3 ms·

I'll ask you, then, to focus less on the GDP/value-add side of the argument and more on the "spiritually corrosive to individuals and society" side of the argum

I'll ask you, then, to focus less on the GDP/value-add side of the argument and more on the "spiritually corrosive to individuals and society" side of the argument.

tptacek 10y ago
Are you conceding the economics? (You probably should, unless I'm missing some subtlety of your argument.) That's really all I care about here.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  no, I'm not conceding the economics. I don't have any hidden subtlety here, it seems fairly obvious to me that elder-care is redistributive (money from old people to their servants) rather than productive. quite a lot of service jobs are like this, except in many other cases the redistribution is not from accumulated wealth from the past, but from newly produced wealth in the present. that might be of some net economic benefit anyway, purely on the basis of freeing up money that would otherwise be stuck in sequestration from the rest of the economy. however, I'm not sure what "flaw" in my economic claim you're trying to point out. can you be more explicit? I would ask you, however, to actually care more about the non-economic part of the argument. I believe that's the more important part.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    This isn't even wrong. In market transactions, there's no dichotomy between "redistribution" and "productivity". There's "redistributive" tax and economic policies that governments enact, by political fiat. Those policies are almost the opposite of market transactions. Using the definition you've proposed, it's hard to think of any service transaction, from doctors visits to architectural consults, that isn't somehow "redistributive".
  - shkkmo 10y ago
    I believe the general view is that 'non value producing' service jobs add value by saving the time of and thus amplifying the productiveness of individuals with 'value producing' jobs. If you are comparing the economic effect of a growing industry of elder care to a society where no elder care occurs, then I can see how you might draw the conclusion that growth in this industry is a waste because these are not 'value producing' jobs. In reality, a society where no elder care occurs is not the alternative as some form of elder care would be taking place. People who work doing elder care are amplifying the productiveness of the friends, family and neighbors who do have 'value producing' jobs. Personally, I think our current styles of elder care and our ageist biases waste a lot of economic potential and social value by wasting the time of our elders. I think that finding ways to tap this potential while providing better care for our elders would be the OPPOSITE of spiritually corrosive. As it is, many find working in elder care quite rewarding, especially when that elder care happens in less institutional and dehumanizing settings.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
"spiritually corrosive to individuals and society" seems less of a fact and more of a narrow personal opinion. I personally don't consider caring for the elderly as a corrosive/demeaning job.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  a person who _wants_ to be an elder-care service provider will not find it spiritually corrosive. a person who is forced to re-train to work in elder care because the job they used to perform was automated/off-shored is much more likely to find it spiritually corrosive. a young person seeking employment at the beginning of their career might find it deeply troubling as well (assuming there were not enough good alternatives to working in elder-care), as it represents an inversion of social and economic priority from the future (young people) to the past (the elderly).
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Then what's "corrosive" is the loss of jobs. Please leave older people out of it.
    - metaphorm 10y ago
      No, I won't, and shouldn't leave older people out of it. This is absolutely central regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it. Whether a society prioritizes its future or its past is an important social, economic, political, and moral decision. Suppose that demographic trends lead to a massive boom of elder-care jobs that is supported (in the short term anyway) economically and "solves" an employment crisis for the younger generation. Is that a solution worth doing?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        I don't get the sense that you're really thinking through how economies work. The "massive boom of elder-care jobs" isn't a result of secular decline in manufacturing; it's due to increased demand for elder care as our population ages. That increase would occur even if no manufacturing job had ever left our shores in the last 70 years. You're unhappy that people who were doing a job can no longer do that job, and putting yourself in their shoes when they confront the possibility that their economic best interests are in jobs they don't want to do. That's fine; that is in fact a real challenge in how societies engage with market economies. But it has nothing to do with older people; it has to do with the fact that not everyone can make a living doing the exact job they want to do.

I'll ask you, then, to focus less on the GDP/value-add side of the argument and more on the "spiritually corrosive to individuals and society" side of the argument.

tptacek 10y ago

Are you conceding the economics? (You probably should, unless I'm missing some subtlety of your argument.) That's really all I care about here.

metaphorm 10y ago
no, I'm not conceding the economics. I don't have any hidden subtlety here, it seems fairly obvious to me that elder-care is redistributive (money from old people to their servants) rather than productive. quite a lot of service jobs are like this, except in many other cases the redistribution is not from accumulated wealth from the past, but from newly produced wealth in the present. that might be of some net economic benefit anyway, purely on the basis of freeing up money that would otherwise be stuck in sequestration from the rest of the economy. however, I'm not sure what "flaw" in my economic claim you're trying to point out. can you be more explicit? I would ask you, however, to actually care more about the non-economic part of the argument. I believe that's the more important part.
- tptacek 10y ago
  This isn't even wrong. In market transactions, there's no dichotomy between "redistribution" and "productivity". There's "redistributive" tax and economic policies that governments enact, by political fiat. Those policies are almost the opposite of market transactions. Using the definition you've proposed, it's hard to think of any service transaction, from doctors visits to architectural consults, that isn't somehow "redistributive".
- shkkmo 10y ago
  I believe the general view is that 'non value producing' service jobs add value by saving the time of and thus amplifying the productiveness of individuals with 'value producing' jobs. If you are comparing the economic effect of a growing industry of elder care to a society where no elder care occurs, then I can see how you might draw the conclusion that growth in this industry is a waste because these are not 'value producing' jobs. In reality, a society where no elder care occurs is not the alternative as some form of elder care would be taking place. People who work doing elder care are amplifying the productiveness of the friends, family and neighbors who do have 'value producing' jobs. Personally, I think our current styles of elder care and our ageist biases waste a lot of economic potential and social value by wasting the time of our elders. I think that finding ways to tap this potential while providing better care for our elders would be the OPPOSITE of spiritually corrosive. As it is, many find working in elder care quite rewarding, especially when that elder care happens in less institutional and dehumanizing settings.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

"spiritually corrosive to individuals and society" seems less of a fact and more of a narrow personal opinion. I personally don't consider caring for the elderly as a corrosive/demeaning job.

metaphorm 10y ago
a person who _wants_ to be an elder-care service provider will not find it spiritually corrosive. a person who is forced to re-train to work in elder care because the job they used to perform was automated/off-shored is much more likely to find it spiritually corrosive. a young person seeking employment at the beginning of their career might find it deeply troubling as well (assuming there were not enough good alternatives to working in elder-care), as it represents an inversion of social and economic priority from the future (young people) to the past (the elderly).
- tptacek 10y ago
  Then what's "corrosive" is the loss of jobs. Please leave older people out of it.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    No, I won't, and shouldn't leave older people out of it. This is absolutely central regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it. Whether a society prioritizes its future or its past is an important social, economic, political, and moral decision. Suppose that demographic trends lead to a massive boom of elder-care jobs that is supported (in the short term anyway) economically and "solves" an employment crisis for the younger generation. Is that a solution worth doing?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I don't get the sense that you're really thinking through how economies work. The "massive boom of elder-care jobs" isn't a result of secular decline in manufacturing; it's due to increased demand for elder care as our population ages. That increase would occur even if no manufacturing job had ever left our shores in the last 70 years. You're unhappy that people who were doing a job can no longer do that job, and putting yourself in their shoes when they confront the possibility that their economic best interests are in jobs they don't want to do. That's fine; that is in fact a real challenge in how societies engage with market economies. But it has nothing to do with older people; it has to do with the fact that not everyone can make a living doing the exact job they want to do.