The U.S. Economy Does Not Value Caregivers

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-us-economy-does-not-value-caregivers/282887/


Single mother Dee St. Franc works two jobs and raises her 5-year old daughter. (Barbara Ries)

Throughout its history, America has continued to reinvent itself, each time producing a better society for more of us than the one that preceded it. Reconstruction improved on the pre-Civil War republic. The New Deal created a “new America” that was a great improvement on the Gilded Age. The civil rights movement generated legislation guaranteeing the equality promised in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

This constant reinvention is fueled by what I call “the idea that is America”—the principles of liberty, democracy, equality, justice, tolerance, humility, and faith on which our country was founded. As I’ve written, our history is a continual “process of trying to live up to our ideals, falling short, succeeding in some places, and trying again in others.”

The next period of American renewal cannot come fast enough. The gap between the richest and poorest Americans is growing wider. In fact, the top 10 percent took in more than half of all income in 2012, the highest share since the data series started.

Yet the United States has among the highest child poverty rates of any developed economy. We spend more but get less for our healthcare and education dollars than Canada, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and other nations. We are falling behind on these important measures of human progress in the world—but even more importantly, we are falling behind in terms of our ability to live up to our own values.

[BelgianMadCow]

1. Re-valueing care would solve so much at once

it's both a moral and en economic prescription. Organize the future care needs with a local complementary currency, that's hard to stop. We should revalue all forms of caring, including monetarily if need be (how is being a parent/friend/neighbour/care not a value-adding activity?).

Which is another way to plea for a basic income, as well.

[xchrom]

2. +1

[Shandris]

3. Took the words right out of my mouth!

Caring -- both personal and societal/community (like voluntarism, soup kitchens, beautification, community art, and so on) -- are things that overlooked by society because of its diseased view of money. This can not -- and in my opinion, will not -- carry forward indefinitely into the future. Post-scarcity will -demand- a new method of trade, and while money might be useful between nations, I think there is much to be looked at in terms of a reputation economy as well.

But a basic income is a must, so that each person may feel free to perform whatever kind of work they find necessary or useful on a societal level, not merely on a corporate needs level. When goods and services can be acquired through both money and reputation, we will have solved one of the greatest, most pressing issues of our time and a thousand years previous to it imo.

[BelgianMadCow]

4. Well, since you bring up the origin of money (nothing but an agreement), we might as well say

"basic provision" instead of basic income. We as a society (not "the government&quot could decide we want to provide each human being (and why stop there) adequate food, shelter, healthcare, education, public transport and a way to retire. This is then not dependent on the value of any particular currency.

Of couse, we have quaint little thingies like constitutions and human rights treaties that include the "right" to these things. We should take it literally, because something went wrong in the process. Democracy has been inverted, is my take. Corrupted via materialism and fear, if you will.

You mentioned reputation economy. Someone in my Occupy group has been suggesting gift economy to me (Charles Eisenstein), but I still haven't picked a copy up.

It would be great to have a meritocracy based on reputation, with reputation based on societal contribution. But a philospopher I know is pleading to not replace old paradigms with a new "set in stone" ideal, because any ideal can become oppressive. He sees the future in collaboration, but with vigorous differences of opinion. What democracy was intended as, until it got subverted by the false equivalency democracy = elections.

[Shandris]

6. An interesting expansion on the idea.

I'll have to admit, I haven't heard of this book (?) that you mention from your Occupy group. I'll look into that. The idea of a reputation economy, to me, is still in its infancy (although that doesn't mean that several other visions of it don't exist already!); its something I've been slowly coming around to based on a disparate amount of sources that seemed to suggest maybe a 'public/societal service' could yield such a thing. Your philosopher friend has a very valid point though, and I agree with the collaboration part. I'm not certain any reputation-style economy could -ever- become the 'only' one. The oppressed would be infirm, the socially awkward, and other people for whom socialization is difficult (and quite possibly others, as there are just the ones that sprang to mind). These people might be best served by an economy that still traded in money as well (as well as any other collaborations that we, as a group, can implement successfully).

IOW, thank you for the further ideas. Much to consider! But I think as a people we will be moving closer to these thoughts as we approach the post-scarcity horizon as a necessity. I look forward to that conversation as liberals looking for a society with more equity all around, and for those in 'traditional' work as well as economic-derived work both. It will be long overdue.

[BelgianMadCow]

7. You're welcome!! And yes, it's a book

I think its's called Sacred Economy, by Eisenstein.

You make a good point about the non-inclusiveness of a reputation economy. In fact, one of the best imho on monetary systems, Bernard Lietaer, explains how systems (ranging from biological to technical to economical) work best when they have the required diversity to respond to shocks. That's why he advocates for complementary currencies - we now have a near monoculture of central-bank-administered bank issued paper fiat currency. Given that idea, I think your proposal to have several systems at once makes a lot of sense. We could call it a transition

[G_j]

5. K&R!