"Just questions I'm curious about: I'm not sure we want to say that someone should make what they make because the cost of reproducing their labor is less than someone else's do we? That is, if a maid doesn't have children, lives by herself, does it follow that she should make less because she doesn't spend as much time cooking and cleaning?"
My only metaphsycial insight about wages is that an hour of my time is worth an hour of anyone else's time. Then of course, if someone can't work because they're too young, or too old, or disabled, or sick, they get social support. And yes, you're right. If I had to pay my cleaning lady what I make an hour, I'd clean the house myself.
"Also, we've been talking about beauty standards so I wonder: How could we mediate the politics involved here under a socialist economy? To say that, fr'instance, pedicures are a kind of obligation to others aesthetic pleasure is a political claim now. It takes on a different, no less political contour in a socialist economy, no?"
Why do we have to theorize? I notice that people who are happy want to look good. I presume folks would be pretty happy living in a democratic socialist state. Also, I didn't say that pedicures were an obligation to others, I just said that in order to get toes sucked, it helps if they're clean and neat. However, I did think that Doug's friend had an excellent point in distinguishing those-who-dress-for-temselves from those-who-dress-for-others.
Joanna