Musings whilst drying dishes

A few weeks back the family dishwasher went on the fritz. First, it started making horrible shrieking sounds. Then, whatever it was complaining about apparently gave it a stroke, because the brain (processor chip) gave up the ghost. So, for a couple of weeks, we did dishes by hand. The traditional division of labor -- one washed, one dried, roles loosely rotated among family members.

The new dishwasher is Energy Star rated, which the old -- very old -- one was not. Water use is significantly reduced, as is electrical consumption. The only disadvantage seems to be that less electricity means less heat in the drying cycle, so some of the items still need to be air- or hand-dried. Cups and glasses with a dimple in the bottom where the water collects and reusable plastic containers seem to be the worst. No big deal, but it got me thinking.

First, I was thinking about the plastic stuff. Some of it comes out dry, and some clearly doesn't. The pattern seems to be that the pieces with smooth surfaces (Rubbermaid containers, GladWare, that sort of thing) stay wet, while the ones with pebblier finishes dry just fine. And the difference in outcome is pretty stark -- when I say "wet", I mean dripping.

So my first question was whether it would be possible/practical to make reusable food storage containers with textured surfaces (except maybe on the lip that forms the seal and so has to be smooth). I'm thinking that a pebbly surface somehow breaks surface tension and allows faster drying, but I don't really know. There could also be a difference in chemical composition (as a consumer, I think "plastic" -- as a sustainability wonk I've become more aware of the different formulations within that broad category, although I don't know the characteristics associated with each). As more dishwashers use less electricity in drying, I'd think a product which dried easier would have a distinct marketing advantage. (I can already envision the infomercial -- where's Billy Mays when you really need him?)

Of course, the obvious second question is why I needed to replace the dishwasher in the first place. If we can wash dishes by hand for two weeks, why not for two months, two years or two decades? Cap off the supply line, fill the remaining hole with a 24" cabinet base, and save some money (and even more electricity than an Energy Star unit).

But the subjective reality is that a dishwasher has become a virtual necessity in my family. We cook at home almost every night. And, like many farm families, we tend to put a lot of different dishes on the dinner table, which means a lot of pots and pans as well as plates and bowls. The biggest cookware and bowls we do wash by hand (they take too much space in the dishwasher to be practical), but doing the rest automatically saves a lot of time and effort at the end of a good meal which is, itself, at the end of a long day.

And that long day is part of the answer. Until I got through high school, my family didn't have a dishwasher (although we cooked at home and served meals quite similar to current practice). But my Mom didn't have a full-time job outside the house, and we kids (cheap laborers all) got home in time to wash the cookware before eating and the tableware before doing homework and evening chores.

See, back in the day, a greater proportion of "work" happened in and around the household. Farm kids often referred to jobs in town as "working away" -- as in "away from home." Now, my wife has a full-time job "away", I have a full-time job and a part-time job (both "away"), we both have farm work and other obligations to take care of -- saving a half-hour or so each day is important to us.

So the third question relates to how work patterns have changed in the last generation or so, and why. If fewer families needed two full-time incomes (plus) to maintain an acceptable lifestyle, what would that mean? If more cooking, more childcare, more lawn care, more cleaning, more consumer services of all sorts were provided within the household, what else would change? What else would have to change?

In terms of necessary preconditions, I'm thinking higher wages for full-time workers. Not dramatically higher -- certainly not so much higher as to maintain the same family cash income with one fewer worker -- but somewhat higher. To complement that, there'd probably need to be a willingness to be happy with a less extravagant lifestyle. (But extravagance doesn't usually create happiness, anyways.)

Among the consequences would probably be a decrease in GDP but, as the recent financial bubble demonstrated, high GDP doesn't equate to high well-being. The truth of the matter is that much recent American economic activity has been based in the provision of services. There's real societal benefit created by service jobs, when the services are at least somewhat specialized (think accountants, or airline pilots, or health care providers). But there's no profound social good created if I cook your meal, you cook mine, and we charge each other for the services provided -- GDP is increased, but neither of us is in any way better off. (And, on average, we're probably both fatter.) If I watch your kids and you watch mine, same deal (except that now it's the kids who are gaining weight.) And so on.

These "you and I" examples, of course, are overly simplistic. It's not a two-person economy, and people provide varying forms of service. But "A cooks a meal for B, who provides child care for C, who cuts lawns for D, who cleans the house of A" comes out pretty much the same. Certainly, one individual (or firm) specializing in provision of a single type of service creates labor efficiencies, but we've got a 9.5% (actually higher) surplus of labor at the moment. And no realistic prospect of an overall labor shortage.

So, the dishwasher really wasn't that expensive, and installing it really wasn't that hard, and while using it consumes electricity the thing actually saves water compared to hand washing and rinsing so from a CO2 standpoint it's more or less a "push". Still, it gets one thinking.

For better or for worse.