angryThe current trend towards "every man for himself" is not, in fact, a society at all. It's an anarchist principle. It leads to the disintegration of vital social and cultural infrastructure in ways that harm everyone.
Here's an article about the further loss of retirement funds.
Retirement Savings Lose $2 Trillion in 15 Months
Nancy Trejos, The Washington Post: "The stock market's prolonged tumble has wiped out about $2 trillion in Americans' retirement savings in the past 15 months, a blow that could force workers to stay on the job longer than planned, rein in spending and possibly further stall an economy reliant on consumer dollars, Congress's top budget analyst said yesterday."
Remember that few people have a real pension anymore; instead, they're expected to gamble successfully and retire on the winnings. Except now the market is crashing, so people are losing instead of winning. That means they'll have to retire later, or not at all. This is a moral problem, because it's indecent to force elders to keep working until they die, especially if they're not really up to it. It's a practical problem, because many elders aren't healthy enough for a job that will actually support them, and many are forced out of the workplace for being old. Even if they retire, they may not be able to afford the skyrocketing costs of food, medicine, and utilities. That's a disgrace, and it's not the elders who should feel ashamed when they can't pay their bills. Those who have already given a lifetime of work should be supported in their old age, and if they are not, shame on the younger generations.
Here's an article that talks about how women are disproportionately impacted by poverty and the withdrawal of social services.
The Terror of Loving and Losing
Cathy Albisa, On the Issues Magazine: "Data and common experience reveal that it is women who primarily take care of the sick without pay, raise and nurture children, or make sure the elderly in their orbit eat well, get medical care and are protected from the threat posed by loneliness and isolation. As a result, the benefits and deficits of the system of social support - and the level of protection of economic and social rights - have a disproportionate effect on women."
Are you a woman? This doom could happen to you. Are you a man? Think of the women you love: your mother, grandmother, sister, daughter, wife or girlfriend. This could happen to them. Most teachers are women; most nurses are women. Do you want them to be healthy, lively women capable of doing a good job? Or do you want them to be miserable broken wrecks limping through life and maybe hurting your or yours because they're too shattered to do things right? This, too, is unnecessary human wreckage. This, too, affects everyone and diminishes everyone, if not directly then indirectly. It is wicked for a society to withhold the resources people need for a decent life and then punish them for not having said resources.
October 9 2008, 03:04:44 UTC 12 years ago
Deleted comment
I Agree
October 9 2008, 04:43:33 UTC 12 years ago
I believe that everyone should have the right to getting their basic needs met: food, shelter, clothing, health care, etc.
I believe that nobody who wants to work should be shut out of the workforce. There's always work that needs to be done. If you don't have a regular job, you should be able to go to some community location and get work there, based on whatever it is that needs done that day.
I also believe that straight-up charity is usually bad for people; it meets a need but makes them feel dependent. So it's better if they give something in exchange for what they receive.
You are absolutely right about how the health care system routes people into the most expensive venues, where most of them should not be. It's shortsighted, ineffecient, and at worst deadly. That's just one example of that same problem, which is quite widespread in many manifestations, refusing to solve something openly so that it clogs up something else down the line.
October 9 2008, 06:27:25 UTC 12 years ago
People who live here have those things on your list, maybe not immediately or of the best quality, but they're available even when the person's unemployed and unemployable.
I've just done some rough figuring and to live in a society that provides this I pay 30% of my very slightly above average salary in income and sales tax. How does this compare to US tax rates?
October 9 2008, 06:58:44 UTC 12 years ago
I don't know the tax specifics, sorry. I have heard that Americans pay more for health care but get less than civilized countries with a public health plan.
October 9 2008, 11:18:59 UTC 12 years ago
12 years ago
October 9 2008, 09:35:00 UTC 12 years ago
Deleted comment
October 9 2008, 15:29:42 UTC 12 years ago
Deleted comment
Hmm...
12 years ago
October 9 2008, 14:14:28 UTC 12 years ago
"Every man for himself," and we women will take care of everything else.
October 9 2008, 15:44:28 UTC 12 years ago
This is one way I lean masculine, and wow, does it get flack. Many women respond to "No, I'm not going to do that" with downright savage outrage. Why? I think it's envy: why should I walk away from a situation when they dont'? Because I'm practical enough to realize that if I wreck myself, I'm no use to myself or anyone else. I just stop before that point instead of after.
They hate it. They hate me. But it's the society they should be looking at, that expects people to work until they break and then throws them away.
I admire the caregivers and the homemakers, and I know how hard their work is. But that's not my purpose, and using a screwdriver to pound nails is generally a bad idea.
October 10 2008, 14:15:39 UTC 12 years ago
October 10 2008, 16:31:48 UTC 12 years ago
Here's a splendid list of "20 Ways to Say No," complete with explanations. These are polite and effective.
http://www.onlineorganizing.com/ExpertAdviceToolboxTips.asp?tipsheet=16
October 9 2008, 16:08:50 UTC 12 years ago
I am a woman. It won't happen to me because I won't let it. I'm not a carer, I never will be, and I have no desire to nurture. That doesn't mean disloyalty, I don't mind spending money and time if my parents should become ill (for example) to make their lives comfortable, but the 24-hour caring bit is out of the question. I am not selfish; I just realise that men are too clever to be sold a life of dreary, thankless, joyless, 24-hour toil that is dressed up as "the sacredness of motherhood", "the vocation of caring" and the "nurturing instinct".