It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy... If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. ~Adam Smith
Smith's advice makes sense. So much sense, in fact, that most of us run our personal affairs in this way without thinking twice. For example, many of us take our shirts to professional cleaners even though we could certainly wash and iron them ourselves. Anyone who advised us to "protect" ourselves from the "unfair competition" of low-paid laundry workers by doing our own wash would be considered looney. Common sense tells us to make use of companies that specialize in such work, paying them with money we earn doing something we do better. We understand intuitively that cutting ourselves off from specialists can only lower our standards of living. ~Alan S. Blinder
3 comments:
I think there might be a homemaking "exception." When we invest our "down" time doing something over time so that we don't have to buy, we can save in the home economy. Plus we can often learn skills at the same time. For example, you can buy a doily made in China for a bit of nothing. Or you can make one yourself over several casual evenings. Obviously, the cost of time for making one is silly. On the other hand, you made it in the time that was otherwise not used. And you practiced a useful skill in the meantime. Plus it represents an "heirloom" of sorts. And lastly, it is made in the U.S. - with significant ramifications. I would consider that a good use of time. Even better if it was a present. However, it would NOT be a good business proposition! A homemaker should never start making doilies as a business! Just my two cents worth. Oh yes, that's why my comment might not be too intelligent - it cost very little!
Mrs. K -- You bring up an intriguing point. It's interesting to note that Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations during the 1700's. During which time, women were expected to "specialize" in the home economy! I haven't read his book, but it would interest me to see if he mentions home economics and the impact they have on everyday life...
Also, homemakers do not receive wages as such, but they do have a valuable commodity that you mentioned: time. As the saying goes, "Time is money." Using downtime as you said is an excellent way to be economical. And you make a good point -- If you were making dollies (to sell) instead of giving piano lessons, you wouldn't be making good use of your time. Unless of course making dollies (for heirlooms) gives you the greatest utility. In my opinion, this is one of the greatest problems of economic theory... Utility is hard to measure. Therefore, heirloom/sentimental value is hard to measure in dollars and cents.
And your opinion is worth a great deal to me! There's nothing wrong with a cheap commodity -- it just means you can buy more of it. And more is always better. ;)
Hey chummy! I just gave you an award on our blog, so I thought I'd let you know.
It was fun seeing the movie with you tonight, even if it was a bummer.
Post a Comment