4 ms·

It would be interesting to compare and contrast how societies with strong family and extended family bonds do on the bad-break test. In the US and Western Europ

It would be interesting to compare and contrast how societies with strong family and extended family bonds do on the bad-break test. In the US and Western Europe a strong individualist ethos has led to societies where government is the fall back for individual and immediate family misfortune. It's not ideal.

benevol 10y ago
> It's not ideal. ...if your government does not allow for solid social security and health care.
CalChris 10y ago
> In the US and Western Europe a strong individualist ethos has led to societies where government is the fall back for individual and immediate family misfortune. I don't understand this. Can you explain?
pessimizer 10y ago
I agree; but it's important to remember that even in societies with strong, cohesive extended family bonds, there are large numbers of people who lack family, or people whose families are mostly abroad (immigrants) who are really in trouble when the state abdicates due to the assumption of a family safety net. I'm of the opinion that governments (or any large institutions and networks of institutions, including powerful families and corporations) have an interest in breaking up families, because relationships between peers create a power base that competes against them. I don't think that it's a coincidence that governments tend to be fought over on one side by a party representing traditional large institutions, and on the other a party representing social interest/minority protection organizations and employee unions.
mikeash 10y ago
Nothing is ideal, but having government as the fallback seems better than having family as the fallback. Falling back on family only works if some of your family has enough resources to help, and that's not always the case.
- nickff 10y ago
  The big advantage is that family (and community) usually cares about you, whereas bureaucrats care most about following rules. Because of this, family can usually do more than just give you a few cheques.
  - Retra 10y ago
    What, condolences and sympathy? That's not better than a few checks.
    - pessimizer 10y ago
      Work, generally. It's a network of people that will vouch for you (with little or no evidence of your worth), or simply employ you.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Retra 10y ago
        Oh, it's that easy? I can just ask my poverty-stricken family to bootstrap me out of my poorness because they'll hire me to do the jobs they don't have? I'm the highest-paid person in my family. You think I can go to my boss and say "Hire my brother, he's been a gas-station attendant for 6 years. Probably he's a great programmer." It's easy to not be poor when you come from a family with wealth and hiring power. If you are poor, it's probably because you don't have either. You'd think that would be obvious.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    What about all the people whose families don't care about them?

benevol 10y ago

> It's not ideal. ...if your government does not allow for solid social security and health care.

CalChris 10y ago

> In the US and Western Europe a strong individualist ethos has led to societies where government is the fall back for individual and immediate family misfortune. I don't understand this. Can you explain?

pessimizer 10y ago

I agree; but it's important to remember that even in societies with strong, cohesive extended family bonds, there are large numbers of people who lack family, or people whose families are mostly abroad (immigrants) who are really in trouble when the state abdicates due to the assumption of a family safety net. I'm of the opinion that governments (or any large institutions and networks of institutions, including powerful families and corporations) have an interest in breaking up families, because relationships between peers create a power base that competes against them. I don't think that it's a coincidence that governments tend to be fought over on one side by a party representing traditional large institutions, and on the other a party representing social interest/minority protection organizations and employee unions.

mikeash 10y ago

Nothing is ideal, but having government as the fallback seems better than having family as the fallback. Falling back on family only works if some of your family has enough resources to help, and that's not always the case.

nickff 10y ago
The big advantage is that family (and community) usually cares about you, whereas bureaucrats care most about following rules. Because of this, family can usually do more than just give you a few cheques.
- Retra 10y ago
  What, condolences and sympathy? That's not better than a few checks.
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    Work, generally. It's a network of people that will vouch for you (with little or no evidence of your worth), or simply employ you.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retra 10y ago
      Oh, it's that easy? I can just ask my poverty-stricken family to bootstrap me out of my poorness because they'll hire me to do the jobs they don't have? I'm the highest-paid person in my family. You think I can go to my boss and say "Hire my brother, he's been a gas-station attendant for 6 years. Probably he's a great programmer." It's easy to not be poor when you come from a family with wealth and hiring power. If you are poor, it's probably because you don't have either. You'd think that would be obvious.
- mikeash 10y ago
  What about all the people whose families don't care about them?