perm filename HOUSE.ESS[ESS,JMC]3 blob sn#437455 filedate 1979-04-27 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT āŠ—   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	FURTHER MECHANIZATION OF HOUSEWORK
C00013 ENDMK
CāŠ—;
FURTHER MECHANIZATION OF HOUSEWORK


	This section is problem-initiated rather than idea initiated. 
Therefore  it  is more  tentative  than sections  based  on solutions
looking for problems. 

	We start with the assertion that it is worthwhile to look for
technology that  will allow  the further mechanization  of housework,
and  we start that with a  survey of where we  were 100 years ago and
where we are today. 

	A hundred  years ago,  there  were two  kinds of  households -
not counting the rich.
There were  a certain number of nuclear  families with a breadwinning
husband and  a  wife who  did  all housework  and  took care  of  the
children and no other working people in the house.  This was possible
but very  strenuous for the wife.   Besides this, there were extended
households with several workers.   These extra workers might  include
grown or half grown children, girls  who were "in service" as well as
male  servants.  I don't know the  proportions of people who lived in
the various  kinds of  households.   Today, many  people deplore  the
passing of  the extended household.   In accordance  with a principle
discussed elsewhere in  this book,  I will  attribute rationality  to
people unless  there is evidence  to the  contrary, and therefore  we
conclude that the  passing of the extended household is evidence that
it was disadvantageous to some people required to keep it going.   It
is easy to guess who these people were. 

	In the first place, we have  the people who would have had to
become  servants in the  older society,  but who were  able to become
factory workers in a more manufacturing-based society.   I don't have
the statistics, but  I would guess that the  large families that some
people had were balanced by a  large number of people who were  never
in a  position to have  families at  all.  This  is suggested by  the
phrase  "in a position to  marry" which tells us  that getting enough
money and a suitable job to be able to marry was not trivial  and was
not always achieved.  It would be interesting to know what percent of
the  population  ever  got married  at  various  times  in nineteenth
century America and Europe. 


	In the second  place, the extended  family was normally  very
hierarchical,  and people who  faced positions  at the bottom  of the
hierarchy preferred their own nuclear families to the positions  they
could get in the  extended families.  The older  generation was often
disappointed  when the  children moved out  rather than  taking their
places supporting the  extended household.   Perhaps, one  might even
say that  the main use to  which Americans put the  great increase in
productivity  was in breaking up the  extended household and allowing
everyone to  form  his  own household  on  reaching maturity.    This
process is still continuing.   Children leave home at earlier ages in
increasing segments of the population.  Even the tendency of students
to move out of dormitories and into their own apartments is a part of
this same tendency. 

	This breakup of extended households has been made possible by
two kinds  of technological  development.   The  first is  a  general
increase  in   wealth  and   the  second  is   specifically  domestic
technology.   It seems that the first is probably the more important,
since it is quite feasible to have a nuclear  family with very little
of  the  present domestic  technology,  but  it  is rather  difficult
without money. 

	The increased general wealth  has permitted the  construction
of many  more houses and  apartments per  capita than was  previously
possible.   Secondly, it has  permitted a much less  efficient use of
food than  previously.   Highly  prepared  foods  are used,  and  the
inefficiency  of preparing  food  for  a small  number  of people  is
tolerated.    The  transportation  system  can  handle  the increased
fraction of the population not working where they live. 

	The specifically domestic technology includes the following:

	1.  Central  heating  which  eliminates   chopping  firewood,
bringing it in, and laying and feeding fires. 

	2. Running water which saves going to the well or pump. 

	3.  Sewage   connections  which  save   building  and  moving
outhouses and saves emptying chamber pots.  Maybe this is one of  the
main reasons why  it is possible  to have reasonable luxury  for some
without  having a class  of people who  can be  relegated to emptying
chamber pots and similar duties. 

	4. Refrigeration which permits shopping at longer intervals. 

	5. Electric lighting which eliminates some chores. 

	6. Automobiles  which eliminate the  work of  taking care  of
horses.   Historically, horses were mostly  used as transportation by
people who had other people to take care of them. 

	7.  Washing machines and  dryers.  It is  doubtful that these
reduce work  much over that  involved in  using laundries.   However,
they certainly make possible a less fixed schedule. 

	8.  Dishwashing  machines  that  lighten  the load  of  doing
dishes. 

	The foregoing has dwelt solely on the labor-saving aspects of
domestic technology.   The motivation  for adopting  this technology,
and its adoption  consists mostly of a large number of individual and
family decisions to purchase one or another gadget or service, is not
solely  to save  labor.   For example,  refrigeration permits  better
meals in many cases and not merely meals prepared with less labor. 

	Our  use of these  advantages to spread out  into suburbs has
forced us to accept some other demands on our time.  These include

	1. Commuting longer average distances. 

	2. Longer distances to shopping than in old-fashioned cities. 

	3. The need for chauffering children. 

	Well, let's summarise where all these developments leave us. 

	The amount of work required to keep up a household is usually
to small to occupy the  full attention of even one person except when
there is more  than one small  child in  the house.   However, it  is
enough so that people generally live more comfortably when there is a
person whose main energies are devoted to keeping house.  Moreover, a
certain  fraction of  women  keeping  house  would  rather  be  doing
something else.  It is not clear how large this fraction is. 

	It may be possible by  improved domestic technology to reduce
the  work required  to  keep house  to a  trivial level.   What  is a
trivial level?