loraward Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Depends on your definition of productive. For centuries the rearing of children and housework were not considered productive, but that was only because those with power didn't consider it to be. I find it saves confusion if we stick to the definition as described in the English language. But for those who are incapacitated or unable to join the world of work they are essential for their sense of selves. I haven't said anything to the contrary and agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I don't think that looking after your self for some of the time would fit the definition of productive. Well in the case of my friend it helped somebody else be more productive. It's all not as simple as you think in this big old world of ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) Well in the case of my friend it helped somebody else be more productive. It's all not as simple as you think in this big old world of ours. How did it help them become more productive? From what you said early, for a time they actually prevented them from being productive because of the care they required, but they eventually learned how to care for themselves which allowed the partner to once again be productive, that's not helping them to be more productive, that's not getting in the way of them being productive. Edited April 25, 2015 by loraward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 How did it help them be more productive? Because they were able to return to work full time, and pay taxes. Until that point they'd been at home caring for my friend. It really quite straightforward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Because they were able to return to work full time, and pay taxes. Until that point they'd been at home caring for my friend. It really quite straightforward. So they stopped preventing them from being productive, what did they actually do to help them become more productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 So they stopped preventing them from being productive, what did they actually do to help them become more productive. Well, they were more productive than they were were they were not working while they were being a carer. Pretty simple really. I never said or implied that a period of trauma in their lives helped them become ultimately more productive. People can be facilitators for productivity without being productive themselves. Your limited one dimensional argument doesn't stack up. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Well, they were more productive than they were were they were not working while they were being a carer. Pretty simple really. I never said or implied that a period of trauma in their lives helped them become ultimately more productive. People can be facilitators for productivity without being productive themselves. Your limited one dimensional argument doesn't stack up. Get over it. Yes because the person in need of care stopped preventing them from being productive, and that is entirely different to helping them to become more productive. A society of 2 million people of which one million people need one to one round the clock care, this would be a none productive society because no one can produce anything. If the one million people in need of care get a little better and only need care for half of each day, it would be a very bizarre argument to now say the people in need of half a days care are actually helping their carers be more productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveJ68 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 (edited) ....................... Edited April 26, 2015 by SteveJ68 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Yes because the person in need of care stopped preventing them from being productive, and that is entirely different to helping them to become more productive. A society of 2 million people of which one million people need one to one round the clock care, this would be a none productive society because no one can produce anything. If the one million people in need of care get a little better and only need care for half of each day, it would be a very bizarre argument to now say the people in need of half a days care are actually helping their carers be more productive. Nobody is saying that. But you are missing the bigger point, and one that I guess you will never grasp, and that is that somebody doesn't necessarily have to be working (paid or voluntary) to be valuable to society. There are tens of millions who don't do any work at all but they are still valuable to society. Can you guess who they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Nobody is saying that. But you are missing the bigger point, and one that I guess you will never grasp, and that is that somebody doesn't necessarily have to be working (paid or voluntary) to be valuable to society. There are tens of millions who don't do any work at all but they are still valuable to society. Can you guess who they are? You said it but no one as said anything about anyone not being valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now