I keep thinking women used to hold up a lot of economically ...

d475ce4b39775071...

npub1636uujeewag8zv8593lcvdrwlymgqre6uax4anuq3y5qehqey05sl8qpl4

hex

dbcf24913a4b8515645b43de10aade0ccc9fb33a9369c3c6ffc95a19da8e920b

nevent

nevent1qqsdhneyjyayhpg4v3d58hss4t0qenylkvafx6wrcmlujksem28fyzcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsdgawwfvuhw5r3xr6zcluxx3h0jd5qpuawwn27e7qgj2qvmsvj86gnpp0mr

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-04-24T15:05:05Z

↳ 回复 Laeserin (npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl)

I guess the difference between paid and unpaid work is that paid work is stuff you probably wouldn't bother doing, unless someone else paid you to do ...

I keep thinking women used to hold up a lot of economically invisible structures, and were lured into monetizing their contribution in the job markets. The job market needed women more than women neded the job market.

The bait was personal financial independence, but it was at the expense of unmeasured social capital. The market absorbed a huge quantity of labor that had previously existed outside formal economic accounting. Care work, food preparation, child supervision, elder care, therapy, tutoring, cleaning, emotional support, and social coordination increasingly became services to be bought, outsourced, or institutionalized. This made the economy look larger, because more human activity is now monetized. But some of that “growth” was not genuine civilizational surplus. It was the conversion of formerly embedded relationships into paid transactions.

We are now, possibly, at the point of realizing we have misjudged the value of unpaid work and it’s scope.

This point is skewed female, obviously, and not the complete picture, but still.

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "dbcf24913a4b8515645b43de10aade0ccc9fb33a9369c3c6ffc95a19da8e920b",
  "pubkey": "d475ce4b3977507130f42c7f86346ef936800f3ae74d5ecf8089280cdc1923e9",
  "created_at": 1777043105,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "ab354d980b23a6503ddd3de47d5e44442a38f617b37f940b6e6617f0bda68ed8",
      "wss://sendit.nosflare.com/",
      "root",
      "dd664d5e4016433a8cd69f005ae1480804351789b59de5af06276de65633d319"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "c59b1742b38b495e7cab30457b436f57fbc07414a38a02af45018af7e090b147",
      "wss://nostr.land",
      "reply",
      "dd664d5e4016433a8cd69f005ae1480804351789b59de5af06276de65633d319"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "dd664d5e4016433a8cd69f005ae1480804351789b59de5af06276de65633d319"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "I keep thinking women used to hold up a lot of economically invisible structures, and were lured into monetizing their contribution in the job markets. The job market needed women more than women neded the job market. \n\nThe bait was personal financial independence, but it was at the expense of unmeasured social capital. The market absorbed a huge quantity of labor that had previously existed outside formal economic accounting. Care work, food preparation, child supervision, elder care, therapy, tutoring, cleaning, emotional support, and social coordination increasingly became services to be bought, outsourced, or institutionalized. This made the economy look larger, because more human activity is now monetized. But some of that “growth” was not genuine civilizational surplus. It was the conversion of formerly embedded relationships into paid transactions. \n\nWe are now, possibly, at the point of realizing we have misjudged the value of unpaid work and it’s scope. \n\nThis point is skewed female, obviously, and not the complete picture, but still.",
  "sig": "8c324e2c490b36b6da37ebc1e44822c2c99e87044252bbdbe22a950c65bc56309d3fd519651d5a46c805df4d0eac3d71ae302c7f9c77e2b92e8dfe20dba571b9"
}