4 ms·
The proposals about multi-generation living are worth considering, but they can't be used as an excuse to bone the younger generation and call it "the norm". An
by guard-of-terra 10y ago
The proposals about multi-generation living are worth considering, but they can't be used as an excuse to bone the younger generation and call it "the norm". And that's what I observe happening.
I don't think this arrangement was "historically the norm" for city dwellers. There, you had either nuclear families, or singles, or wealthy families complete with servants and maids.
In countryside, where you live is not important as long as you have land to grow food on and there's no drought.
But surely everybody in your family have their own idea what city they want to live in. It's sufficiently hard to negotiate this with your partner in nuclear family! Good look doing it with all those grandparents.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago> There, you had either nuclear families, or singles, or wealthy families complete with servants and maids. On what are you basing this?
- guard-of-terra 10y agoSingles always arrived in cities from countryside, where they formed families, and they could only have multi-gen families after a few generations. By then they had money for maids.
- epalmer 10y ago> The proposals about multi-generation living are worth considering, but they can't be used as an excuse to bone the younger generation and call it "the norm". And that's what I observe happening. What does bone the younger generation even mean and how does that manifest? See my comments elsewhere in this thread. I have one and soon two older children living with us and the circumstances are in that comment. There are no excuses used in my house. I don't see society saying kids need to live with their parents or saying they don't. I see individual families with circumstances that make the multi-generational living arrangements advantageous or even necessary. However it is not all positive. There are pluses and minuses.