During the reading Jobless Poverty I found Wilson's definition of a work interesting and lacking substance. He defines work in the formal sense as "regularity and consistency in schedules and hours". Yet he does not consider housework, baby-sitting, or drug dealing (not that I condone illegal work) as formal work. I think of formal work as anything a person does, whether that's for wages or not. I think of homemakers as formal work. They are constantly taking care of the home requirements and involving themselves with their children's activities, which is a 24 hr job; this seems very much so regular and consistent. Also nannying is a form of "babysitting", but according to Wilson this is not formal work. If I recall correctly, nannies are busy from the time the parents leave for their occupations to the time they return home. The schedule and hours seem quite regular and consistent to me. If Wilson's definition was to stand true, then people having executive positions would not be considered doing "work". Some executive positions only require work when needed; not very regular or consistent to me. They can receive a salary without lifting a finger for weeks. And yet they are seen as having the ultimate form of work in a formal economy.
This particular section of the article does not give a solid definition of "formal work" to me. I, originally and currently, define formal work as anything you can pay taxes on. To be honest, this is the only reason drug dealing is illegal; if Uncle Sam is not getting his portion, than it's considered illegal and not work in the formal economy.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
