6 ms·

And yet, presumably you are here in the U.S. and not in South Asia.

sooheon 8y ago
Are you implying that financial independence between generations is everything that makes the US better than South Asia?
- georgeburdell 8y ago
  Maybe. The O.P. seems so sure in his conviction that "South Asia's" culture in this regard is superior without evidence, and yet his forebears felt compelled to emigrate from there. O.P.'s argument appears to be that inter-generational independence is hard therefore we should give up and not feel bad about it.
  - antisthenes 8y ago
    What are the downsides of having an inter-generational safety net?
    - jtuente 8y ago
      It provides people with ammunition against tax-funded welfare? Changes opinions to be against estate taxes (my family earned this money why do you get to tax it)? Establishes expectations of inter-generational help or wealth?
    - trevelyan 8y ago
      Ritualized patterns of obligation and dependence lead to inauthentic relationships, an inability to communicate, and self-harm.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      It makes it harder for young people from escaping an abusive family. Sure, they "just" have to leave without a safety net, but when those are widespread, society adjusts to reduce other kinds.
    - antisthenes 8y ago
      All the replies so far describe the downsides of poor interpersonal relationships and political hypotheticals. I'm not sure I see even one argument against the safety net specifically. A semi-argument seems to be that a familial safety net will somehow reduce other safety nets, but that sounds like a false dichotomy at best.
      - jtuente 8y ago
        Yet, if you don't take the time to think of the hypotheticals, you can't account for them, and the same goes for the interpersonal relationships. These are items which increase ignorance in localized populations and are easy to turn into movements against a larger idea. It's not reasonable to solve all of them, but it's good to at least acknowledge them. Slightly off-topic, but in recent memory: The woman from Alabama who joined ISIS had experienced poor family relations and is now stuck in a refugee/detention camp in Syria. Because of the poor relationships, her ignorance in Islam and ISIS enabled them to turn her to support their cause, which she seems to now renounce.
    - rb808 8y ago
      Pretty much what the original article implies - it generates unfair playing field. Its great if you have a healthy and wealthy family, if you're a talented child in a poor or dysfunctional family you'll never get anywhere. By having independent nuclear families its less unfair.
  - gorpomon 8y ago
    I'm breaking a rule of the internet here by attempting to clarify my comments: > Maybe. The O.P. seems so sure in his conviction that "South Asia's" culture in this regard is superior without evidence. It's not a conviction. I'm not wedded to any side (nor is this an issue with a side). I didn't say in my post that any one thing was better than others. I'm simply saying that there are other places on Earth where finances are more intertwined and people don't feel shame about that. We can learn from other people and cultures and maybe in the process lose what is not a particularly helpful narrative in our society. Is any one culture perfect? No. South Asia has many problems. But one problem I see less of is this idea that taking money from your family is bad. In America we all get money from our relatives when they're dead, and we do so guilt free. Why do we fret about it just because they're alive and can see us actually enjoy it?
rayiner 8y ago
My parents left south asia because of the corruption and theocracy, not so they could live an independent life and die alone. I'd hazard a guess, though, that the difference is more manufactured than real. My wife's family came over from Ireland in the 1600's, but the idea of tallying up the time grandparents spend taking care of kids and categorizing it as "unpaid labor" would seem odd to them too. I suspect the real difference is between middle/upper-middle-class Americans and everyone else. There was a brief spell when a kid from a middle class household could go to college at 18 and afford to start a family, and not look back. The NYT finds it remarkable that its often no longer true. But it wasn't true for much of America even in the 20th century. Multi-generational entanglement was always common.

Are you implying that financial independence between generations is everything that makes the US better than South Asia?

georgeburdell 8y ago
Maybe. The O.P. seems so sure in his conviction that "South Asia's" culture in this regard is superior without evidence, and yet his forebears felt compelled to emigrate from there. O.P.'s argument appears to be that inter-generational independence is hard therefore we should give up and not feel bad about it.
- antisthenes 8y ago
  What are the downsides of having an inter-generational safety net?
  - jtuente 8y ago
    It provides people with ammunition against tax-funded welfare? Changes opinions to be against estate taxes (my family earned this money why do you get to tax it)? Establishes expectations of inter-generational help or wealth?
  - trevelyan 8y ago
    Ritualized patterns of obligation and dependence lead to inauthentic relationships, an inability to communicate, and self-harm.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    It makes it harder for young people from escaping an abusive family. Sure, they "just" have to leave without a safety net, but when those are widespread, society adjusts to reduce other kinds.
  - antisthenes 8y ago
    All the replies so far describe the downsides of poor interpersonal relationships and political hypotheticals. I'm not sure I see even one argument against the safety net specifically. A semi-argument seems to be that a familial safety net will somehow reduce other safety nets, but that sounds like a false dichotomy at best.
    - jtuente 8y ago
      Yet, if you don't take the time to think of the hypotheticals, you can't account for them, and the same goes for the interpersonal relationships. These are items which increase ignorance in localized populations and are easy to turn into movements against a larger idea. It's not reasonable to solve all of them, but it's good to at least acknowledge them. Slightly off-topic, but in recent memory: The woman from Alabama who joined ISIS had experienced poor family relations and is now stuck in a refugee/detention camp in Syria. Because of the poor relationships, her ignorance in Islam and ISIS enabled them to turn her to support their cause, which she seems to now renounce.
  - rb808 8y ago
    Pretty much what the original article implies - it generates unfair playing field. Its great if you have a healthy and wealthy family, if you're a talented child in a poor or dysfunctional family you'll never get anywhere. By having independent nuclear families its less unfair.
- gorpomon 8y ago
  I'm breaking a rule of the internet here by attempting to clarify my comments: > Maybe. The O.P. seems so sure in his conviction that "South Asia's" culture in this regard is superior without evidence. It's not a conviction. I'm not wedded to any side (nor is this an issue with a side). I didn't say in my post that any one thing was better than others. I'm simply saying that there are other places on Earth where finances are more intertwined and people don't feel shame about that. We can learn from other people and cultures and maybe in the process lose what is not a particularly helpful narrative in our society. Is any one culture perfect? No. South Asia has many problems. But one problem I see less of is this idea that taking money from your family is bad. In America we all get money from our relatives when they're dead, and we do so guilt free. Why do we fret about it just because they're alive and can see us actually enjoy it?

rayiner 8y ago

My parents left south asia because of the corruption and theocracy, not so they could live an independent life and die alone. I'd hazard a guess, though, that the difference is more manufactured than real. My wife's family came over from Ireland in the 1600's, but the idea of tallying up the time grandparents spend taking care of kids and categorizing it as "unpaid labor" would seem odd to them too. I suspect the real difference is between middle/upper-middle-class Americans and everyone else. There was a brief spell when a kid from a middle class household could go to college at 18 and afford to start a family, and not look back. The NYT finds it remarkable that its often no longer true. But it wasn't true for much of America even in the 20th century. Multi-generational entanglement was always common.