There is a weird thing with money where people routinely refuse to pay for things extremely important to them, where I came up with a demonstrative example I think is even more confusing, as first imagine a group of single parents who help each other out babysitting.
That's a HUGE big deal for these parents who I'll say are close, and they do NOT charge each other for helping each other out. Each simply tries to do as much babysitting as the others or to balance out help from those who maybe have more free time, with doing something else for them.
Which is an example where a very important duty of caring for children is done without money, and the idea of charging for the services would seem wrong to any one of these caring parents.
Now one of their children becomes a teenager, and begins babysitting duties, should the teenager charge for the service?
I'm NOT going to give an answer! For those who wish to read more opinions from me about the apparent paradox of money and value, you can read my prior post:
Apparent paradox of money and value
Comments are welcome here! Should the teenager charge? If your answer is yes, why is that ok? The teenager remember probably received LOTS of value while growing up, being cared for, by other parents. And who would pay? Those parents!
If your answer is no, why not? Isn't the teenager providing a valuable service, and be realistic, is the teenager likely to do it without pay anyway?
This example is very mainstream American-centric as I grew up in the USA, so elements of it may not resonate with people from different countries or cultures, even though I tried to pick something that I believe would resonate widely.
James Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment