And make no mistake, Fraser adds: It’s a feature, not a bug. “The system incentivizes powerful investors, corporations, and people dedicated to amassing more and more profit to help themselves freely to a lot of non-monetized resources—from nature and environment to the unwaged care work that women especially do in families, communities, and neighborhoods.”
If it’s all non-monetized then how can anyone help themselves to it and make a profit?
But then getting your economics from Cosmo is unlikely to be profitable in itself.
“the unwaged care work that women especially do in families”
How can people write such shite without even a glimmer of critical thought?
I know, there must be money in it.
She is saying that young American women think they should get money without hving to work for it.
As for exploitation of nature – that was a specialisation of the Soviet Union, particularly Gosplan, far worse than anything in capitalist societies where government which was independent of the capitalists imposed rules.
“young American women think they should get money without hving to work for it.”
Not just the young… The ..expectations about life.. of US women of certain calibres has become a bit of a meme in the past year.
I do like the term “zillennial” touted in the article. It’s a nice term to summarise a couple of things, although probably not in the way the inventor of that particular “buzzword” intended.
What if trees started demanding wages for growing into the tall thick logs you need for your insatiable wood product “needs”?
“the unwaged care work that women especially do in families”
So the lady is saying that part of the prenuptial agreement must be the wages the bloke should pay the sheila for her services??