The Shared Care Podcast continues in the direction of - care and economics. Care - why it is important to make this unpaid work visible, the economic analysis of the unequal sharing of care and the cost of care for society. - these are the main topics in the conversation with Toma Machev.
Listen to the episode here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4l7aMcYjeEk1fLAZk7iVdM
Transcript of epizode 9
Hello! You are on the Shared Care podcast, where we talk about the need for equal sharing of care responsibilities. The podcast is part of the CAREdiZO project , which aims to create family-friendly policies, encourage men to participate in caregiving and highlight the value of care throughout society. In it, partners from Greece, Cyprus, Lithuania and Bulgaria conduct research, co-creation workshops, training programs and develop digital tools, educational games and podcasts like this one, through which equality in care and the economy is promoted.
Today, we are joined by financial expert and business consultant at the Gotse Delchev Business Incubator - Toma Machev, to explore how care connects to the economy.
When we talk about the economy, we usually think about jobs, wages, production, consumption, and business. But there is one huge amount of work that no society could function without. It is care work. Let's start by asking what happens to the economy when this care work is not visible. What is unpaid care work? Why is it important to call it work?
Hello, actually the boundary here is quite conditional. If for the same activity, for example, we hire another person and pay that person, for example, to look after a child, clean, prepare food or take care of an elderly person, we recognize that as work. And when the same thing is done without payment by a family member, we very often call it simply a family duty.
Here, the fact that we do not receive a salary does not mean that we do not invest time, effort, energy and our skills. This is work that creates real value and allows other family members to work, study and participate in social life. It is important to call this work, because language also determines what we see. If, for example, we only talk about helping around the house or about family duties, here we can easily underestimate how much time and effort each of them costs.
And when we recognize caregiving as work, we can see very clearly how it is distributed. Who does it, how much time does it take, and how does this affect his or her opportunities for paid work, income, and career advancement?
Yes, and here we come to the paradox - this is a necessary work, work that is done in every family, every home. Without it, many people cannot even go to work, but when it remains unpaid, it does not appear in economic indicators, the way paid work is seen. Why is it important to see, to take into account invisible work?
Basically, when we talk about the economy, in order for a person to go to work, be productive, and develop their career, someone must have prepared the food, taken care of the child, taken that child to school, or taken care of an elderly relative. In other words, in order for there to be an economy, these things must be provided - care.
This work actually creates some conditions for the rest of the economy to function, but since we do not receive a salary for it, it easily remains outside our idea of what this economic contribution is. So, the effort that goes into a successful business, such as employees in a company, often remains misunderstood. They must have the conditions to develop their economic activity. If care is not provided, there will be no successful economy.
Various studies, including those we conducted within the framework of CAREdiZO projects, show that invisible care work is essentially women's responsibility. How does this affect women economically, and not only?
When women take on the majority of unpaid care work, it often means that they have less time and opportunities for paid work, career development and leisure. Sometimes this means working fewer hours, giving up extra work or promotion opportunities. In other cases, it means taking a career break or leaving the labour market altogether for a period of time.
And here it is important to see that the consequences are not just for current income. Fewer years in the labor market and lower income - this can mean smaller pension rights and greater economic dependence on the partner in the long term. So the question is not whether care is valuable, it is undoubtedly valuable. The question is why this valuable work is still distributed so unevenly. And this is where equal sharing of care makes economic sense. When both partners participate in this care, both get more opportunities to participate in paid work, to develop their careers, and to maintain their economic independence.
We understand what the economic cost is. From another perspective, we can say that care also has a purely personal cost that the woman pays. It is related to the time she uses to provide care. When, for example, after the working day is over, a new working day begins, a new shift at home, it is up to the woman and there is less time left for rest, relaxation, recovery or personal life. This cannot be measured economically as an indicator. So equal sharing of care is of economic importance. Both partners participate in care, both receive more opportunities purely economically, but also from the point of view of personal well-being, opportunities for rest and development, personal life. It should be emphasized that unequal sharing of care is also related to income inequality. Let us explain more about this.
The connection often builds up gradually, which is why it is difficult to notice. Here ... it is not about one big decision that will change a person's financial situation, but rather about small, very small decisions that are repeated over time. For example, if a mother stays home every time her child is sick, if she often takes leave to take care of family commitments, if she reduces her work hours, or turns down a business trip to be able to take care of her family - each of these decisions may be considered completely reasonable at the time. But when they accumulate, they can mean less income, slower career development, and fewer opportunities for promotion. For example, imagine a woman who chooses to work part-time for several years while the children are still young.
In the short term, the difference may seem relatively small, but along with the lower monthly income, there may also be less professional experience, fewer opportunities for development, lower social security contributions and, of course, a lower pension. The same applies to career breaks. One or two years out of the job market may seem like a short period to some, but if a person then returns to a lower position, or needs time to recover there, the difference can last and be felt for much longer.
There is one more very important thing, and that is time and opportunities – they are also a resource. That is, when one partner takes on more care, the other gets more freedom to work overtime, travel, attend training, apply for a higher position or develop their own business. And that is exactly why small decisions in everyday life can have a big effect in 5, 10 or 20 years.
In this sense, what happens in a purely economic sense when a person chooses between work and care?
In such a choice, it means working fewer hours, giving up additional commitments, not applying for a certain position, interrupting your career or even leaving the labor market for a certain period of time. This is very difficult, you see that you are gradually getting some relief economically, you want to take care of yourself in the best way at home, but then you work less or not at all. That is, income decreases, then the care is not as good, it is a vicious circle.
Yes, it is indeed a fact that many families, especially women, continue to take on most of the daily care in the family and when there is a need for someone to reduce their work or stay at home, it is often the woman who takes this step. And the explanation here is precisely economic, because the man brings in a greater income, which is better to keep, so he continues to work, and the woman sacrifices her work and her economic freedom.
Let's talk more about this economic freedom of women.
Well, yes, a woman's economic freedom can be judged by whether she currently has a job. It's about how much she has her own resources and opportunities to make decisions and security for her future. First of all, this is her own income, i.e. when a woman has her own income, she also has greater economic independence, a greater opportunity to participate equally in the family's financial decisions.
When she works less or stops working altogether because of caregiving, this independence can gradually diminish. Another thing is financial security. This does not necessarily mean that each partner has the same income, but it does mean that the woman has her own financial support and the ability to cope if, for example, the family situation somehow goes wrong.
And here comes the issue of dependence on the partner's income. That is, when one partner earns the main income and the other takes on the main part of the care, an economic dependence can already be created here. In a short term, this may seem like a completely logical family decision, but if it continues for years, the difference in income and professional opportunities already becomes significant.
Economic independence is actually something very important for a woman. Let's be clear.
Yes, that's right. Economic independence is very important because it gives you more freedom in making decisions. When a person has their own income and financial resources, they have a greater opportunity to participate equally in these decisions. Not only for everyday expenses, but also for larger decisions, such as buying a home, educating children, investing or changing jobs. And this independence becomes especially important when we are talking about unforeseen changes, such as a separation.
It is not a question of assuming that a relationship will end, but of what will happen to a person's economic opportunities if the family situation changes in this direction. If, for example, a woman has spent many years outside the labor market to care for children or loved ones, returning to work can now be very difficult, and the income significantly lower. And finally, here comes retirement, which is often the most distant and therefore the least visible consequence, as today's decisions about work, income and career breaks can affect pension rights decades later. Thus, the care that a woman provided for the family today may have a high economic cost, but this will be much later.
Men , on the other hand, are most often seen as the ones who have to bring income to the family, to financially take care of the family, which at first glance is a serious responsibility, but does it also prove to be a barrier for men in some way, for example, a barrier to more active involvement in caregiving?
The problem here is when we start to associate the value of a man in a family almost entirely with how much he earns. Then it's very easy to end up with a division where the man is the income provider and the woman is the caretaker in the family. And when the need arises for someone to stay home, reduce their working hours, or take parental leave, it seems natural that the woman will have to take that step, because it is assumed that the man's income is more important to the family. So such an economic decision gradually becomes a decision about who will be the main caregiver. And this can create a cycle - the more the man works to provide the income, the more the woman takes on the care. Or the more she takes on the care, the harder it becomes for her to maintain her own professional development. And in the end, traditional roles seem like a natural result, even though they were built up gradually from many small decisions.
These stereotypical, so to speak, traditional roles for men, for women - one brings in the income, the other takes care of the home, whether it's for children, for the elderly, for the sick, but what's accepted in our society actually becomes economic roles as well. And these economic roles limit people, right?
Well, yes, that's exactly right. Because, for example, the man who is chosen to be the breadwinner in the family begins to think that he cannot afford to be absent from work. For example, if the child is sick, someone needs to stay home. The man thinks, "I have an important meeting, I can't refuse this business trip," or "my job is more lucrative, it's better for my partner to stay home," and each of these decisions can have a completely logical explanation. But if one and the same person chooses work and the other chooses care, a permanent division is gradually created. A very important factor here is the work environment. That is, an employer expects the man to always be available, not to leave work early if some care for the child is required, he seems not ambitious enough for this job if he decides to leave early or if he does not participate in some business trip for the sake of the children or the family.
In such situations, the man already experiences a real difficulty in participating in this care. We would not say that the man or men should simply participate more. If men share the responsibility for care, it means that both retain the opportunity to be economically active and both develop the ability and confidence to care. And in this way, the family does not rely on two separate roles, i.e. he to provide and she to care, but now there are two partners who can provide and care together. The family here already earns much more. First of all, both partners retain more of their professional capabilities. If both can now work and care, the risk that one of them will have to completely interrupt their career is now much smaller. This also means greater economic sustainability for this family. The family does not depend entirely on one income and both partners here retain their professional skills and capabilities.
If these economic roles, so preordained in society, are followed, do men actually lose? For you personally, what is the answer? Is it important for men to share the cares in the family?
In my opinion, men really lose out and it is important that they also share the care in their family, because if they do not participate in this, for example, they lose time with their children, they lose their closeness with the children, with the family, with their loved ones. They do not participate in the important moments of the family or they participate, but to a lesser extent. Also, they do not know so much about the daily life of this family and also the opportunity to build their own confidence as parents is lost if the man does not participate and in my opinion the most important thing is that the man should not have to choose between being a good professional or a good father who takes care of his family.
So far, we've talked about the cost that unequal caregiving can have on women, men, and families. But what is the real cost to society when we fail to create the conditions for people to combine work and caregiving?
In fact, the cost to society is much greater than it seems at first glance, because when women reduce their working hours or leave the labor market due to caregiving, society loses part of their professional potential and economic contribution.
And when men can't provide care at home, there is pressure on them to always be economically active and we lose the opportunity for care to be more evenly distributed. This is exactly the pattern that repeats itself in the economy. Women are expected to be the less active, and therefore less desirable employees, and therefore with lower incomes. And when both men and women are already participating in paid work and care, we have greater flexibility, better use of people's skills, and a lower risk of care taking one gender out of the labor market, especially in times of economic crises, such as those that are felt even today.
I think we've explained how, at first glance, concerns unrelated to the economy, in a word, actually have a big, huge impact, both in the present and in a future dimension.
Yes, that's right. Care, as a case in point, cannot be seen as something that is outside the economy, unrelated to it. We said that it is a basis for economic development, and when we share care more equally, we share not only the tasks, we share the opportunities, the income, and even the freedom.
Thank you for this in-depth analysis of care from an economic perspective.
That was all for this episode of the Shared Care podcast. With you was Natasha Zarankova.
The podcast is created by the National Business Development Network under the project CAREdiZO,CARE Driven Innovation for Gender mainstreaming in Home, Micro-Enterprises & Micro-CSOs, funded by the European Union under the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values program.
The CAREdiZO project is implemented in the framework of the European Commission’s CERV Programme, as a cooperation among the following organisations: Challedu (Greece), WHEN (Greece), MOTERU INFORMACIJOS CENTRAS (Lithuania), NATSIONALNA MREZHA ZA BIZNES RAZVITIE (Bulgaria), Mediterranean Institute of Gender Studies (Cyprus).. The project is funded by the European Union. The views and opinions expressed are, nonetheless, solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission-EU. Neither the European Union nor the European Commission is responsible for them. Project code: 101191047 – CAREdiZO – CERV-2024-GE.