michelle Caruso Cabrera. The future if the party could soon be its past.

narciso said...

uygur was cortez's Svengali, right and he ended up with 5% of the vote in katie hill's district, that was worse than fluke in her state senate race, the da in los angeles, was also along similar lines as in new York, so she's probably hit her ceiling,

Achilles said...

Ann Althouse said...
The worst imbalance is if one person in the couple doesn't want sex with the other and provides sex anyway. Then it's work and the pay rate is that of a prostitute. You figure out what level prostitute.

But it still doesn't make much sense as long as the couple is a single economic unit. He takes the money — let's say $1,000 — out of their shared account, she receives it, and she puts it back into their shared account. Nothing happened!



There is a market for sex. There is a market for nannies. There is a market for house cleaning services. There is a market for AC repair persons. There is a market for Software development.

The leftists just want to make sure they get paid for doing what they want to do.

They want to tell everyone else what to do.

The market does not value telling other people what to do for some reason though.

curt said...

Learned yesterday that “squaw” is no longer considered to be a word, at least on Words with Friends.

rehajm said...

Tulsi could easily be reached for comment...

robother said...

Typical tendentious socio-economic "study." A mother-homemaker shares half of the income and assets of her money-earning husband. As his business or career succeeds over time, her half (i.e., compensation for child-care, cooking and other homemaking duties also increases. Indeed, even as the child-care work decreases (as they go off to school and independence), her compensation increases.

Of course, this looks grossly unfair to the husband in the mirror-image stupid Men's Rights pure economic view. But of course, it merely reflects the reasonable assumption that child-care from the lowest cost provider isn't really equivalent to being tased by one's own mother, in infancy or through high school. That's why even female partners in law firms often drop out to be stay-at-home moms. Women with even less earning ability (i.e., for whom the trade-offs in child-care expense are higher relative to after-tax income) are wise to make the same decision.

Two-eyed Jack said...

Do you realize how much the unpaid labor of my kidneys is worth? Just look at the cost of dialysis!

Temujin said...

Note to NY Times. Men just give up lives and body parts for their families and their country. Not sure how you put a dollar amount on that. For generations. But it keeps the NY Times working.

As I had a friend who lived with painful bits of shrapnel embedded in him for life explain: Just a 'thank you' from time to time would suffice.

BarrySanders20 said...

Liz ends her campaign
Gave me hope but took it back
Indian giver.

Warren just found out
No squaws allowed in teepees
Owned by Democrats

Liz went out to eat
“Got a Reservation, ma’am?”
“Yes, I live on one”

JohnAnnArbor said...

What about men's unpaid labor? Or are there no chore men, stereotypically or not, tend to do around the house?

Browndog said...

Women should get paid for showing their children love and affection while raising them.

That love and affection could have been directed to more lucrative areas, increasing their net worth.

(Titania McGrath worthy, amiright?)

PM said...

Unpaid labor. They're called chores.

Francisco D said...

We all do many things for ourselves — and maybe for family members — that would be expensive if we had to pay someone else to do it for us. But that doesn't mean there's a way to collect money for it.

Every couple makes decisions about labor and money.

I am retired and relatively financially well-off. My wife is an art teacher (and artist) who could not support herself on the miserable teacher salaries here in AZ, but she loves teaching. I do not mind paying 3/4 of the bills.

I do 95% of the cooking because I enjoy it and have the time. I also do all the grocery shopping, home renovation and half the cleaning. I do not expect to be paid for this work in money or sex (a mutual decision). I like it when she enjoys a new culinary creation and she likes it when I enjoy her art.

Love, not Money, is the compensation for our efforts. I despise politicians who intrude on that compact.

BarrySanders20 said...

Liz ran for Big Chief
In D tribal primary
Got Indian Bern

Pow Wow Chow title
For Female Buffalo meat
Reads: How Now Brown Cow.

Liz find Firestick
Wait behind rock for Bernie
Oops! Shoot own toe off.

Liz shot own toe off?
She Ruin new moccasin too
Not having good day

Warren Byekus come
Faster than a Crazy Horse
That’s no Sitting Bull

Lewis Wetzel said...

Don't women live longer than men? What is an extra year of life worth?
At any age cohort, more boys die than girls. What are there lives worth, in dollars?
If the NY times can use moronic factoids to make an ideological point, why can't I?

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Francisco D @ 1:12 for the win. Nicely done.
Amen!

hawkeyedjb said...

“Got a Reservation, ma’am?”
“Yes, I live on one”

That's a good one.

Swede said...

Twitterville is all awash in feminist tears as Scoldy Schoolmarm finally takes the hint.

With ragey little fists they blame sexisms as the reason for her/xer demise.

Wanna have some fun with them?

Tell them how you eagerly look forward to them voting for Nikki Haley in 2024.

THAT'S. NOT. FUNNY.

Francisco D said...

From the NYT op-ed:[M]any Democrats began to fret early on that the far left was going to do to them what the Tea Party had done to Republicans a few years back: Run them out of town, one primary at a time.

Earth to the NYT: The Tea Party was the salvation of the Republican Party despite DNC Media efforts to tar them as racists and extremists. Tea partiers got Donald Trump elected. They may even reform the Republican Party ... somewhat.

T = Taxed
E = Enough
A = Already

tim maguire said...

JohnAnnArbor said...
What about men's unpaid labor? Or are there no chore men, stereotypically or not, tend to do around the house?


When housework is defined as that which women do, one need not concern one's self with what men do. As men, we are paid more than we are worth at work, thus justifying not paying us anything at home. Still not sure where the missus' housepaycheck is coming from.

BarrySanders20 said...

Liz hates my Bye-kus.
“Your Indian puns are bad!
Stop or I will Sioux!”

gspencer said...

She was rather low on the totem poll. Too many voters had reservations about her.

hstad said...


Blogger Achilles said...There is a market for sex. There is a market for nannies. There is a market for house cleaning services. There is a market for AC repair persons. There is a market for Software development.3/5/20, 12:56 PM

Yes, but our esteemed host, AA,[and the NY Times] seem to be ignorant of this fact. But, the Left wants to make the decision on what to pay a woman for housework. Just look at the $15 minimum wage silliness. But there's a fundamental difference between the decision makers in the "market" versus the decision makers in the "government". The market provides penalties for mistakes while those in the political arena pay no such penalties.

Lewis Wetzel said...

In the USA, anyhow, the tradition among working class people is that the husband turns most of his paycheck over to his wife to maintain the household. He keeps back some for "walking around money." Not saying it is always true, but that's how it still is done in a lot of marriages. That is how it was done in my marriage; I made six times as much money as my wife made doing part time work. She paid the bills and did the shopping. If we had to spend a large amount of money, say, for a car, we would discuss the most prudent way forward.
Shouldn't the NY Times have looked beyond who earned the money to who spent the money earned?

Bruce Hayden said...

There are plenty of women in our country who get paid to stay home and raise their kids. It is called “welfare”. Unfortunately, those women, by rarely living with the father of their kids, have probably the worst outcomes raising their kids of any demographic group in the country, with a significantly increased chance of their boys ending up dead by gang violence, or in prison, and their girls getting pregnant early so that they can get their own “checks”.

A lot of feminists might say in response that that isn’t what they mean by paying women to stay at home with their kids. They mean middle, and esp upper middle, class women like them. It can be, and often is, done in this country. But for the middle class, it is a life choice. It typically means going through life living more frugally, unless you can marry well, as my partner did (and raised 4 kids as a stay at home mother). It is a luxury for the middle class, that feminists want given to them, just because they are so special. Boo Hoo.

Maybe I overreact here, but I grew up with the opposite complaint. My mother always seemed to resent that postwar America effectively forced her to give up a career. She graduated #1 in her class, in 1945, from the University of Illinois. I often thought that she thought that she would have been more successful than my father (who did fairly well as an attorney), if she had been allowed to have a career, instead of sitting behind my father and pushing him. (The one fight I ever saw my parents get into, in over a half century, was when I suggested to them that she had stayed home with their five boys for him).

Moms staying at home with their young kids really is a luxury. It is what many middle class mothers really would prefer to do, but are unwilling to make the sacrifices that could make it happen. Over my career, there were a lot of things that I would have preferred to do, besides go to work every day, and I was very happy in that I enjoyed my two careers. Many, if not most, men, as well as women without kids at home, are not nearly as lucky as I have been. Being paid to do what you want to do, instead of what you have to do, day in and day out, is a luxury. Why separate out women with children at home as a special group, who get paid for doing what they would rather be doing than what they have to do to make a living? Apparently because they believe that women are somehow so special. Or more pragmatically, that catering to this desire will give them political success.

Temujin said...

Mary: "Pretty sure the monthly pension checks, lifelong VA care, government employment points, and disability pay, if you're injured bad enough not to work, compensate.

Not even close. When I lived with him- years ago, he would wake up screaming and in sweats. That was not from the bits of metal in his body. That was just from the crap he saw in Viet Nam. He turned to drink, heavily, to dull both the psyche and the physical pain. He still worked for years, but eventually had to quit. His body gave out young. The last I spoke with him, he lived alone up north. Way up north. With his dog. No one else.

This was not a man looking for benefits. He was wondering what happened to his life.

Gusty Winds said...

"The worst imbalance is if one person in the couple doesn't want sex with the other and provides sex anyway. Then it's work and the pay rate is that of a prostitute. You figure out what level prostitute." - Ann Althouse, 2020.

"When I hear his steps outside my door I lie down on my bed, open my legs and think of England." - Lady Hillingdon, 1912

You've come a long way, baby...

NMObjectivist said...

RE: "Women’s Unpaid Labor is Worth $10,900,000,000,000" --
We should all take in each other's wash, pay each other, remit SS tax and income tax, and then the government could report a larger GDP showing that we are all better off. Such is the state of the economics profession today.

Ken B said...

“Women could take the money they earn doing housework and pay somebody to do the housework.”

Indeed. Sue could hire Betty to do Sue's housework, and Betty can hire Sue to do hers. Both can declare income and pay taxes, both payroll and income. Then to reduce commuting time, Betty and Sue could swap responsibilities. Sue would do her own housework, as would Betty, just as before — but each would be paid.
And taxed.
Win, win.

Limited blogger said...

we should tax that 10 trillion

Caligula said...

1. It should (one hopes) be obvious that one can't just perform some job and then demand to get paid for it. For example, I can't go mow the neighbor's grass and then demand payment, for the neighbor never agreed to pay me for doing this work (let alone negotiated compensation to have it done).

2. But once you start negotiating compensation then you'd have to recognize that some types of work are worth more than others (as well as more intense). And then, the hours worked by each adult in a family will not be equal. Not to mention work that you think needs to get done, but which I would be just fine if it never got done. And even aside from value, some work is just far more intense and/or unpleasant.

3. All of which comes down to the nature of 'family,' and the reality that labor within a family unit tends to conform far more to Marx's "from each according to ability, to each according to need" than you'll ever see outside of it.

4. So perhaps the NYT's writers should decide whether The Future Is Female, or the Future is Socialist. Or is it both? For the family is as close to ideal socialism as any institution ever has been (or likely ever will be, as this sort of selfless share-and-share-alike doesn't scale well at all, especially at lower trust levels).

7. Further, what's called a "family" increasingly consists entirely of one adult woman and her children: it's a place where men are, if present at all, merely temporary and contingent members. And if a man doesn't know if he'll be part of a family tomorrow, why would he invest his labor in it any more than minimally today?

Browndog said...

The NYT still has time to add Tulsi Gabbard to their slate of endorsements. No women in their endorsement cupboard is a bad look. Sexist, even.

n.n said...

Men would earn social capital, while women would earn domestic capital, and would share the proceeds and benefits. Men and women are equal and complementary. We are not children anymore, reconcile. That said, life is long and evolutionary, order your priorities and strategies accordingly.

Kevin said...

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
(campaigning for President)
Endorsing all your delegates to just one man

You'll have to concede
He's on to the next primary
Makin' promises you don't understand

But if you love his polices you'll forgive him
Even though they don't add up
And if he polls well be proud of him
'Cause after all he's going down in November

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Democrats are the party of lies.

Hemingway: If Bloomberg Couldn’t Buy 2020, How Could Russia Buy 2016?

Mike Sylwester said...

I don't like the way my wife fills the dishwasher.

Whenever I get the opportunity, I rearrange her arrangement of the stuff in the dishwasher.

(And she does the same to me!)

For sure, my wife should not get paid for filling the dishwasher when I have to spend my own time and effort rearranging it myself.

Jess said...

In my sixty plus years, I've never seen a woman in the United States treated like women are treated in parts of the Middle East. Maybe the focus on women should be somewhere else.

D.D. Driver said...

We don't want our Presidential candidates "complaining". You're supposed to be leading US. We're not supposed to feel sorry for you.

That was one of my big problems with Liz. Too much of her campaign was about how hard her childhood was or how 50 years ago so and so treated her unfairly. There were so many times where I wanted to say, "Ma'am, the role for little orphan Annie has been filled. You are running for President. I don't care about your hard knock life."

Does this call for sympathy work on any voters? (I guess we have our answer.)

Bruce Hayden said...

“Shouldn't the NY Times have looked beyond who earned the money to who spent the money earned?”

What I always thought interesting about my parents was that there was their money, and there was her money. They had two bank accounts, theirs and hers, and she paid all the bills from their account (except for the luxury car that she bought while he was in the hospital for after having had a knee replacement, ostensibly because it didn’t have a clutch). She died richer than he did, despite his almost half century of lawyering, and her spending better than half that as a stay at home mom, and never really earning that much from work outside the house (I got the feeling that they didn’t believe that wives of their class should work outside the house in lower paying jobs, so she she got involved in politics, and was the legislative chair and chief lobbyist for the CO League of (communist) Women Voters), etc). I discovered this discrepancy in their respective wealths after my father died a couple years ago. She had died 12 years earlier, and her assets had gone into a trust that he managed, until his death, and we each inherited more from her trust than from his.

But then, with my partner, it is similar. I earn it, and she spends it. With my ex wife, things were more equitable - we each had our own bank accounts, and a joint account that we each had an assessment for every month. But she still controlled the spending out of it. Of course. But all to the good - they all did or do a better job at balancing the joint checking account than I ever could, despite my having taken enough accounting classes to have sat for the CPA exam at one point. But then, my father had the business degree, and my mother balanced the checkbook too. And he remembered a half century later being given an allowance every week given to him by my mother, out of their joint account (that came from his paycheck in the first place).

Sebastian said...

"Mr. Biden’s latest string of successes is because of the strong-arming of corporate lobbyists"

Yup. Lizzie's loss is due to sexists, corporate lobbyists, and blacks--IOW, a majority of Dems.

Real American said...

I've been moving furniture, opening jars, getting stuff off the top shelf, changing light bulbs, cleaning the gutters, putting up Christmas lights and taking them down (hopefully by July), putting new batteries in the remote, and mowing my own lawn for years without getting paid. that needs to offset these women's figures of raising their own kids. Where's the graph for that?

all of this nonsense is about feminism's distaste for how men and women choose to balance their individual relationships without regard to their commie bullshit.

Bay Area Guy said...

Why are Demo primary voters so sexist? They threw Amy K to the ground and then forced Lizzie W to quit. Now, they won't even let Tulsi G into the next debate.

Gusty Winds said...

I'm confused about this unpaid labor thing...

If breast-feeding is considered unpaid labor, then isn't receiving fellatio be the same??

Bilwick said...

The part about unpaid labor gave me chuckles. In the Brave New World of the Left, who will provide the free medical care our would-be commissars are promising? Not unpaid volunteers, I'm guessing.

Michael said...

Warren has been a bit of a puzzle to me.

I first came to know her thru "The Two-Income Trap", published 15 years ago. An excellent book arguing that the additional income that families gained from married women entering the workforce was being soaked up by rising costs of education and housing.

She was a vocal proponent of school vouchers for K-12, arguing that the lack of choice forced aspiring families to overpay for homes in good school districts, where they also faced higher school taxes. Where has that Liz Warren gone?

Warren also vigorously advocated for a return to tight mortgage credit standards. She argued that the relaxation of borrowing regulation (such as the 20% down standard) just inflated the cost of homes and shackled families with larger debt. Where has that Liz Warren gone?

She also espoused additional protections for consumers from predatory credit card companies, explicitly rejecting the bankruptcy bill which gave such companies leverage over people in crisis (a bill sponsored by that Senator from MBNA, Joe Biden) . Why she hasn't raked Biden over the coals for that is beyond me. Where has that Liz Warren gone?

If she had stayed with these three themes, I suspect she'd would have done much better in the primaries.

Bruce Hayden said...

“ I don't like the way my wife fills the dishwasher. ”

At least you use the dishwasher. We don’t. We use mostly paper plates or plastic containers, and she prefers plastic flatware. This from a woman with two sets of formal dining plates, silver, and crystal, two sets of everyday dishes, and a brand new set of everyday flatware. I insist on using our new flatware - I hate fork tongs breaking off in my food, esp after buying that new flatware three years ago. So,neither so little to wash, she does it by hand a couple times a week. Right above the dishwasher, that has maybe been used 3-4 times in the three years we have been in the house. I explain that dishwashers have to be run periodically to keep working right. She says to run it empty, which I intend to do today.

So, every once in awhile, she asks me if I see anything different in the kitchen. I note the cat on the counter where he isn’t supposed to be, and that his litter box needs cleaning out. Nope. It isn’t taking the trash on the counter out, because it is still there, waiting for me. I give up. Look in the sink, she says. Ok, it is clean for once I say. What does that mean? she asks. Oh!!! You did the dishes. She asks And? I then have to thank her profusely for having manually washed a weeks worth of dishes and flatware that should have been better washed in the dishwasher a foot away.

Life in retirement.

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

D.D. Driver said...

That was one of my big problems with Liz. Too much of her campaign was about how hard her childhood was or how 50 years ago so and so treated her unfairly."

And she lied about being treated unfairly. Official records proved she was not fired for being pregnant, yet Lizzie doubled down on the lie even after it was exposed as a lie.

Like Jussie, she not only put the crown of thorns on her own head, she held it firmly in place to keep anybody from yanking it off. Must claim that sweet, sweet victimhood.

Calypso Facto said...

"He takes the money — let's say $1,000 — out of their shared account, she receives it, and she puts it back into their shared account. Nothing happened!"

The false promise of Keynesian economics in a nutshell.

Now, as several commenters above have noted, insert a sales and/or income tax in the middle for government to take a slice of every transaction, and you can quickly see why the Swamp loves it.

narciso said...

college subsidized tuitions, artificially inflated mortgages, teacher unions, all things you don't want to challenge in the democratic party,

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Comedians make big bucks making sarcastic remarks. If I got paid for mine, I'd be rich...

Tom said...

My wife certainly does more around the house then I do. I make more money so I pay for a housekeeper. I don’t want to be bothered with that sort of work because I have other areas of focus. But, I’m not making my wife do the extra work she does. She’s doing it because she wants it done. Why would I pay extra for that work she does when, If it were up to me, either it’s work the housekeeper can do OR it’s work that I don’t believe is needed?

rehajm said...

I don't like the way my wife fills the dishwasher

Me either. Stop hooking the glasses over the tines. It's okay to nest the bowls. It will clean them...

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"The worst imbalance is if one person in the couple doesn't want sex with the other and provides sex anyway. Then it's work and the pay rate is that of a prostitute. You figure out what level prostitute."

Yes, but the imbalance is worse for the partner who thinks they are getting love but is actually getting a form of prostitution.

Michael said...

I was once given a list by my ex wife of things she wanted me to do. It was a Saturday in Menlo Park, California, a beautiful day and I was happy to sit in the sun after two (2) trips to New York in that very week. I pointed to the man across the street and asked my then wife what he was doing. Mowing the grass. And who mows our grass? The Mexicans. Yes, so do you think I hire the Mexicans to free me up to do shit for you? I think that was the beginning of the end.

CJinPA said...

According to the Huffington Post, only 23% of US *WOMEN* identify as feminist.

The HUFFINGTON POST.

Maybe this explains something.

gilbar said...

re: Warren (and blooomberg (and Klowbar (and buttifuc)))
maybe, the dogs don't like the dogfood??

exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...

rehajm, you're loading the dishwasher all wrong :)

SDaly said...

Women could take the money they earn doing housework and pay somebody to do the housework..

The the government would get two bites at the income!

stevew said...

Warren was afforded a fair hearing in the public sphere and her vision and ideas for America were found wanting.

The unpaid work idea is interesting to think about, and to the extent it gets people to actively participate in the decision making and consideration of the trade offs a good thing. Otherwise it is BS, a fallacy.

rehajm said...

Cheer up- Predictit has only three contracts for the Dem nomination with a value greater than $ .01- Biden, Bernie...and Hillary!

gilbar said...

Our Beloved Professor Althouse said...
Then it's work and the pay rate is that of a prostitute. You figure out what level prostitute.
But it still doesn't make much sense as long as the couple is a single economic unit. He takes the money — let's say $1,000 — out of their shared account, she receives it, and she puts it back into their shared account. Nothing happened!


Respectfully, i think you're looking at that backwards.
What's happening is:
She is Paying Him (in sex) not to leave; that is: to continue being a single economic unit
You're right, money wise; he's not paying her anything as long as the couple is a single economic unit

rehajm said...

rehajm, you're loading the dishwasher all wrong

There are images in my owner's manual. Look. Learn. Follow...

Char Char Binks said...

Who pays me to wash my dishes and laundry, and vacuum my carpet? I DEMAN REPARATIONS!

tcrosse said...

If they can tax unrealized capital gains, they can tax the value of unpaid labor. Fight for $15!

Rosalyn C. said...

A lot of these problems of "women's work not being valued" could be solved if women waited a bit and decided to marry younger men. Firstly, women would be more established in their careers and financially savvy. Their time would be more valuable or at least equal in value. Secondly, this tradition of women outliving their husbands would be mitigated. The benefits for men would be to have a partner who is more experienced sexually and liberated to say what she wants and to have less stress by the burden of being responsible for everything.

Bruce Hayden's arrangement does sound weird to me too. I'm assuming the wife is doing the cooking so why not volunteer to handle the dishes and clean up since that would be more pleasant? Because that is "woman's work?" Some kind of power struggle would ensue and she won't let you?

chuck said...

It would be great if I was paid for mowing my own yard, life is so unfair.

Char Char Binks said...

Who paid for Warren to run for president when almost nobody wanted her to run?

Earnest Prole said...

I figured Jennifer Steinhauer must be one of those new young NYT reporters who's Ivy League-smart and worldly stupid, but she went to work for the Times in 1989 -- old enough to be a newly minted NYT reporter's mother.

FullMoon said...

Pretty sure the monthly pension checks, lifelong VA care, government employment points, and disability pay, if you're injured bad enough not to work, compensate.

Good point. How much is an arm worth? A leg? Eyesight? Two arms, Two legs?

Why we keep hearing about homeless vets? What did they do with all that free money and benefits ?

FullMoon said...

"The worst imbalance is if one person in the couple doesn't want sex with the other and provides sex anyway. Then it's work and the pay rate is that of a prostitute. You figure out what level prostitute."
.....................

Have seen this here before. Maybe some people find sex occasionally inconvenient regarding timing or not being in the mood. If someone feels it is "work", I certainly feel bad for the significant other in the relationship.

And, obviously, original comment is not to infer women are always the one "working".

BUMBLE BEE said...

American Women are among the most fortunate creatures of recorded history.

FullMoon said...

Now, this might require payment.

Rashida Tlaib at Supreme Court Abortion Rally: “Maybe You Shouldn’t Even Want to Have Sex With Me!” (Video)

Drago said...

I am pleased to report now that Li'l Tomahawk has gone to the political campaign Happy Hunting Grounds, HULU will be releasing the brand spanking new Hillary documentary!!

Just in time to be relevant in this campaign season.

FINALLY!! We'll now have a chance to re-meet the "real" Hillary!

Did you know that she's not only astonishingly beautiful and brilliant, possibly the most brilliant woman whose ever lived, but that she is also such a down to earth cut up? Seriously, an amazing sense of humor! And so interested in the lives of those around her! I'm not kidding!

All in all, Hillary Clinton is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

narciso said...

ot, fx seems to promoting shows that only exclusively air on hulu, like that incomprehensible devs with nick offerman, and that Gloria Steinem/Phyllis shafley biopic when rose byrne plays Steinem, and kate Blanchett, Schlafly, I'm sure that will be balanced,

Fernandistein said...

How much should Warren be paid, or be charged, for her campaign?

The worst imbalance is if one person in the couple doesn't want sex with the other and provides sex anyway.

I just provided the garnering of a bunch of dog shit even though I didn't want to garner any dog shit.

I agree that having sexual intercourse with a man would probably be worse than garnering dog shit.

Wilbur said...

Caligula said...
1. It should (one hopes) be obvious that one can't just perform some job and then demand to get paid for it. For example, I can't go mow the neighbor's grass and then demand payment, for the neighbor never agreed to pay me for doing this work (let alone negotiated compensation to have it done).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This was something that flabbergasted this dumb country boy when I first went to law school.
There is a legal concept called quantum meruit. It determines the amount to be paid for services when no contract exists or when there is doubt as to the amount due for the work performed but done under circumstances when payment could be expected, for example when a physician provides emergency services. I remember a couple of cases similar to Caligula's example.

daskol said...

Like squeegee guys.

Phidippus said...

AA summarizes: "2. We're told, in an opinion piece, "Womens' Unpaid Labor..." blah blah blah.

It's what they call "voodoo economics".

The Marxism is strong in the NYT editorial page.

Phidippus said...

Chief Spreading Bull may have buried the hatchet, but has she broken the arrow?

How can we know? Wait, wait, what's that on the horizon? It looks like smoke signals.

Smoke signal say: White squaw make heap bad medicine. Never live in Great White Teepee. Sad!

narciso said...

French Krugman, aka piketty is pushing more of his malarkey

FullMoon said...

Poor thing .

Pocahontas Tries to Force Back the Tears During Drop-Out Speech — Even This Looked Phony (Video)

BUMBLE BEE said...

Lotsa lakefront home parting gifts for the participants out I'd reckon.

Ralph L said...

We use mostly paper plates or plastic containers, and she prefers plastic flatware.

That sounds like my late step-monster. Run!

bagoh20 said...

I still open doors for women, but I think I'm going to start demanding tips.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I definitely think I should be paid an hourly rate, nay, a salary with 401(k) match, for watching my kids frolic on the Sonic playground on a warm Thursday afternoon while sipping a Diet Coke and reading Althouse. Before this I drove my brand new Expedition Max to an acquaintance’s house where I bought her game table and rug and came home to put them in my piano room. All this haaaaard labor. Meanwhile Mr. Pants is sitting on a flight from Boston to Houston disinfecting himself and worrying about the P&L he’s responsible for.

What I do has tremendous value to our family but talking about not being paid for it is nonsense.

CuznDon said...

Maybe now that she has time to stay at home, she can wash the blue cardigan and black top and pants.

wildswan said...

The only thing left out is that if women stay at home to raise children then they are not "working" in that it does not count toward social security. If you only have one or at most two children you can go "back to work", paying into social security and collecting a good amount later on but if you have three, five, seven you're at home for long time. Yet social security will go bust, if all women only have one or two children. Because what you pay in does not cover what you take out - the difference is paid by the kids of the women who had more than two children. Yet he woman who raises the three, five or seven children that make the system work doesn't get to benefit from her work. If her husband dies she has nothing. Is that fair? Isn't that uncompensated labor?

tcrosse said...

Maybe now Warren can stop wearing her Mom's old glasses and spring for some new ones.

wildswan said...

Tomahawk should have run as a man, then everybody would have had to vote for her.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"If her husband dies she has nothing. Is that fair? Isn't that uncompensated labor?"
She doesn't get nothing, she can taking a survivor benefit based on HIS social security at age 60.

AllenS said...

The best thing that all of us can do, is to never mention this Fake Indian's name ever again.

Go away, bitch!

rhhardin said...

Because what you pay in does not cover what you take out

SS is in insurance policy against outliving your savings. You can save for an average lifetime but not for the longest possible lifetime. So save for the average and pool the risk. If you live longer, those who die quicker pay for you. You live on their savings since they don't need them anymore.

Aside from that, what you paid in was paid out already to older retirees; yours is paid by current workers.

If it doesn't balance, the retirement age for benefits is too low. Easy to change.

D 2 said...

Two stories come to mind:

1. For years, I tell anyone who listens - if they seemed ready to listen to me - that I learned a very long time ago, although not so long as to be in the original Latin, but the Romans had a saying long before any stupid Johnny-come-lately Marxist: “something is only worth what another man is willing to pay”

Anyone who disagrees with that can check out what the price of a face mask was in September 2019 and March 2020 in China. You can get all fancy and dress up labour value and do an economics degree but come back to that fact and you can proceed through this vale of tears as to what you are worth, and what you think other things are worth, and then realize the universe will throw you curve balls, that lets you know that value changes. So good luck, and don’t let your children grow up to be economists.

2. An old story about men and women and money: a couple, nearly lovers, are separated when one takes a job in a nearby city. It’s close enough geography they still try to meet, wondering which way to go with it. One morning, there’s a call - I’ll be in your town, unexpectedly, but only for half day, then travelling back with coworker. I can find 20 minutes near lunch - did you want to meet for coffee? The other one says of course - it will take me 10min to get to there, and then the same back, I will need to re arrange this or that, but I’m not going to pass it up. Thanks for calling!

So the two meet on a corner and all are happy at the efforts and they walk arm in arm towards the nearest coffee shop, which happens to be attached to a hotel.

A: (with a bit of impishness) ... well, I thought about getting a room, just, more private to talk...
B: (laugh and look) for 20 minutes? Would it be worth it?
A: (turn, epiphany) Worth it??!??? It would be priceless.

3. Green Day - of all bands - had a famous song with a good line about “worth” and people who cry to the skies if they feel they did not get what they deserve: “for what it’s worth, it was worth all the while...”

That’s three things I guess.

Marcus said...

In regards to prostitute's earnings:

Escorts that advertised when Backpage was around charged $70-80 for a QV (Quick visit), $100 for a half hour and $180 for an hour. Most were in their 20s or early 30s. It's merely another way to get their next bag of dope and it's not glamorous.

THEOLDMAN

tim in vermont said...

You have to give her props for not being blind drunk the way Hillary was when she lost.

Josephbleau said...

Liz hates my Bye-kus.
“Your Indian puns are bad!
Stop or I will Sioux!”

But will you be Suing NYU?

mockturtle said...

Anyone can see that the timing of the 'dropouts' just before and just after Tuesday were aimed at depriving Sanders of votes and increasing those of Biden. It may be that Warren didn't garner enough votes anyway to have made a difference to Bernie's delegate count but it was clear that was the goal. Disgusting. I hope all the Bernie supporters stay home in November.

stlcdr said...

Ok, cool! Let’s put a monetary value on all the things that both men and women do without getting paid for it!

rcocean said...

Liz Warren theme song:

My father married a pure Cherokee
My mother's people were ashamed of me
The Indians said I was white by law
But Harvard always called me "Indian Squaw"

Our campaign never settled, went from town to town
When you're not welcome you don't hang around
The voters always laughed at me
"Give her a feather, she's a Cherokee"

Yancey Ward said...

Bye-ku for Warren:

President Warren?
How long were the betting odds?
One in two power ten.

JAORE said...

"Women are in a bind"

Things are looking up. Mitt had women in a binder.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Another of Lizzies lies - that Michael Brown was "murdered".
LIE.

Unknown said...

On unpaid labor: women do not count the time men spend commuting (farther on average than women), cutting the grass, painting the house. When the man spends time with the kids the wife does not call it "labor". We could equally say that all the women who stay home with kids (or just stay home) are "taking advantage" of their husbands, but most husbands do not see it that way.

MayBee said...

The issue isn't an imbalance of money, but only whether one is working harder than the other or one is more fulfilled than the other.

I'm interested in this bit about being "fulfilled", and if one is more "fulfilled" than the other.

Kirk Parker said...

Rosalyn C.,

" if women ... decided to marry younger men."

Asked any men what they think about this idea,?

Narayanan said...

Nice. Great debt owed to mothers and sisters and girlfriends.

All those zeros make small USA treasury debt.

Silly Calabrese said...

It's unpaid ACTIVITY, not unpaid WORK. As different as night and day.

SGT Ted said...

No discussion of men's unpaid labor in the home of auto mechanic, landscaper, electrician, light construction, etc.

Stop whining, ladies. It's a garbage person move.

Bilwick said...

"So what I have learned in the last few weeks about Democrats. They, as a group, are racist, mysoginist, and homophobic at the very least. But, they are for the blue collar working man of all races and sexes and orientation and citizenship."

So young, so naïve. What they are for is statism. Being for or against any group is just a means to an ends.