Society in general is being challenged by all the things that aren't scaling. Health care. Child care. Construction. With no clear way to boost productivity in any of these.
Very true. What's more is that even if we did find a way to scale these, the cure might be worse than the disease. Do we really want a bunch of AI-driven robots taking care of infants for example? Would we want to treat sick people with the ruthless efficiency of a automobile assembly line?
> Would we want to treat sick people with the ruthless efficiency of a automobile assembly line?
If it could give us our health back much faster and provide it to far more people, isn't that a reasonable trade off? Or the efficiencies could come from the non-human interaction parts of the day, such as insurance paperwork.
Prior to the last half century or so, there was never a period in human history where you, as a norm, had both parents working outside of the home. I don't think it's realistic to provide affordable childcare at scale. Why not? Because people who provide childcare need to make enough to live too, and ironically they often have their own childcare costs to pay.
I know the typical answer is, "the government should just provide it". But is that really an ideal we should aspire to? Pay $56,000 a year so someone can work a $50,000 a year service job while strangers raise their children? The whole thing seems fundamentally broken. We've structured society as if the highest and best use of everyone's time is be a W-2 wage-earner.
> We've structured society as if the highest and best use of everyone's time is be a W-2 wage-earner.
I'm beginning to think it's all a "Death of God" thing; we still haven't found a non-religious meaning for existence so we just focus on getting the high score. I certainly feel it, and I think many others do too though they might not fully understand the feeling.
It looks like $56K is for a full-time nanny, so presumably there is more scale to be had at a daycare where it isn't one-to-one. I think the other issue is that leaving the workforce for years on end is very hard on a woman's career, so they may consider it worth it to pay the exorbitant costs for a few years if it means that they can maintain their employment.
I'm long past thinking that any of this will change in a way that meaningfully improves peoples'/family's circumstances; as we can probably agree, the financeliazation of everything just seems like an accepted aspect of American life (though I'm not a fan).
>I'm beginning to think it's all a "Death of God" thing; we still haven't found a non-religious meaning for existence so we just focus on getting the high score.
Actually, it's the opposite - this relentless capitalist grind peculiar to American society has its origins in the Protestant work ethic - the belief that capitalism is a divine expression of God's will, that physical labor is the religious meaning of existence (at least for the working class) and that poverty and wealth are the result of moral vice or virtue, respectively. It's the same perverse intersection of Christianity and Capitalism that created prosperity theology.
And the fear and hatred of government interventionism often derided as "godless socialism" which prevents the US from installing any real social safety nets or nationalized healthcare, out of the belief that suffering is inherently noble and the poor are inherently lazy is also rooted in the same religious belief.
>Pay $56,000 a year so someone can work a $50,000 a year service job while strangers raise their children?
Another aspect of this decline may be the "ideal" of the nuclear family. Family units used to be a lot more compact, so Grandma could watch the kids whenever necessary because she already lived with the family. All this seems to be doing is accelerating the falling birthrate and something like Social Security in the US was already forecast to be in trouble before people stopped having as many kids and supplying so many "replacement workers".
> The couple, who earn a combined $400,000 a year, are putting off big vacations right now. Rasool says if someone had told her a decade ago she’d feel financially overextended making this much, she wouldn’t have believed them.
If someone feels financially overextended at 400k, they are the problem
Also, the title is misleading, a full-time in-home nanny is a luxury and has been since I can remember. When the average reader sees "child care", I doubt this is what they have in mind
Fair, but per child care costs are extraordinary especially infant care in any major metro. If you have 3+ kids it can easily take an entire salary to pay for childcare.
10 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 33.4 ms ] threadIf it could give us our health back much faster and provide it to far more people, isn't that a reasonable trade off? Or the efficiencies could come from the non-human interaction parts of the day, such as insurance paperwork.
I know the typical answer is, "the government should just provide it". But is that really an ideal we should aspire to? Pay $56,000 a year so someone can work a $50,000 a year service job while strangers raise their children? The whole thing seems fundamentally broken. We've structured society as if the highest and best use of everyone's time is be a W-2 wage-earner.
I'm beginning to think it's all a "Death of God" thing; we still haven't found a non-religious meaning for existence so we just focus on getting the high score. I certainly feel it, and I think many others do too though they might not fully understand the feeling.
It looks like $56K is for a full-time nanny, so presumably there is more scale to be had at a daycare where it isn't one-to-one. I think the other issue is that leaving the workforce for years on end is very hard on a woman's career, so they may consider it worth it to pay the exorbitant costs for a few years if it means that they can maintain their employment.
I'm long past thinking that any of this will change in a way that meaningfully improves peoples'/family's circumstances; as we can probably agree, the financeliazation of everything just seems like an accepted aspect of American life (though I'm not a fan).
Actually, it's the opposite - this relentless capitalist grind peculiar to American society has its origins in the Protestant work ethic - the belief that capitalism is a divine expression of God's will, that physical labor is the religious meaning of existence (at least for the working class) and that poverty and wealth are the result of moral vice or virtue, respectively. It's the same perverse intersection of Christianity and Capitalism that created prosperity theology.
And the fear and hatred of government interventionism often derided as "godless socialism" which prevents the US from installing any real social safety nets or nationalized healthcare, out of the belief that suffering is inherently noble and the poor are inherently lazy is also rooted in the same religious belief.
Another aspect of this decline may be the "ideal" of the nuclear family. Family units used to be a lot more compact, so Grandma could watch the kids whenever necessary because she already lived with the family. All this seems to be doing is accelerating the falling birthrate and something like Social Security in the US was already forecast to be in trouble before people stopped having as many kids and supplying so many "replacement workers".
If someone feels financially overextended at 400k, they are the problem
Also, the title is misleading, a full-time in-home nanny is a luxury and has been since I can remember. When the average reader sees "child care", I doubt this is what they have in mind