Care: Or the fallacies of Neo-Liberalism

This article probably won’t be too long. There is nothing I can say which is better thought out than the following article in last weeks Guardian Deborah Orr speaks about Care.
There are problems with both the left and the right, certainly in terms of thinking of their views as moral. Deborah Orr points out how false this is. I’ve family members who work in the care industry, they do a fantastic job and the range of social skills and empathy involved is staggering. Yet if one is interviewed (and I cite this interview from memory) about things such as inequality, people will say that those who earn high wages somehow deserve it. Assuming say that wages in management consultancy increase, this doesn’t necessarily mean that wages in the care sector (which I see no reason why they need to be paid low wages). It all reminds me of Baumols Law.
We’ve collectively given economics a lot of power in public policy, a huge number of people in power in the West have Economics backgrounds. Yet it is easily apparent to anyone who spends any time thinking that there are flaws in classical economics and I’ve met enough proto-MBAs to have very little respect for anything masquerading as thought that comes out from these hacks.
Care like teaching should be celebrated, and to paraphrase what Hawking said about Schrodingers Cat, every time I hear mention of the ‘market’ I feel a need to reach for a revolver. We’ve seen that the market isn’t rational or as simple as we think it is – nor does it appear to be efficient. Alternative models and great Mathematics is produced in academia yet these things aren’t used. We need serious debate about care, and the Dilnott report is an excellent start (its recommendations strike me as sound). Yet is it optimal that a society cares more about its footballers, WAGS, Management Consultants, Advertisers and Bankers than it does about its Care workers, Cleaners and Teachers? I think not.