- cross-posted to:
- latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Sounds like some surplus value generated from labour is being extracted by the people owning the means of production
Nursing homes are often owned by investment trusts who have to pay out to their investors based on profits, so the managers of the trust take it upon themselves to outsource the maintenance, management, and labor to other entities they control. At a healthy upcharge, the menials who perform the tasks associated are not even an afterthought. They work for a faceless corporation that is puppeteered by the same people who own the nursing home, who rents it’s facility from a real estate trust they also own, allowing them to extract as much value as possible from each level of the operation while limiting liability.
Worked in them for about 7 years.
You are correct.
We had one where could never get ANY supplies 1 year in despite a 25k lump sum buy in by residents. even before paying month to month rent.
My expeince is management will play the “heroes work here” type behavior and take advantage of people’s passion for elderly to then underpay then and mistreat them to the degree they do.
Its nearly time for a general strike
I feel like half these problems would be fixed if everyone woke up and unionized. Corpos would have no leverage left.
The Pinkerton agency has entered the chat.
If you’re curious, yes they’re still around, yes they’re still doing it, and they’re owned by Securitas now.
Yeah they’re the cucks who bullied some kid over magic cards.
They also bitched about being villains in Red Read Redemption 2.
I am very aware. Fuck them.
id be happy to see you stomp them flat like your country did last time.
I get what you’re saying, but even when the Pinkertons lost, the strike action was ultimately broken by force anyway. At one point the local sheriff was literally bombing coal miners.
There are certain jobs that people really want to do. No matter how little the job pays, there will be people willing to do that job. Often these are the most important jobs.
That’s not a good match for a purely capitalist system where someone can’t survive on their salary. Unions are one way to fight this. Traditionally nurses had strong unions, but these days no union seems to be particularly strong. The other way is for the government to get involved and say that certain jobs are important enough that they get special exemptions from the purely capitalist system. That could mean different minimum wages, special tax exemptions, or all kinds of other things.
Boomers built an economy based around raping the wealth and futures of their children, to fund their retirement.
They consistently voted for politicians and policies that would benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else, in basically every economic sector.
Of course they don’t pay their orderlies well either.
That would mean their 401ks wouldn’t go up by as much.
Only now that the most grotesque frontman conceivable is helming the logical conclusion of their mindset turned into policy, are they starting to regret it all.
The pathological narccisist gerontocracy society.
Healthcare is the only sector with actual job growth now.
Everything else is collapsing.
The turned the entire country into basically a big retirement home supercomplex that you can’t opt out of.
My friend was the director of a daycare, and she’s leaving because she works 60 hour weeks, has no help from above, and her pay is literally canceled out by sending her kids to camp over the summer. And obviously they won’t pay her more. And she’s the head of the daycare. It’s insane.
It’s because private equity capitalists took over daycares, nursing homes, funeral services, and veterinary clinics. They’re leeches on even the most indispensable aspects of society.
For the paycheck thing: the daycare takes the parent’s entire paycheck because daycare is so expensive because the working class hasn’t gotten a raise in almost 20 years. Providers need the second job because inflation is so high because people are getting what they voted for.
Because it’s a scam. The people doing the actual work always make the least money.
A job that requires wiping bums at any age should be very well paid.
There was a nurse in my province who killed eight nursing home residents at her job. She just enjoyed doing it. What a tragedy, to have someone use their power over you to kill you when you are most vulnerable.
All this boils down to is that there is nothing more expensive than first-world human labor. Without a doubt, nursing homes are increasingly run by sleazy profiteers, but the reason you can’t easily do better (i.e. find a high-quality nursing home) is because it’s simply expensive to employ enough people, who have sufficient skill and work ethic, to give the elderly care.
Yes, PE in healthcare is destroying the country in every imaginable way. The answer in this case is more complicated than get the for profit companies out of nursing homes, which is necessary but not sufficient to solve the problem. The scariest thought is that there may be no good solution.
What’s not to understand? The owning class owns the facilities and sets both the prices and the wages, and they will do this in the way that maximally benefits themselves, i.e., maximizes profits. It’s a really, really basic feature of capitalism (yes, also whatever super duper special unicorn flavor of capitalism you think works better than “crony” capitalism).
It’s a rhetorical device I forgot the name of. If I say “I don’t understand X”, that will have one of two effects on most people: either they also don’t know, realise that and hopefully get curious, or they do and know the point I’m aiming for. If they offer that explanation, it creates a Socratic approach to making an argument: Framing it as an explanation of a question the rest of the audience is hopefully also curious about.
You explanation is the second part of the argument.
So, I know of the existence of this rhetorical device, but I’ve been around enough people who operate in a theoretical framework where this statement cannot be taken as anything other than genuine, namely that of capitalist realism. This has two implications:
- the original tweet could’ve been written with this mindset (which, I should add, is the dominant mindset, btw), and should be taken at face value
- many of the readers will have this mindset, and will not have the theoretical tools on their belt to appreciate it for the rhetorical device it is, much less take advantage of it and learn something (they might walk away with anything ranging from “huh that is weird” to “it’s those darned republicans/democrats”)
In either case, making an explanation (there’s more than one) explicit is useful, if only to open up space for people to disagree with the explanation. (In fact I’d be willing to bet that the person who wrote the tweet disagrees with my explanation, specifically the part involving flavors of capitalism. I bet they’re advocating for something like the nordic model.)
- the original tweet could’ve been written with this mindset (which, I should add, is the dominant mindset, btw), and should be taken at face value
- many of the readers will have this mindset, and will not have the theoretical tools on their belt to appreciate it for the rhetorical device it is, much less take advantage of it and learn something (they might walk away with anything ranging from “huh that is weird” to “it’s those darned republicans/democrats”)
Those are good points I didn’t consider.
On the first, I tend to lean towards assuming the best of people where possible, mostly because it helps stave off defeatism. That doesn’t make it likely, just less depressing.
On the second, I genuinely didn’t see that angle. Thanks for pointing it out. They don’t need to appreciate it as rhetorical device (and in fact, it may be more effective if they’re not conscious of it), but if it leads them to make up their own conclusions to reinforce existing assumptions, instead of being curious and open-minded, that would indeed miss the mark.
I guess to some degree, it’ll be a “shotgun” approach to hopefully get some people curious, even if you’ll never get everyone. I’m not sure a more direct statement of facts would have gotten the others either.
In either case, making an explanation (there’s more than one) explicit is useful, if only to open up space for people to disagree with the explanation.
That’s the conclusion I was aiming for, yes. In thr context of the device, the question is a setup and framing for the answer. By “prompting” for it, it seems less like preaching (which may turn people away) and more like a “genuine” and natural conversation. Interviews are occasionally framed in a similar way, but with an open question on the internet, it may seem less “staged” if that makes sense?
(I’m not sure those are the best words to describe it, but I can’t put my finger on the nuances so I’ll just call it a vocab/language barrier)
In fact I’d be willing to bet that the person who wrote the tweet disagrees with my explanation, specifically the part involving flavors of capitalism. I bet they’re advocating for something like the nordic model.
The Nordic model tends to be idealised to some degree. I understand how it would look like a significant improvement over some other forms, particularly the US, and I’ll freely admit I’m also subject to bias, but it can’t cure all the problems baked into the system.
From the glimpses I’ve caught, it doesn’t seem to solve all social issues either. The specific example I’ve heard of is racism, but I didn’t do a thorough investigation about other effects. Then again, I’m not sure I have a good solution on hand to effectively shift cultural stances like that either.
i work in a nursing home, but im afraid i’ll not be able to afford to die in one.
I’d rather walk in front of a bus than die in a nursing home, frankly. Wasting away unable to care for myself seems uniquely miserable.
I’m not saying i want to end up in a home, just that i should be able to afford one if i end up needing and want to be in one.
My uncle decided on MAID yesterday, i support his choice.
edit - grammar
(Not so) fun fact : that is exactly what some end up doing ! Gf’s grandmother escaped her nursing home to walk in front of a train.
Reasonable “death with dignity” options would erase the need for such drastic measures but of course the Christian Nationalists hate that kind of thing.
it because everyone is acting extractively because the economy is failing, it’ll be some time before theyre betten back into proper shape
nursing homes could literally drain the elderly of their blood and sell it for extra income and they wouldnt be that much worse morally. Not all of them obviously, but I have heard horrible things about how some treat elderly.
Are we sure they’re not doing this already ? The only compelling arguments I can make against it is the legality, but they don’t seem to care much about that in other cases, and the fact that they’d have to spend more on food to make them renew their blood. And I’ve seen the food and portions they serve in the “good” nursing homes, so that might be the only thing holding them back.
