Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Katie's avatar

I'm so glad you brought this up! What a great conversation. I’ve enjoyed everyone’s thoughts so far.

I think a helpful first step in addressing societal reforms that care for the vulnerable is changing how we view caregiving in the American workplace. Currently (and I generalize here, speaking from my own work experience in Career Development and from experiences of family, friends, and former colleagues), being an unpaid caregiver (especially a stay-at-home mom) is viewed from a sympathetic lens at best to a hostile one at worst. If one has taken time out of the paid working world to be a full-time caregiver, it is often recommended to leave the experience off of one's resume entirely. Unfortunately, the underlying message of that recommendation is "the last x amount of years you spent caring for your children/loved one have not contributed to your ability to be a competent or qualified employee,” which, following that thread of thought, translates into: “Investing in your loved one’s care is a waste of your time and talent.”

If within the professional world people began to value these roles, messaging would look very different. People are doing very valuable work as caregivers; they give their time, energy, and love. They develop and hone skills, just as they would in other jobs. When someone has spent time in the Peace Corps, the unpaid work done in a spirit of service for others is highly valued; why should a caregiver’s work be viewed differently? If managers, executives, hiring committees, etc. began to welcome caregivers' experiences on resumes, started to ask further questions about the skills honed in that space, and made a point to value these individuals and their contributions made to those in their communities, I think we would see a few societal shifts over time: 1) more people choosing to be caregivers, knowing they aren’t potentially giving up careers to do so and 2) a change in how we view the vulnerable; they are worthy of that love, of receiving that service. They are not a waste of time.

Expand full comment
LCG's avatar

As a full-time homemaker/housewife, I am not offended by the value of care work being stated in economic terms (although I recognize the poverty of the expression). The truth is, economics is starkly responsible for many family's choices on these matters. They can or cannot afford to give up one parent's income, or they are simply priced out of working if childcare costs in their area become too high. I feel very fortunate that my husband's salary has allowed me to stay home with my children full-time, but economic changes and sacrifices have certainly been involved, particularly when I first stopped working (for instance, we sold the vehicle that I had used to get to work and became a one-car family).

I think that stating care work in economic terms is a useful shorthand for assessing this matrix of decisions and sacrifices, and also highlights the glaring lack of compensation for the very heavy, consuming work of providing full-time care. Frankly I would love it if society saw my role as economically valuable, and recompensed my family in some way for the very real work that I do. So, again- while it's an expression that is lacking, an economic calculus is also a useful and easy-to-understand proxy for demonstrating and explaining the value of care work in our money-centered society.

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts