3 ms·
the thing they didn't explain was how they distinguished between people who live with their parents (in their parent's home) and people whose parents have moved
by Taniwha 10y ago
the thing they didn't explain was how they distinguished between people who live with their parents (in their parent's home) and people whose parents have moved in with them.
Of course traditionally the eldest son inherited the house (and the fields) and the supported their grandparents in their old age in the same house.
China has a unique problem in this respect, retirement essentially consists of the eldest son inheriting the house and supporting his parents (who look after the grandkids). The one child policy means that when a couple marry and have a kid they end up with two sets of parents wanting to move in with the newly married couple, vying to look after the one kid and be supported in their old age. You can see why people have quietly been having more than one kid where they can
- gozur88 10y ago>the thing they didn't explain was how they distinguished between people who live with their parents (in their parent's home) and people whose parents have moved in with them. Because they didn't make that distinction: >Yet, some who live at home make a wage that should allow them to live independently. Like the older groups in our age analysis, these high earners could be older adults in established households who live with elderly parents to provide, not receive, support.
- davidgay 10y agoMy handwavy evaluation of the data says that 3% are "people whose parents moved in with them" - this is based on the "Annual Income" graph which basically bottoms out at 3%. And it's consistent with the Age graph, which also bottoms out around 3% except for people above 53 (53+30=83, so a lot of those parents are in a high-mortality age). So just subtract 3% from all numbers, where that makes sense of course...