4 ms·

elder-care cannot possibly be a solid basis for the economy. they are not in their working years and are not (on the average) contributing positive sums to GDP

elder-care cannot possibly be a solid basis for the economy. they are not in their working years and are not (on the average) contributing positive sums to GDP or tax revenue. there is a humanitarian case to be made for improved quality of life for elderly people, but I can't imagine that there is a reasonable economic case to be made for it, unless you're arguing that the elder-care industry is just an elaborate substitution for more traditional methods (inheritance and taxation) of redistributing the accumulated wealth of the elderly. aside from that, it strikes me as spiritually corrosive to set up a society in which the young are caring for the old simply so they can pay their rent. this is a kind of gerontocracy. It seems to me that what is needed is alternative industries that are booming because they create new economic opportunities in a generative fashion. an industry that is booming because the core economic and social dynamics of our society have gotten out-of-whack is not really much of a solid future for people facing job displacement.

beguiledfoil 10y ago
>but I can't imagine that there is a reasonable economic case to be made for it Median net worth of a retiree is $210,000. Many have saved for care in retirement and therefore will be able to 'demand' it in the market. And I don't believe that includes income from Social Security (which is just a forced savings plan). >It seems to me that what is needed is alternative industries that are booming because they create new economic opportunities in a generative fashion. This is word soup.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  word soup would be a sentence that doesn't even parse. you're misusing the term in an effort to beat me down with the force of your snark. cut it out. do I actually need to explain it to you? I will anyway, in word sandwiches, since you might prefer that instead of soup. Re-training assembly line workers to be barristas, mall parking lot attendants, and elder-care nurses is not an acceptable outcome. There is increased demand for positions like that in our economy but that is indicative of economic dysfunction, not economic health. Some industries are declining (in terms of labor force participation) because of off-shoring and automation. Those industries are benefiting in profitability from the reduction of their labor costs but the laborers being displaced are not receiving those benefits. New industries that can offer work for displaced laborers are needed. Ideally, those industries are _generative_. That means they are primarily involved in production (of raw materials, of manufactured goods, of energy).
  - beguiledfoil 10y ago
    >word soup would be a sentence that doesn't even parse I use it to describe sentences where I can jumble up all the adjectives and get the same meaning - a meaning which is so vague that people can just interpret the sentence as something that conveniently agrees with their prior convictions >Ideally, those industries are _generative_. That means they are primarily involved in production (of raw materials, of manufactured goods, of energy). Your prior conviction is that new stuff is needed and intrinsically good. I am not so bold as to hold such a conviction. Maybe people simply need to be enabled to do more with less.
tptacek 10y ago
I don't understand the reasoning here, like, at all. For decades now researchers have been pointing out the demographic issues of aging populations and the workforces required to care for them. I don't know the specific numbers, but they're doubtless enormous. Why wouldn't they be a significant part of the economy?
- ergothus 10y ago
  Not the above poster, but their point appears to be that caring for the elderly doesn't CONTRIBUTE to the economy (i.e. as a transaction it adds to GDP, but in terms of value-creation it's near zilch. So while a blue-collar worker might add value by creating a product, an elder care worker adds only humanitarian benefit. (And unlike a doctor that can help those blue collar workers continue to work, there isn't even much INDIRECT value-addition to elder care). To continue my devil-advocacy, I'm sure the above poster wouldn't argue AGAINST elder care on humanitarian grounds, but is instead saying this is not where you want to redirect significant portions of your workforce, because you'll tank value-addition and harm everyone (including those elderly patients). Personally, I find the argument a little repulsive, but also an important argument to refute. So I'm glad it was raised. My rebuttal would be that with increased automation we're doing fine in value-addition, and the entire point of having positive wealth creation is to improve the overall well-being of a lot of people (I was going to say "as many as possible", but that might not be agreed to by some). If we skip the "reward" of a society's wealth-creation, why are we doing it again?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    That was the "logic" I took from that comment too, but it still doesn't make any sense. We spend money on all sorts of things that don't "contribute" (in this weird, narrow sense) to the economy. But of course, most things we spend money on do in fact contribute to the economy: the money goes into the pockets of the people providing the service, who go on to buy things with that money and fuel the economy. That's what I meant when I said I didn't understand the reasoning of the comment --- like, at all, even a little bit.
    - 10y ago
edblarney 10y ago
If those 'elders' lives can be meanginfdly improved with care, than the resulting GDP from their payment to service providers is as 'productive' to society than anything else. What the hell is the economy for otherwise? Most of the economy is not based things that grow the pie massively like 'new energy forms' and 'more powerful computers' etc..
VLM 10y ago
Consider even more traditional methods of elder care such as apprenticeships and village elders. It is rather mysterious how we take kids in prime physical shape and mush for brains and lock them into ignorant echo chambers for years while we take wise and skilled old people with worn out bodies and brains full of very expensive experience and lock them into lonely old folks homes next door and then make sure they never mix. Its almost like our culture is so stupidly designed someone is trying to sabotage it. You'd have to expand the concept of apprenticeship beyond current restrictive beliefs and expand the idea of teachers aide quite a bit. If all some old duffer does is make sure the kids don't tip over an unchained acetylene bottle in shop class, its still worth it if all he does is sip coffee the rest of the semester. Three old duffers stand at the table saw all day doing nothing but safety and technique critique. Advanced disciplinary procedures are interesting to contemplate. Not so much the return of corporal punishment but you'd be surprised how well kids wanting attention can react to being assigned to work with a team of five old people. You will do your math homework alone or with the five grandmas ... Note that this is a fair trade unlike your gerontocracy because the kids derive considerable value from the old people. Where it gets weird is when you mix unemployed people in. Say due to ageism I'll never get paid to write code again because I'd be too expensive or unwilling to work 60 hour weeks. If welfare paid my bills would it be that bad if I did nothing but volunteer computer lab tech all day?
- tptacek 10y ago
  I don't understand how we continue to dignify the premise that elder care in our existing marketplace isn't a fair trade. We want our elderly family members to be comfortable. If nobody was available to perform these services, we'd do them ourselves, at great personal cost. Instead, we exchange money for the services of specialists. Everybody comes out ahead. We don't need "the kids to derive considerable value from the old people" to justify these economic transactions.
  - internaut 10y ago
    I hear a litany of complaints from parents about paying for childcare, and also with paying for grandpa/grandma's nursing facilities. If you add up the costs and deduct them from salary + cost of living, very, very few middle class families are going to come out ahead. It is expected (in my country) that a retirement home is so expensive it shall require the sale of the family home, so inheritances don't pass to the children or grandchildren. I've worked before in nursing care facilities/retirement homes, and I'm certain most of the people there receive very little simulation and few visitors. It's a miserable and lonely existence. I'm a fan of using markets for lots of things, but the market mechanism is overly used for this particular usecase and lots of people are under enormous strain because of it. Basically the only case in which they ought to be used is in the final months/years where the person is too frail or incapacitated i.e. like state care systems. tldr; I do not in fact believe it is economic. Additionally it damages a heap of other things ranging from cultural transmission (long term repercussions) to mental health on a personal level. It is a bad deal.

beguiledfoil 10y ago

>but I can't imagine that there is a reasonable economic case to be made for it Median net worth of a retiree is $210,000. Many have saved for care in retirement and therefore will be able to 'demand' it in the market. And I don't believe that includes income from Social Security (which is just a forced savings plan). >It seems to me that what is needed is alternative industries that are booming because they create new economic opportunities in a generative fashion. This is word soup.

metaphorm 10y ago
word soup would be a sentence that doesn't even parse. you're misusing the term in an effort to beat me down with the force of your snark. cut it out. do I actually need to explain it to you? I will anyway, in word sandwiches, since you might prefer that instead of soup. Re-training assembly line workers to be barristas, mall parking lot attendants, and elder-care nurses is not an acceptable outcome. There is increased demand for positions like that in our economy but that is indicative of economic dysfunction, not economic health. Some industries are declining (in terms of labor force participation) because of off-shoring and automation. Those industries are benefiting in profitability from the reduction of their labor costs but the laborers being displaced are not receiving those benefits. New industries that can offer work for displaced laborers are needed. Ideally, those industries are _generative_. That means they are primarily involved in production (of raw materials, of manufactured goods, of energy).
- beguiledfoil 10y ago
  >word soup would be a sentence that doesn't even parse I use it to describe sentences where I can jumble up all the adjectives and get the same meaning - a meaning which is so vague that people can just interpret the sentence as something that conveniently agrees with their prior convictions >Ideally, those industries are _generative_. That means they are primarily involved in production (of raw materials, of manufactured goods, of energy). Your prior conviction is that new stuff is needed and intrinsically good. I am not so bold as to hold such a conviction. Maybe people simply need to be enabled to do more with less.

tptacek 10y ago

I don't understand the reasoning here, like, at all. For decades now researchers have been pointing out the demographic issues of aging populations and the workforces required to care for them. I don't know the specific numbers, but they're doubtless enormous. Why wouldn't they be a significant part of the economy?

ergothus 10y ago
Not the above poster, but their point appears to be that caring for the elderly doesn't CONTRIBUTE to the economy (i.e. as a transaction it adds to GDP, but in terms of value-creation it's near zilch. So while a blue-collar worker might add value by creating a product, an elder care worker adds only humanitarian benefit. (And unlike a doctor that can help those blue collar workers continue to work, there isn't even much INDIRECT value-addition to elder care). To continue my devil-advocacy, I'm sure the above poster wouldn't argue AGAINST elder care on humanitarian grounds, but is instead saying this is not where you want to redirect significant portions of your workforce, because you'll tank value-addition and harm everyone (including those elderly patients). Personally, I find the argument a little repulsive, but also an important argument to refute. So I'm glad it was raised. My rebuttal would be that with increased automation we're doing fine in value-addition, and the entire point of having positive wealth creation is to improve the overall well-being of a lot of people (I was going to say "as many as possible", but that might not be agreed to by some). If we skip the "reward" of a society's wealth-creation, why are we doing it again?
- tptacek 10y ago
  That was the "logic" I took from that comment too, but it still doesn't make any sense. We spend money on all sorts of things that don't "contribute" (in this weird, narrow sense) to the economy. But of course, most things we spend money on do in fact contribute to the economy: the money goes into the pockets of the people providing the service, who go on to buy things with that money and fuel the economy. That's what I meant when I said I didn't understand the reasoning of the comment --- like, at all, even a little bit.
  - 10y ago

edblarney 10y ago

If those 'elders' lives can be meanginfdly improved with care, than the resulting GDP from their payment to service providers is as 'productive' to society than anything else. What the hell is the economy for otherwise? Most of the economy is not based things that grow the pie massively like 'new energy forms' and 'more powerful computers' etc..

VLM 10y ago

Consider even more traditional methods of elder care such as apprenticeships and village elders. It is rather mysterious how we take kids in prime physical shape and mush for brains and lock them into ignorant echo chambers for years while we take wise and skilled old people with worn out bodies and brains full of very expensive experience and lock them into lonely old folks homes next door and then make sure they never mix. Its almost like our culture is so stupidly designed someone is trying to sabotage it. You'd have to expand the concept of apprenticeship beyond current restrictive beliefs and expand the idea of teachers aide quite a bit. If all some old duffer does is make sure the kids don't tip over an unchained acetylene bottle in shop class, its still worth it if all he does is sip coffee the rest of the semester. Three old duffers stand at the table saw all day doing nothing but safety and technique critique. Advanced disciplinary procedures are interesting to contemplate. Not so much the return of corporal punishment but you'd be surprised how well kids wanting attention can react to being assigned to work with a team of five old people. You will do your math homework alone or with the five grandmas ... Note that this is a fair trade unlike your gerontocracy because the kids derive considerable value from the old people. Where it gets weird is when you mix unemployed people in. Say due to ageism I'll never get paid to write code again because I'd be too expensive or unwilling to work 60 hour weeks. If welfare paid my bills would it be that bad if I did nothing but volunteer computer lab tech all day?

tptacek 10y ago
I don't understand how we continue to dignify the premise that elder care in our existing marketplace isn't a fair trade. We want our elderly family members to be comfortable. If nobody was available to perform these services, we'd do them ourselves, at great personal cost. Instead, we exchange money for the services of specialists. Everybody comes out ahead. We don't need "the kids to derive considerable value from the old people" to justify these economic transactions.
- internaut 10y ago
  I hear a litany of complaints from parents about paying for childcare, and also with paying for grandpa/grandma's nursing facilities. If you add up the costs and deduct them from salary + cost of living, very, very few middle class families are going to come out ahead. It is expected (in my country) that a retirement home is so expensive it shall require the sale of the family home, so inheritances don't pass to the children or grandchildren. I've worked before in nursing care facilities/retirement homes, and I'm certain most of the people there receive very little simulation and few visitors. It's a miserable and lonely existence. I'm a fan of using markets for lots of things, but the market mechanism is overly used for this particular usecase and lots of people are under enormous strain because of it. Basically the only case in which they ought to be used is in the final months/years where the person is too frail or incapacitated i.e. like state care systems. tldr; I do not in fact believe it is economic. Additionally it damages a heap of other things ranging from cultural transmission (long term repercussions) to mental health on a personal level. It is a bad deal.