4 ms·

I somewhat agree with where you're coming from, but I don't see why you're calling the article a "bad take". The article doesn't really judge causes or solution

I somewhat agree with where you're coming from, but I don't see why you're calling the article a "bad take". The article doesn't really judge causes or solutions of the situation, but rather just describes it. And if you think taking care of aging parent(s) is possible without an emotional toll, then I seriously question whether you've actually ever done it! My perspective of what compounds the problem: 1. Tiny 1950's ranches intended for a single nuclear family, that don't provide breathing room for multiple generations. 2. The trend of moving far far away for work / lifestyle, which then collapses to provide in-person care. 3. The trend of needing to move into cities for economically lucrative work, which creates an ongoing tension even when you are in the same region. 4. Abjectly terrible healthcare system, that makes it so even professional nurses/therapists have to be managed. (This is a bigger issue that's driving the return to DIY care) 5. As always, the economic treadmill that strips wealth away from the edges, making it so the sheer majority don't have extra cash to hire help. Providing around the clock care is at least two people's worth of full time jobs (it's really at least three, to be sustainable). 6. The expectation of women in the workforce, rather than as homemakers. What supported most historic customs was having one person able to focus on all that informal work required for living, as the other went out and battled to navigate economic society. Now our economic puppetmasters have come to expect two full time workers while the informal tasks get neglected. By all means, please live out your moral imperative and take care of your elders as they age. But I'm guessing that by doing so, you'll end up empathizing with the article rather than writing it off.

mindslight 4y ago
(My point #6 is most certainly NOT meant as a "things would be easier if women were still stuck in the home", rather I'm pointing out a major difference between how things used to be, and how they are today. Progress would be reforming the labor/financial markets so that "full time work" for a two person household is defined as either person working ~40 hours, or both people each working ~20 hours. Women entering the workforce was a good thing, but it was also an opportunity for the economic slavedrivers to reverse decades of labor progress)

mindslight 4y ago

(My point #6 is most certainly NOT meant as a "things would be easier if women were still stuck in the home", rather I'm pointing out a major difference between how things used to be, and how they are today. Progress would be reforming the labor/financial markets so that "full time work" for a two person household is defined as either person working ~40 hours, or both people each working ~20 hours. Women entering the workforce was a good thing, but it was also an opportunity for the economic slavedrivers to reverse decades of labor progress)