Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

The Careless Society

This essay makes a good point about the drawbacks of a society that pays people to "care" for others: they don't actually care. They just fake it for money. I'm sure you can think of another profession that works that way. What really bothers me is that, the more activities are professionalized, the fewer ways there are for anyone to make a living without spending massive funds on education first, and the more expensives there are in our lives because of all the things we are no longer allowed to do for ourselves. All of this erodes family and community bonds, and it's not good for the economy either. In other words, what happens when the housing crash is eventually followed by a service crash? Because people who are broke can't afford to pay for all this stuff.
Tags: community
Subscribe

Recent Posts from This Journal

  • Birdfeeding

    Today is sunny, muggy, and warm. I fed the birds. I've seen house finches and a squirrel. After lunch, we moved the rest of the walnut logs. Most…

  • Goldenrod Gall Contents

    Apparently all kinds of things go on inside goldenrod galls, beyond the caterpillars who make them. Fascinating. I've seen the galls but haven't…

  • Coping Skills:

    Folks have mentioned an interest in questions and conversations that make them think. So I've decided to offer more of those. This is the current…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 6 comments
glitteringlynx

glitteringlynx

October 30 2008, 05:44:27 UTC 12 years ago

As my bf would say, had he been reading this, "Universal socialised health care!"

He says it over and over again whenever he listsns to news videos that mention US health care.
jl_johnson

jl_johnson

October 30 2008, 12:44:46 UTC 12 years ago

As much as I think going back to a communal social structure would benefit humanity, to me, the majority of his essay that didn’t make sense, and I couldn’t understand where he was going with the whole thought process.

Service jobs weren’t created because billions needed to work, they were created out of necessity. If someone has a good head for money, why shouldn’t that person use his talent to help others spend wisely? And when ever, in human history, did someone look after another person’s ailing parent for free? Perhaps back tens of thousands of years ago.

There has always been this guilt factor with having someone else do something for you, ie, babysit your children, look after ailing parents, etc, but the truth is, there are people who are better suited to do these things, more so than others. It’s when the greed factor steps in that causes people to stop caring. That part I agree with him about. Big corporations don’t care about the little guy, just the financial bottom line, and perhaps some of these big companies should be disassembled, but not everyone in the service industry is looking out for him/herself.

But that’s just my opinion.
dulcinbradbury

dulcinbradbury

October 30 2008, 14:45:55 UTC 12 years ago

I have to agree with you. There were caregivers LONG before the industrial revolution.
jl_johnson

jl_johnson

October 30 2008, 15:47:59 UTC 12 years ago

Agreed. But people did it because they wanted to, like a religous calling perhaps. I'm not sure when greed become a factor, but it has tainted our outlook on society. The more people you have to do things for you, the more prosperous and successful you are.
ysabetwordsmith

Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

October 30 2008, 17:34:42 UTC 12 years ago

These are the parts that concerned me:

1) The economy used to be based mainly on making things: food, clothes, houses, buildings, etc. There has always been a service branch, but it used to be fairly concentrated around vital activities: teaching, health care, etc. Now the economy is based mainly on moving abstract wealth (stocks, debt, etc.) and on services, many of which are not vital (dog grooming, home decorating) or are bloated supports of a growth-addicted economy (like the massive expansion of retail). Less and less of the economy is based on concrete goods, vital services, and needs; more is based on abstractions and desires; so it's increasingly volatile.

2) The more things get turned into commodities, the more expensive it becomes to move through life. You have to pay more and more for other people to do stuff that people used to do for themselves.

3) The more things get turned into professions, the higher the entry fee for joining them, and the fewer ways there are to make a living without spending lots of money for the privilege of making a living that way. This takes the bottom rungs off the ladder and traps many people in poverty because they can't afford the education. It also saddles many young people with debt as they try to get the credentials now needed for professional work.

4) The more things people are paid for doing, the less anyone is willing to do that kind of work for free. They might still do it if they can't afford to hire someone else, but there's often an undercurrent of "Why don't *I* get paid for this? *Other* people get paid for it!" Many a relationship has broken up over "I'm not your maid!" etc. This becomes one more strain on social bonds, as we lose some of the skills of do-it-yourself and of caring for family.
thetathx1138

thetathx1138

October 30 2008, 18:41:00 UTC 12 years ago

Does this guy do ANYTHING for himself? Using these services (well, except in a few specific cases, like dead bodies) is a CHOICE. It's not a necessity. If people want to pay for it, let them. But his entire argument seems to work on the false premise that you are required to pay for these services, which, really, you aren't.