For some families, work at home is an option, and for others it is a virtually unchanging social condition. The point is that when the work of the house is done by those who live in that house, they usually do not receive any economic retribution for it. “The housewife”, in the traditional concept, has no salary. It’s also not the custom to pay kids to sweep and sweep floors, or to fix up their rooms. Neither it is to give a bonus to the oldest of the children if it takes care of the children. It’s like working pro bono, somehow.
Here it is inevitable the ones who affirm that the work of the house is minimal and, in response, those who maintain that it is exhausting and endless, a discussion that does not make much sense, at least not in a society where the market economy works more or less. That is, if such work is “worth a lot”, go and do it somewhere else and get paid a lot for it. If it’s “worth little,” then, instead of you, hire someone and pay them little to do it for you. This is one of the advantages of currency, the ability to monetize things.
But the point to be made, of course, is that there is work, and important work which, on one hand, does not receive economic remuneration and, on the other hand, does not generate wealth. That is, I can sweep and sweep as many times as I want my apartment, I can clean the bathroom two or three times a day, vacuum 18 times and in the end, when everything is impeccable I won’t have generated any new dollars. Conversely, I will have incurred costs by using resources such as water and electricity and by using inputs such as soap, mops and so on, not to mention the most valuable factor: time.
So far, then, what must be distinguished is which worker receives or does not receive economic remuneration for the work he or she does, and which worker generates wealth. In the typical way, the one who works “outside” is the one who generates wealth, and the one who stays at home does not. Both work, but it’s the one who generates wealth who pays the bills. Having made this distinction, perhaps it can be better understood that if not the absolute of the public sector, at least a good part of it does not generate any kind of wealth for the country, but consumes resources from the people who produce it.
Does a public employee generate wealth? If a public employee does not generate wealth and, on the contrary, instead of generating it, consumes the wealth of others, he or she should at least avoid waste. This is where the figure of the “state demographic apparatus” appears. Being a member of the state, in some way, does not oblige you to generate wealth, therefore, it does not put pressure on you to be efficient and, nevertheless, it ensures an income. So what skills does a person develop that do not need productive efficiency to generate income? For a huge and inefficient state apparatus, a largely idiotic population is needed that procreates and educates entirely idiotic children.