who pays the carers in a free market world?
I've been thinking about this a fair bit lately - the caring professions seem to often be underpaid, unrecognised; work that is invisible.
Take an elderly man who has recently lost his wife and broken his arm, all in the space of a few days, and is totally lost in the world of cooking, cleaning and the like. Even if he was capable he lacks the use of his right arm, making driving an impossibility at least until he heals (and old bones take so long to knit). Currently ACC will provide him with Meals on Wheels and also help out by paying for some Home Help to be employed. Much more could be done, but at least this is a start.
But under a (more) right wing Government this kind of aid would be gone (I'm sure there are those in Labour who would like to get rid of it too). Who would do the caring? How would they survive in a world where two incomes (plus) are needed for a family to get by?
In NZ's recent past, when we have shifted towards a free market, caregivers' wages have fallen, in real terms, and there has certainly been a continuation of the hidden nature of caring work, ie done by family members (often women) in their "spare" time or in lieu of paid employment.
I am genuinely interested to know how right wingers see caring happening in a truly free market. Comments please folks.
5 comments:
There are plenty of countries without state provision for the elderly. What happens is that their children take care of them. Those without children are few enough in number that charities can provide for them.
This is vastly superior to what happens in NZ. I would love my kids to have the opportunity to grow up with a grandparent in the house, and if they can also be pressed into service as a babysitter that is an added bonus.
And don't forget that if we didn't pay taxes to provide other people's superannuation, we would have a lot more assets when we retire.
I grew up with a grandparent in the house. It was fine for a while but its not actually terribly much fun living with someone who is deteriorating physically and in a lot of pain. It was extremely hard on my mother who for years afterwards would wake up in the night in cold fear thinking that she heard the bell my grandmother had to ring when she had a crisis in the night. At the same time she had adolescent children to cope with, a house to run, as well as a career which was never everything she might have wanted because of all her other responsibilities.
You might also like to give some though to what it would be like to live at close quarters with someone who was deteriorating mentally. eg. with alzheimers, to the point they don't even recognise their caregiver.
Really, if care is going to happen in families then someone, usually a woman, is going to have her choices drastically constrained.
The whole idea of the free market, as conceived in isolation from the actual messiness of human life is a fairly meaningless abstraction in my view. The reason free markets are considered efficient is because the ideology allows the externalisation of important costs to families, and in particular women, who support these markets with unpaid or very low paid work.
If people don't pay taxes for state funded care, then they have more money for pay for it themselves. That's just swings and roundabouts - in fact it's better because people will only pay for what they need rather than always taking their full 'entitlement'.
The gain comes from the situation where mum (or dad) is struggling with a job, housework and looking after kids, while the grandparent is sitting at home lonely drinking cups of tea and listening to national radio.
Thanks MTNW for saying what I was trying to say, much better.
I'm always startled by the statistic (no I don't know where it comes from) that shows that women do 75 - 80% of the work but are paid no where near that (this is worldwide). I think the bulk of the reason for this is all the unrecognised caring work that women do.
Nigel - there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between your idea and reality.
I'm not talking about situations where the grandparent (or other family member) is actually independent and healthy - many elderly seem to take a lot of pride in being able to live apart from their other family or outside a rest home, and not be "dependent", for as long as possible.
How much less tax do you think people would pay if the Govt didn't provide for superannuation? What about economies of scale? Do you have any examples from other countries where super is privately provided that shows a bigger asset base for retirees? And what about those who aren't retired but need care eg the disabled, the sick, etc?
" If people don't pay taxes for state funded care, then they have more money for pay for it themselves."
But unfortunately the person who is at home looking after the kids (even if helped by an able bodied grandparent) won't be earning any money with which to pay for any care they need down the line.
I guess the ideal under the family care scenario would be for their care to be paid for by the money saved by a working partner or provided by their kids. Fine if it works but too bad if the marriage has broken up or if the kids aren't able to provide care because for eg. they are disabled/ have been killed in a car accident/ have moved overseas with an unsympathetic partner, etc, etc, etc.
I guess, as you can see, I am a pessimist about things always working out for the best. Tragedy is never that far off-- which is why I think it is better that we all take responsibility for each other rather than putting the burden entirely families.
Post a Comment