4 ms·
He means not important for the political and economical system, not literary useless.
by papapra 9y ago
He means not important for the political and economical system, not literary useless.
- panic 9y agoWhat about someone who leaves work to raise their child? Just because they aren't making money doesn't mean their work is unimportant.
- majewsky 9y agoThat's correct. If I recall correctly, Marx was one of the first to note that the value of this kind of work (which he called "reproductive work" if I'm translating the German "Reproduktionsarbeit" correctly) is not reflected by our economic system (in terms of monetary output) properly.
- zxcmx 9y agoTangentially related: Childcare subsidies are a big win for governments because it lets them convert what would otherwise be "unpaid" labour into something that appears in GDP. Better than that; by transferring a bit of money from taxpayers you can account for wages from 2 paid jobs, the mother's and the carer's. There is a sort of neoliberal logic to it of course; in early childcare in my country, ratios are 4:1 - there is an "efficiency gain" if the mother earns more than childcare fees for the children under care. But of course childcare availability is certainly not a bad thing even if there might be agendas in play.
- laichzeit0 9y agoBut why are they raising a child? What is the "purpose" of that child? To be nurtured to the point where it can breed and create a child who itself needs to be nurtured to the point where it can breed and create a child who itself...
- dagw 9y agoWhat is the "purpose" of that child To generate future GDP (and thus tax revenue).
- nf05papsjfVbc 9y agoThis is indeed the biological imperative bestowed upon us by our genes (and similarly for almost all the other species).
- fmoralesc 9y agoWhy not say that instead?