Benjamin Kahn said:  
>You forgot to mention that the  
>housekeeper as a result of marriage loses her wage, or maybe her 'allowance'  
>goes up, but by now, this is simply two people spending the same income, and  
>not an employer and employee earning (and paying taxes) out of two incomes.     
>I guess one could argue that the two people still have the same income  
>together and spend it together, so presumably effective demand, or the  
>consumption in the economy should stay the same -  
  
   
In monetary value it may remain the same, but there may be substantive difference in the
family dynamic. If the wife decides now to be a housewife, her economic independence will
be a thing of the past. That does not necessarily mean that she will not be able to spend
the same amount of money, but she is definitely in a vulnerable position of being left by
her husband for a younger thing to seek sexual favors from. More seriously, being
economically dependent works to women's disadvantage in subtle and obvious ways. John
Stuart Mill equated their economic independence with true equality between the sexes and
it happens to be so even in today's "companionate" marriages. Studies show a strong
correlation between women's economic dependence and increased domestic violence.
   
Perhaps bringing  the value of household production in the national accounts (from the
satellite accounts) will be a starting point in devising national policies for, say,
childcare and eldercare. A reasonably accurate measure of household production can be used
to make a claim for a more generous expenditures on both, if women choose to work in the
marketplace. Their paid work with support for the caring activities will raise both the
GDP and economic welfare. And if they choose to be homemakers, the publicly determined and
acknowledged monetary value of their production will improve their bargaining position
within the family.
   
Conflating housework and prostitution seems like a distraction; witty, but a distraction
nonetheless. The former is generally accepted as productive of  consumption goods and to
which values can be imputed relatively easily. The fact that some homemakers really enjoy
working for their families should not preclude us from valuing it, any more than the fact
that some professors really enjoy teaching does not stop us from considering their whole
income as part of  GDP. The second (sex and prostitution) runs into all kinds of
conceptual problems mentioned by Benjamin Kahn, as to who is to receive it, how much and
all the rest.
   
Sumitra Shah