Jump to content

Menu

Excellent article on the development of family dynamics and its impacts on society


fairfarmhand
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://apple.news/AkNTtUN8rQYawQzEEe1Qmmw
 

From the article

“Our culture is oddly stuck. We want stability and rootedness, but also mobility, dynamic capitalism, and the liberty to adopt the lifestyle we choose. We want close families, but not the legal, cultural, and sociological constraints that made them possible. We’ve seen the wreckage left behind by the collapse of the detached nuclear family. We’ve seen the rise of opioid addiction, of suicide, of depression, of inequality—all products, in part, of a family structure that is too fragile, and a society that is too detached, disconnected, and distrustful. And yet we can’t quite return to a more collective world. The words the historians Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg wrote in 1988 are even truer today: “Many Americans are groping for a new paradigm of American family life, but in the meantime a profound sense of confusion and ambivalence reigns.”

 

anyone want to discuss this? I found it very interesting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading (or attempting too, as we are in the process of trying to buy a house and plan a move so it's a very sporadic attempt!) The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz.  The 1950's especially has always been held up to be the ideal form for the nuclear family, but as she says in her article here (https://newrepublic.com/article/132001/way-never), "I found that the male breadwinner family of the 1950s was a very recent, short-lived invention and that during its heyday, rates of poverty, child abuse, marital unhappiness, and domestic violence were actually higher than in the more diverse 1990s."  She says that immediately after the advent of no fault divorce the female suicide rate declined by 8 percent.  

The book traces the history of American families over the years and examines the economic and cultural trends that influenced the prevailing ideals of "family life" for their time.  It's pretty fascinating.  One of the parallels she traces between the Gilded Age of the 1870's and the second "Gilded Age" beginning in the 1980's was that the Industrialization of the 1870's and the emerging globalism and more aggressive and individualistic capitalism both created huge shows of conspicuous consumption.  Therefore the backlash against this was by setting up the nuclear family as the repository of virtue and morals to counteract this dissolution of public morality.   

There is a whole lot more to unpack in the book but now we are on the phone with the mortgage loan officer!

 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the most accurate part of the quote below is "in part." There are so many factors involved, that one could argue pretty much anything "in part" has contributed to opioid addiction, suicide and depression, even things we would consider hugely beneficial, such as affordable medicine and health care. 

We’ve seen the rise of opioid addiction, of suicide, of depression, of inequality—all products, in part, of a family structure 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, OKBud said:

I don't know this, which is why I'm asking,

wouldn't people have been recently buying homes with room for aging parents simply because we've had a recent influx of elderly?

Most of the situations that I am aware of, the aging parent doesn't come to be a "helper" to the family. The aging parent comes after they are no longer able to be independent and end up there by default. 

I do believe that some of the writer's assumptions are a stretch. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2020 at 1:17 AM, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

That's not the norm. Most people start needing help a decade or two before that.

This seems to be a combination of luck and lifestyle. In the village where I live, where gardening is a common hobby, no one is obese and most people have dogs that they walk, living independently into extreme old age is very common.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, while social conservatives have a philosophy of family life they can’t operationalize, because it no longer is relevant, progressives have no philosophy of family life at all, because they don’t want to seem judgmental. The sexual revolution has come and gone, and it’s left us with no governing norms of family life, no guiding values, no articulated ideals.

I've been thinking about family, personal behaviour, duty, etc. a lot recently.  I'm a long way to the left of most US voters.  I'm struggling (the following will be full of holes, so don't expect coherence) to formulate my feelings:  the strong have a duty look after the weak, unless that caring causes the strong to be ill, not merely unhappy.  That duty is more important than pursuit of happiness.

Who are the weak?  All children who are attached to you as a parent.  All adults to whom you have made a commitment (by blood or choice) and who are ill or unable to look after themselves.  What does 'looking after' mean?  Not necessarily personal care, but loving care.  What if the weak person is horrible?  Arms-length care is fine if the relationship is untenable.

Real life examples where I am quite happy to judge:

- a parent who walks out on their marriage and children in order to pursue another love.  The marriage was stale but not a threat to either parent or to the children (who were unaware of any difficulties).  Financial support was given.  In this case, I would hope that the parent would stay around until the children were adult. 

- a parent who walks out on their marriage when the other parent has just gone into remission after cancer.  The departing parent went to live with a younger partner and have a child, leaving the teenaged children of the first marriage to deal with the recurrence of cancer and death of the ill parent.  Financial support was given.

 

Edited by Laura Corin
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

Expecting circumstances to converge to make any given individual HAPPY at any given time is a disease of both the young and old in my circles right now.  This outlook is *completely dependent* on making moves in their life that makes other, innocent, people deeply unhappy. And in cases involving children, often unsafe and unstable as well. boo, hiss

I kinda know what LC is going for though. There are those who do not care for the weaker because it is inconvenient to them. And that inconvenience leads (for many) to unhappiness. 

I do believe though that many people simply live most of their adult lives with no financial or physical (as far as time, energy and space) margin. If an elder or someone else becomes ill, its not just a matter of switching around a few things in ones schedule. Often because there is little margin to their lives, it is a complete and total overhaul of their work, after work, and family commitments. Some of that is by choice (packing ones schedule with work, after work commitments, and allowing their children to fill their time in similar ways) some of it is not by choice at all. Single parents (as pointed out in the article) generally have no choice. Someone has to do laundry, clean house, and do the grocery shopping for a family at the end of a long work day.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

This seems to be a combination of luck and lifestyle. In the village where I live, where gardening is a common hobby, no one is obese and most people have dogs that they walk, living independently into extreme old age is very common.

In the US, we have high obesity rates, higher in some regions than others due to entrenched lifestyles and mindsets. Not every subculture is prone to believing in taking an active role in their health maintenance. Their idea of health maintenance is going to the doctor for meds or surgery when they're sick or injured. I have in-laws like this. Neither of them is willing to make lifestyle changes.  My parents are very active and will follow lifestyle recommendations, but even my very active mother (75) has been out of her usual routine since she wore out one hip, had it replaced, and now the other is worn out and needs replacing.  Her recovery time is so much longer at her age and she isn't bouncing back fully to resume her previous levels of activities.

The US also has a wider range of extreme weather than Great Britain. Gardening and being outdoors isn't as easy to do for people in some places many months of the year. If you live somewhere with snow on the ground for 6+ months (I have relatives in Maine) or 100+ degrees for 7+ months along with a water issues (I have relatives in AZ,)  it's a very different situation.  Milder climates are just easier to be active outdoors and are better for gardening year round or close to it. 

And don't forget that most Americans work at the office or at home long hours. My husband typically puts in 10-12 hour days as a programmer. Most professionals we know are putting in 10 hour days and are often still doing work related tasks at home after hours.  And there's commute time. My husband works from home but everyone in my city commutes into neighboring Raleigh which is typically at least hour to an hour and a half each way for most of them because they have to drive rush hour. The ER nurse only commutes for 40 minutes each way because he drives odd hours.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

I live in the NE. Boomers here typically have double pensions and two homes.  They do not help the children by babysitting or anything else. They call wanting help when their health fails -- but the help desired is in the form of aging in place, wanting the children and taxpayers to provide services and goods for free along with the hefty property tax exemption on the McMansion on three acres.  Until then, they are out recreating.  My Boomer bridge partners this week are in the Caribbean snorkeling, Florida or NC relaxing/bingo/etc at the second home, or on vacation trips to overseas destinations or state parks in warm weather areas.  When they were children, the women in their parents gen who weren't working outside the home babysat  them while their parents worked, as they did each day off from school.  They did not continue the tradition.  Mr. Brooks has ducked the issue of the 'me generation' and Boomer choices to pull up the ladder on the grandchildren while stiffing them with the bill for the aging.

The dilemma I have with my 'me gen' elder is that the nursing home won't take her.  They take people who can't, not people who won't.  So I must spend energy or I'm fleeced as she busts the door down with her hand out. I'm gardening and don't have exemptions on my quarter acre of property like most people my gen; like the typical Boomer in this area she has two homes including a mcmansion on three acres (i.e. half a million in housing) and gets a free tank of heating oil from the state because her income makes her 'poverty'.  Its no wonder family dynamics are what they are.

I agree that the perpetually adolescent mindset of a huge percentage of Boomers is making  many of these problems worse: choosing to have fewer children to maintain a certain lifestyle and not considering the long term increased tax burden on fewer workers, abandoning their spouses and children for the people they were having affairs with, living beyond their means most of their lives and expecting the taxpayers to cover their losses with decades of Medicare and Social Security, insisting on aging in place even when it's not a reasonable option, pressuring daughters into careers instead of being genuinely OK with each woman choosing for herself working vs. being at home, fighting low cost housing which contributes to skyrocketing housing costs and homelessness, and so on. 

It really is frustrating to see people with children not going to the doctor because even with insurance their healthcare costs are insane, yet healthy, functioning seniors insist on retiring at 65 for a couple of decades so they can travel between their two homes, buy their boat,  and take yet another cruise or trip abroad for their quarter century retirement.  If you suggest to them that it's time to raise the retirement age to better reflect the realities of health and vitality these days, they wail and rage that "they paid for it" and are entitled to it.  Never mind that the cost of the many surgeries and treatments, and facility fees they've had cost more than they ever paid into it. Never mind that Social Security was never meant to be decades of payments to individuals who have private retirement funds.  No, it must be business as usual and no one can adjust anything until the last Boomer dies.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it’s true that we aren’t allowed to make meaningful adjustments to government policies and programs until the Boomers mostly die out.

It’s frustrating to watch. Especially knowing that we will have spent our entire adult lives using everything trying to provide ourselves and our children decent healthcare and education, and will not have a financial safety net to fall back on when we are old. 

That generation dug us into a very deep hole. 

Edited by SamanthaCarter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

I've been thinking about family, personal behaviour, duty, etc. a lot recently.  I'm a long way to the left of most US voters.  I'm struggling (the following will be full of holes, so don't expect coherence) to formulate my feelings:  the strong have a duty look after the weak, unless that caring causes the strong to be ill, not merely unhappy.  That duty is more important than pursuit of happiness.

Who are the weak?  All children who are attached to you as a parent.  All adults to whom you have made a commitment (by blood or choice) and who are ill or unable to look after themselves.  What does 'looking after' mean?  Not necessarily personal care, but loving care.  What if the weak person is horrible?  Arms-length care is fine if the relationship is untenable.

Not as simple as it sounds.

How many years in advance should the adult children forgo happiness in order to eventually be able to care for their elderly when that becomes necessary? Should adults not move away to pursue job opportunities, so that they can remain available when the time comes? Does the duty to one's children outweigh the duty to one's parents or vice versa? What sacrifice and what degree of unhappiness is acceptable? (Btw, it is not easy to clearly distinguish where "merely unhappy" ends and depression begins)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

In the US, we have high obesity rates, higher in some regions than others due to entrenched lifestyles and mindsets. Not every subculture is prone to believing in taking an active role in their health maintenance. Their idea of health maintenance is going to the doctor for meds or surgery when they're sick or injured. I have in-laws like this. Neither of them is willing to make lifestyle changes.  My parents are very active and will follow lifestyle recommendations, but even my very active mother (75) has been out of her usual routine since she wore out one hip, had it replaced, and now the other is worn out and needs replacing.  Her recovery time is so much longer at her age and she isn't bouncing back fully to resume her previous levels of activities.

The US also has a wider range of extreme weather than Great Britain. Gardening and being outdoors isn't as easy to do for people in some places many months of the year. If you live somewhere with snow on the ground for 6+ months (I have relatives in Maine) or 100+ degrees for 7+ months along with a water issues (I have relatives in AZ,)  it's a very different situation.  Milder climates are just easier to be active outdoors and are better for gardening year round or close to it. 

And don't forget that most Americans work at the office or at home long hours. My husband typically puts in 10-12 hour days as a programmer. Most professionals we know are putting in 10 hour days and are often still doing work related tasks at home after hours.  And there's commute time. My husband works from home but everyone in my city commutes into neighboring Raleigh which is typically at least hour to an hour and a half each way for most of them because they have to drive rush hour. The ER nurse only commutes for 40 minutes each way because he drives odd hours.

I think that the mindset is part of the luck - coming from a family culture of trying to stay healthy and knowing how to do it, or discovering the possibility for themselves. There are plenty of Brits who don't take responsibility for their health. And there are those who work long hours but take the stairs to the furthest toilet at work, or dance at home at weekends when it's dark outside for much of the day. I'm continually impressed by @wintermom battling through the snow in Canada to get outside and stay healthy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Not as simple as it sounds.

How many years in advance should the adult children forgo happiness in order to eventually be able to care for their elderly when that becomes necessary? Should adults not move away to pursue job opportunities, so that they can remain available when the time comes? Does the duty to one's children outweigh the duty to one's parents or vice versa? What sacrifice and what degree of unhappiness is acceptable? (Btw, it is not easy to clearly distinguish where "merely unhappy" ends and depression begins)

It's absolutely not easy. And I did say that caring could include arm's length: making sure that an elderly parent has some support, if they will allow it, doesn't mean necessarily providing daily support yourself.

And depression is an illness. Caring for my mother caused me to be depressed. I changed things so that now it merely makes me unhappy.

I don't dare make a rule for balancing child care and elderly care. I have favoured one and the other at different times.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, regentrude said:

How many years in advance should the adult children forgo happiness in order to eventually be able to care for their elderly when that becomes necessary? Should adults not move away to pursue job opportunities, so that they can remain available when the time comes? Does the duty to one's children outweigh the duty to one's parents or vice versa? What sacrifice and what degree of unhappiness is acceptable? (Btw, it is not easy to clearly distinguish where "merely unhappy" ends and depression begins)

It drives me nuts dealing with elders who cannot separate themselves from their own preferences to look at reality.  Each generation should be thinking about the effects their actions and inaction have on their parents and their children. Everyone needs to be less rigid about what their elder years are going to look like and embrace a wider range of possibilities. People go where the work and cost of living best match their prospects, and dependents should cooperate with that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

I think that the mindset is part of the luck - coming from a family culture of trying to stay healthy and knowing how to do it, or discovering the possibility for themselves. There are plenty of Brits who don't take responsibility for their health. And there are those who work long hours but take the stairs to the furthest toilet at work, or dance at home at weekends when it's dark outside for much of the day. I'm continually impressed by @wintermom battling through the snow in Canada to get outside and stay healthy.

There's too much love for what is quick, easy, convenient, and effortless here in the US.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2020 at 10:35 AM, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

I agree that the perpetually adolescent mindset of a huge percentage of Boomers is making  many of these problems worse: choosing to have fewer children to maintain a certain lifestyle and not considering the long term increased tax burden on fewer workers, abandoning their spouses and children for the people they were having affairs with, living beyond their means most of their lives and expecting the taxpayers to cover their losses with decades of Medicare and Social Security, insisting on aging in place even when it's not a reasonable option, pressuring daughters into careers instead of being genuinely OK with each woman choosing for herself working vs. being at home, fighting low cost housing which contributes to skyrocketing housing costs and homelessness, and so on. 

It really is frustrating to see people with children not going to the doctor because even with insurance their healthcare costs are insane, yet healthy, functioning seniors insist on retiring at 65 for a couple of decades so they can travel between their two homes, buy their boat,  and take yet another cruise or trip abroad for their quarter century retirement.  If you suggest to them that it's time to raise the retirement age to better reflect the realities of health and vitality these days, they wail and rage that "they paid for it" and are entitled to it.  Never mind that the cost of the many surgeries and treatments, and facility fees they've had cost more than they ever paid into it. Never mind that Social Security was never meant to be decades of payments to individuals who have private retirement funds.  No, it must be business as usual and no one can adjust anything until the last Boomer dies.

 

Not everyone has a “choice” about the number of children they have.

Not every Boomer has made a “choice” about retirement - many are forced into it because of ageism. 

Someone  else mentioned (I’m not smart enough to do multi-quote) Boomers not stepping up to help with the care of grandchildren. My ds has chosen to live on the opposite coast.  To be fair, we moved from where his childhood home was in flyover country, but he was never planning to return there anyway, and we are on now on the opposite coast.  He has no SO, so I have to assume I am a long way from grandchildren, but if he makes the choice to stay where he is, I cannot afford to relocate and live in California just to help care for grandchildren.  

Yep, I’m a Boomer, so I might be a tad defensive.  My point is that it isn’t always the Boomers who are making the “choices.” 

Edited by Hoggirl
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Hoggirl said:

Someone  else mentioned (I’m not smart enough to do multi-quote) Boomers not stepping up to help with the care of grandchildren.

Yep. When I was raising my young children, my parents worked full time. They were not available for babysitting.

Later, we moved to another continent for work.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are good and bad things about big extended family groups. 

I grew up with grandparents who believed in this, and it was wonderful for me.  But it was unfamiliar to most of my friends, and I tended to have my best friends be people who were from foreign countries because to natives it was inconceivable that any family plans would trump personal plans once you were high school age or above.  And my mother, who strongly enforced the ‘everyone has to be there’ stuff, completely abandoned it once both of her parents were gone—no hosting, and spotty attendance.  This was a shock to me, and very hard on my DD, who unfortunately is an only child.  

I don’t think it can be replicated in a family of choice, although some of the more fun aspects of it certainly can be.  I can’t imagine a family of choice stepping up to do serious custodial care of elderly frail folks, for instance.  And families of choice are usually similar in age, while it is a key aspect of the traditional extended family to have multiple age groups in place.

Having said that, I act as a back stop to my siblings, and my nieces and nephews know that I do and we are close.  I borrowed the money for my sister and BIL to buy their first house, and loaned it to them so they could do this.    I’ve offered to take in one or two of their kids to help them launch, and while they have not needed that, I think knowIng that I have their backs is helpful.   And I do act that way toward church friends of varying ages, including my parents’ generation and my DD’s generation.  

The bad things about big family groups include passing on really serious disfunction like substance abuse, or at least normalizing it.  Ditto domestic violence.  Also, it’s sometimes tough on introverts, and it can be hard to establish new romantic relationships in the family fishbowl.  Interestingly enough, modern literature and lots of school books starting in the 60s always mocks it in favor of going off to school or to better yourself or to seek your fortune.  Family is taken for granted, generally, and portrayed as what holds you back.  It was not always so.  It is both interesting and instructive to read “Little Women” and compare that with something written 100 years later.  Society has thus taught us to oppose extended family ties, pretty consistently, for a long time.  

 

Edited by Carol in Cal.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HeighHo said:

 

 

My point is that the boomers are making policy decisions.  There are other successful solutions, ones that don't mean the grandparent or the parent drops out of the workplace and derails the career. Those solutions should be entertained, especially if the parent is also on the hook for eldercare.  The sandwich gen, with a baby and an elder who lingers for decades, is in need of help, not sneering "i got mine, too bad for you". 

 

 

I'm trying to say this as kindly as I can (yes, I'm a Boomer).

You do realize none of us here, unless we've held elective office, has ever made any policy? You do realize that many of us over the years have supported candidates and lobbied our representatives to support legislation aimed at better supporting families? You do realize that sometimes, because of gerrymandering and other issues, that how one votes and what legislation one supports doesn't seem to matter? You do realize that being "sandwiched" isn't anything new? Not by a long shot. I'm a Boomer, and I've been "sandwiched." My parents and DH's parents were "sandwiched." And yes, it often lasted for many years, sometimes well over a decade. None of us liked it. It's definitely not a pleasant life stage. I don't know a single person who actually thinks anything close to "I got mine, too bad for you." What I don't recall is a sense of entitlement among people my age, and certainly not among those in my parents'/inlaws' generation, that there should be/was supposed to be any help outside of family and very close friends. It was just what families did for each other. And yes -- everybody understood that it was dang hard. I hope that something can be done to make it easier. Or in other words--pretty much the polar opposite of "I got mine, too bad for you." People my age tend to think "Yeah, what we've had to do has been too hard. We hope our kids don't have to do what we did."

Echoing what @Hoggirl said, I don't understand where the notion comes from that the Boomers had everything handed to them, or had some sort of extraordinary choices and options that younger people haven't had, or somehow had a miraculously easy road through life. I just don't. But heck--I only lived it  I guess y'all young 'uns know more about it than we do. [Yeah, sarcasm. I feel like I should go ahead and apologize for it. But this type of generalizing about/stereotyping of Boomers has been expressed here before. It gets tedious, and it smacks of a level of ignorance and lack of critical thinking that I don't expect from this board.]

Edited by Pawz4me
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HeighHo said:

 

My parents were both dead before my children arrived.

One point is that its selfish of 'family' to not care for someone in their time of need, but demand care for themselves from those same people in their own personal time of need.

 

So were mine.

I don’t know anyone who does this. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hoggirl said:

 

Not everyone has a “choice” about the number of children they have.

But most do.  I'm speaking generally, not to your specific case.  Most Boomers chose 2 kids.

Not every Boomer has made a “choice” about retirement - many are forced into it because of ageism. 

The vast majority of Boomers plan(ned) to retire at 65 if they can. There is an expectation that they shouldn't have to retire later, regardless of the cold hard numbers, and they routinely refuse to vote against raising the age of retirement, again, in spite of the math.

Someone  else mentioned (I’m not smart enough to do multi-quote) Boomers not stepping up to help with the care of grandchildren. My ds has chosen to live on the opposite coast.  To be fair, we moved from where his childhood home was in flyover country, but he was never planning to return there anyway, and we are on now on the opposite coast.  He has no SO, so I have to assume I am a long way from grandchildren, but if he makes the choice to stay where he is, I cannot afford to relocate and live in California just to help care for grandchildren.  

No one was talking a situation where the grandparents living far away are refusing to help.  They were clearly referring to local grandparents refusing to help because anything else would be the rantings of a lunatic.  There was no lunacy on that topic in this discussion.

The other clearly stated issue was grandparents who are not able to care for themselves refusing to move near their adult children who can help care for them. They rigidly insist on aging in place when it's not realistic.


Yep, I’m a Boomer, so I might be a tad defensive.  My point is that it isn’t always the Boomers who are making the “choices.” 

No one said it was all Boomers.  But you have to admit it isn't Gen X and Gen Y in positions of political power. It's overwhelmingly Baby Boomers and Silent Gen, and we've known about the impending social welfare/ entitlement crisis for quite a while now, yet the retirement age hasn't been raised to match reality and no other alternative approaches are being pursued. So when one group overwhelmingly has power and isn't addressing the issue, then they deserve to be called out on it.  Why haven't they made changes? Why aren't they actively exploring options?  Because the Boomer vote overwhelmingly doesn't support making any changes now.  That will affect everyone else younger than them, and we aren't obligated to be silent doormats while we pay taxes into systems we won't be getting any benefit from while we pay so much more healthcare and education at the same time and have to take time off of work to support elderly parents. This is a very. big. deal. with serious consequences; continuing to ignore it or minimize it isn't good enough. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2020 at 7:28 AM, Laura Corin said:

In other words, while social conservatives have a philosophy of family life they can’t operationalize, because it no longer is relevant, progressives have no philosophy of family life at all, because they don’t want to seem judgmental. The sexual revolution has come and gone, and it’s left us with no governing norms of family life, no guiding values, no articulated ideals.

I've been thinking about family, personal behaviour, duty, etc. a lot recently.  I'm a long way to the left of most US voters.  I'm struggling (the following will be full of holes, so don't expect coherence) to formulate my feelings:  the strong have a duty look after the weak, unless that caring causes the strong to be ill, not merely unhappy.  That duty is more important than pursuit of happiness.

Who are the weak?  All children who are attached to you as a parent.  All adults to whom you have made a commitment (by blood or choice) and who are ill or unable to look after themselves.  What does 'looking after' mean?  Not necessarily personal care, but loving care.  What if the weak person is horrible?  Arms-length care is fine if the relationship is untenable.

Real life examples where I am quite happy to judge:

- a parent who walks out on their marriage and children in order to pursue another love.  The marriage was stale but not a threat to either parent or to the children (who were unaware of any difficulties).  Financial support was given.  In this case, I would hope that the parent would stay around until the children were adult. 

- a parent who walks out on their marriage when the other parent has just gone into remission after cancer.  The departing parent went to live with a younger partner and have a child, leaving the teenaged children of the first marriage to deal with the recurrence of cancer and death of the ill parent.  Financial support was given.

 

To the bolded:  I agree with you completely here.  This isn't far to the left, really; it describes conservatives quite well.  COnservatives beleive in taking care of their family and friends.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Reefgazer said:

To the bolded:  I agree with you completely here.  This isn't far to the left, really; it describes conservatives quite well.  COnservatives beleive in taking care of their family and friends.

The reason I defined myself as being on the left was that the article suggested that progressives were unwilling to judge and lay down guidelines for decent family behaviour. I was trying to work out where my own red lines lie.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Laura Corin said:

@Homeschool Mom in AZ, has the retirement age for SS risen at all?

Yes, it has.  It has risen gradually to 67, with higher payouts if people postpone starting it until age 70, and just last year the minimum age for required minimum distributions was raised from 70 1/2 to 72, in recognition of how many folks are working into their supposed ‘retirement’ years.  Age discrimination is very much alive and well here, too, and although it is illegal, it is extremely hard to prove.  So people are often forced into a retirement that they did not choose, too early to have saved enough not to work.  This is a tricky problem all around.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Yes, it has.  It has risen gradually to 67, with higher payouts if people postpone starting it until age 70, and just last year the minimum age for required minimum distributions was raised from 70 1/2 to 72, in recognition of how many folks are working into their supposed ‘retirement’ years.  Age discrimination is very much alive and well here, too, and although it is illegal, it is extremely hard to prove.  So people are often forced into a retirement that they did not choose, too early to have saved enough not to work.  This is a tricky problem all around.

Here too. My husband and one of my brothers were each made redundant in their fifties, over ten years before their pensions would kick in. It's likely that younger, cheaper people were slid into similar roles to replace them.  Neither managed to find full time employment thereafter.

My brother managed to be rehired part time by his old firm. Husband is very lightly self employed. I went to work full time in an administrative role - I'm younger and work for a public university that mostly follows the rules.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

Here too. My husband and one of my brothers were each made redundant in their fifties, over ten years before their pensions would kick in. It's likely that younger, cheaper people were slid into similar roles to replace them.  Neither managed to find full time employment thereafter.

My brother managed to be rehired part time by his old firm. Husband is very lightly self employed. I went to work full time in an administrative role - I'm younger and work for a public university that mostly follows the rules.

Here it's younger, cheaper (in terms of base salary) and probably most importantly -- less expensive in terms of health insurance. Being involuntarily "retired" well before 65 is all too common. One of our neighbors is currently being pushed out the door of the job he's had for 15+ years. I think he's 60 or 61, and his youngest son is a freshman in college. It's very doubtful he'll be able to find another full time job at his age, let alone one with benefits. He's anticipating having to cobble together something--maybe a part time job and doing some painting or other handyman type work on his own. Yep, us Boomers sure got it made, rolling in our prosperity . . . 

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

In my husband's family, in the midwest, it has become a huge problem, too, that men in trades bodies are just giving out just a few years before their retirement ages. Because of the nature of the work. Which, of course, is something to take into account while we (me, especially) rail against college-as-default and useless degrees that come with so much debt. 

One problem doesn't ameliorate the other though, of course. 

 


I try hard to balance that debate too. I tell my kids a job that pays awesome without a degree is also often a job that is no benefits and no security and lots of hard on the body. Accountants don’t lose their entire livelihood if they get arthritis or fall and break a leg.  So if they take a job without a degree, I highly suggest they do their best to plan for a much sooner day of retirement. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chief Actuary of Social Security and his staff run projections which determine in large part changes in retirement rules. Politicians also take the info (which they rarely understand) and use it as a means to try to get what they want. The process is pretty complex.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

Here it's younger, cheaper (in terms of base salary) and probably most importantly -- less expensive in terms of health insurance. Being involuntarily "retired" well before 65 is all too common. One of our neighbors is currently being pushed out the door of the job he's had for 15+ years. I think he's 60 or 61, and his youngest son is a freshman in college. It's very doubtful he'll be able to find another full time job at his age, let alone one with benefits. He's anticipating having to cobble together something--maybe a part time job and doing some painting or other handyman type work on his own. Yep, us Boomers sure got it made, rolling in our prosperity . . . 

We're facing that personally now as well. Younger, cheaper, and, in DH's industry, increasing numbers of foreign workers are getting the jobs...and doing the hiring. Highly skilled but 55+ plus workers? Not so much.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

That bit of the article is mostly prejudice, with a pinch of truth.

It's not as if all non-traditional families (the ones progressives supposedly champion) are dancing about celebrating indecent family behaviour. I mean, non trad families are just as boring as trad families 🙂 It's all 'use your words!' with the littlies and 'what time do you need me to pick you up, Mum, for the doctor's appt' for the elders, whether you're a single mom, a gay couple or whatever. 

The pinch of truth is that progressive families are less likely to be authoritarian, and while many are simple authoritative instead, you are more likely to find permissive styles of parenting in that cohort than in more conservative families. 

Yes. And personality has a lot to do with it.  I don't think anyone would think my parenting style was loosey goosey. I love a good rule, and my children seemed to take comfort from structure.

Edited by Laura Corin
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2020 at 10:10 AM, StellaM said:

I think it's broader than family.

There's been a breakdown in traditional forms of community, and the space that leaves hasn't neccessarily been filled with new forms of community meeting the human needs that never went away.

Obviously, this is going to vary widely by region, by dominant or family cultural norms, and by luck of the draw.

But I know where I am, church going is way, way down, volunteer work is down, especially amongst the non-retired, civic organisation membership is down, trade union membership is down, membership of political parties down. And all families are affected, not just non-traditional families. 

And part of this I think is driven by changing economic needs.  Even in our community where people want to volunteer and go to church work hours get in the way

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

And part of this I think is driven by changing economic needs.  Even in our community where people want to volunteer and go to church work hours get in the way

And fit retired people of sixty are now fit working people of sixty, so they have less time for volunteering.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Laura Corin said:

And fit retired people of sixty are now fit working people of sixty, so they have less time for volunteering.

Yes.

the whole demographic of people who built community - seniors, stay at home mums with school age kids - are encouraged to be productive economically instead.  While this has some benefits it also has some drawbacks.

this is a bit of a stereotype.  There are people who manage to do a heck of a lot of volunteering in spite of almost full time work but not everyone has that much get up and go or ability to handle being around other human beings that long.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Yes.

the whole demographic of people who built community - seniors, stay at home mums with school age kids - are encouraged to be productive economically instead.  While this has some benefits it also has some drawbacks.

this is a bit of a stereotype.  There are people who manage to do a heck of a lot of volunteering in spite of almost full time work but not everyone has that much get up and go or ability to handle being around other human beings that long.

Yes.  I'll admit to doing no volunteering at the moment.  I work full time and visit my mum, as well as spending time with other close family and friends.  This is all the human contact I can sustain long term.  My retirement age is 67.  I'm hoping to have lots to give after that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

The reason I defined myself as being on the left was that the article suggested that progressives were unwilling to judge and lay down guidelines for decent family behaviour. I was trying to work out where my own red lines lie.

In general, I think the belief that those on the left have no philosophy of family life because they don’t want to judge is a fallacy. I certainly have very strong beliefs about what is right and wrong when it comes to families, especially when children are involved. However, I draw the line at working to implement laws or policies that deny rights and privileges to others that I myself enjoy, based on family composition.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, HeighHo said:

 

Here I'm seeing that professional men are shoved out after 25 years,regardless of age.  To stay employed one needs to, at the 24 year mark, switch employers. Waiting until one has no job seems to imply that one did not actively upgrade one's skills throughout one's career.  

My brother would fit that pattern but not my husband.  Husband had moved job repeatedly, including changing continent several times, updating his skills and experience.  He had only been in that job for six years and the company had moved him across the world in the middle of that.  The company was not doing well though and I think wanted to save money. 

It turned out that there was a market for experienced people of 50 (the age at which he was taken on) but not 56.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally had time to read this article, and hopefully I will get time to read the comments also.

Wanted to say a few things.

1) A lot of assumptions about correlation / causation.  He blames all of society's ills on family stuff.  But there have been those problems in all types of family structures and societies.  For example, the historic opioid stuff in China - can't get too much more familistic than traditional China. 

2) Leaving the family doesn't cause these problems, but it can highlight them as now the person is the responsibility of society vs. his own family.

3) Prosperity in the overall economy makes it easy to leave and go it alone, earlier than some people are ready.

4) A lot of the problems he blames on family structure norms are perhaps more accurately attributed to executive function problems.  The same problems that make a person unsuccessful in family life will likely make them unsuccessful in making all sorts of life choices, related to job, spending, health, crime, sex, and raising their own kids.

5) Even though some people are probably not as well off as they would be in a "family," that does not mean government measures to effectively impose family on people are the solution. 

6) That said, I happen to live in what this guy would call a "forged family."  I often comment that a lot of problems could be solved if people would accept that sharing can be a really positive choice.  It is not easy though.  It won't work for people who can't compromise on a fairly constant basis.  People need to understand the difference between "you need to accept me for who I am" vs. "you need to accept my behavior."

I think it's silly to attack or blame the nuclear family, but it's wise to value different ways which have been wrongly attacked in the past.

fn...Also, side note - the "people over 65" stats don't seem to consider many changes within that range, e.g., increasing numbers at the older end and declines in healthy lifelong activity.  This is just one of many stats mentioned that don't seem to be fully thought out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My folks are pre-boomer and I am post-boomer.  My folks married & started a family young and worked pretty hard to make the best of it.  They kept the family together through its ups and downs.  Now they are retired and living modestly in their 100+yo home.  They live in a rural village, so their kids have had to look elsewhere for jobs, but all have declined to move beyond reasonable driving distance from the folks & each other.

Our inter- and intra-generational stuff is complicated.  I have helped my folks and siblings a lot, financially, before I became a parent.  I took custody of my kids at age 41, when my folks were retired and in declining health.  They had little help to give me for various reasons, none of which could be blamed on selfishness.  I was hoping there would be more extended family stuff than we have, but it is what it is.

I don't do much for my folks nowadays, but I feel guilty about it.  There are things I could do if I were less busy with job and kids.  On the other hand, kids are only kids once, and I am their only parent, while my folks have 5 other children.  I've offered to pay for help to come in for them, but they have declined over and over.  The offer remains open; hopefully they will take it someday.  And when my kids are more independent and I work fewer hours, hopefully it will not be too late for me to go over and help my folks.  Hopefully even my kids will be willing to do so.  We'll see.

PS I should probably add that none of my grandparents lived with extended family in old age.  Nor did any of them have their parents living with them.  So this is not some kind of new trend.

Edited by SKL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Margaret in CO said:

Dh lost his job on his 62nd birthday and has never worked a full-time single job again. Couldn't get hired, and he has a master's degree. Oh, he works way more than full-time, just not a single job with benefits. Today was his "day off" so he didn't drive school bus, didn't drive the public bus, but "only" fed cattle, loaded hay, vaccinated, sold hay, fixed a truck, plowed, and then fed cattle, etc. all over again. It was dd's "day off" so she did all those things too, plus she's on call to plow for the county, though it looks like the snow has held off. He waited to take his SS until 66 (now it's 67) though it was hard to do as he has terminal cancer. He's picking up extra shifts this week as he'll miss several days for another hospital round next week. Yeah, we're Boomers. We're rolling in our "prosperity" too.

I'm sorry for your hard times, Margaret.  As to the bolded:  Lots of people don't realize that older people suffer workplace discrimination, and on top of that, don't have the financial recovery time that younger people do before they are forced to recover due to illness or infirmity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing about this article that bothers me is the regular denigration of those who (usually stay-at-home mothers) choose to make the home and children their work choice.  The author repeatedly refers to being "stuck at home", "relegated to the kitchen", etc...  But never mentions being "caught in the trap of breadwinner" or "tied to a paycheck".  He's part of the problem when he devalues building a community of people to take care of kids and the elderly.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Reefgazer said:

One thing about this article that bothers me is the regular denigration of those who (usually stay-at-home mothers) choose to make the home and children their work choice.  The author repeatedly refers to being "stuck at home", "relegated to the kitchen", etc...  But never mentions being "caught in the trap of breadwinner" or "tied to a paycheck".  He's part of the problem when he devalues building a community of people to take care of kids and the elderly.

I'm very torn on this. I value the caring work that people do for children or the elderly or infirm. I'm also aware that the 'golden age' of families looking after their own often involved a daughter being given no choice as to career: she was to look after her parents and that was that.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Reefgazer said:

One thing about this article that bothers me is the regular denigration of those who (usually stay-at-home mothers) choose to make the home and children their work choice.  The author repeatedly refers to being "stuck at home", "relegated to the kitchen", etc...  But never mentions being "caught in the trap of breadwinner" or "tied to a paycheck".  He's part of the problem when he devalues building a community of people to take care of kids and the elderly.

I cannot  cheer on your post enough!  

I am one of those moms who CHOSE to stay home and raise my child.  I am a good student, and have a graduate degree, but most of the reason that I finished grad school is that it was important to my mom.  She wanted me to have the option of a career, and I did respect that.  I lived for graduation so that I could start a family, and I have never been happier than I have in my time as a mom.  It really twists my knickers when people refer to me as ‘stuck at home’...especially when they turn around and ask for help with childcare😉 after they have insulted me!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

I'm very torn on this. I value the caring work that people do for children or the elderly or infirm. I'm also aware that the 'golden age' of families looking after their own often involved a daughter being given no choice as to career: she was to look after her parents and that was that.

I do think you have a good point here.  However, the flip side is that I was raised under the assumption that I would have a powerful career or be useless.  My mom has come to grips with my decision, but still waxes poetic about ‘what could have been’ for me.  

I think true equality comes in having a true choice.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...