3 ms·

> I think people need to keep in mind how important children can be in terms of securing your comfort in your old age. As much as I see your point, that is un

> I think people need to keep in mind how important children can be in terms of securing your comfort in your old age. As much as I see your point, that is unrealistic for many, many people. Especially in the US where that is not prominent societal norm. My parents live thousands of miles away from any of their children. Most of my siblings don't have the money to save properly for their own retirement let alone support their parents. And housing situations often do not support two households living under one roof. And this applies to families that still talk to each other.

kache_ 7y ago
I guess part of what I'm saying is that we have a seriously dangerous anti-natalist culture. When young people get married, people will frown upon it.
chr1 7y ago
Maybe its not a social norm, because state provided pensions broke that norm. If people knew that they can't live alone in old age they would be more interested in having more children, staying on good terms with them and living in the same house.
javagram 7y ago
If people begin starving in their retirement, social norms will probably change. The US social norm of children not supporting their parents exists because of retirement programs having been so successful in the 20th century. Before then, the US had more parents living with their children out of necessity (and, for people who didn’t have the social safety net of children, people starving...)
AdrianB1 7y ago
Then it is a wrong societal norm. My grandmother retired at about 95 years old and she lived with us (daughter's house and 2 grandchilds) until she died at 106. She had a tiny government pension (about $100 per month) that she had not to spend on anything because the family cared for all her needs. When you live with someone and the marginal cost is just one room and one seat at the table then this is not a burden for anyone. If you want your separate house and someone to help, that is not sustainable unless you saved big time.
- balt_s 7y ago
  > Then it is a wrong societal norm. This is an underrated point, but I hope you can see how prevailing factors in both the business world (Amazon's two-day shipping springs to mind) and the culture are seriously stacked against these mores.

kache_ 7y ago

I guess part of what I'm saying is that we have a seriously dangerous anti-natalist culture. When young people get married, people will frown upon it.

chr1 7y ago

Maybe its not a social norm, because state provided pensions broke that norm. If people knew that they can't live alone in old age they would be more interested in having more children, staying on good terms with them and living in the same house.

javagram 7y ago

If people begin starving in their retirement, social norms will probably change. The US social norm of children not supporting their parents exists because of retirement programs having been so successful in the 20th century. Before then, the US had more parents living with their children out of necessity (and, for people who didn’t have the social safety net of children, people starving...)

AdrianB1 7y ago

Then it is a wrong societal norm. My grandmother retired at about 95 years old and she lived with us (daughter's house and 2 grandchilds) until she died at 106. She had a tiny government pension (about $100 per month) that she had not to spend on anything because the family cared for all her needs. When you live with someone and the marginal cost is just one room and one seat at the table then this is not a burden for anyone. If you want your separate house and someone to help, that is not sustainable unless you saved big time.

balt_s 7y ago
> Then it is a wrong societal norm. This is an underrated point, but I hope you can see how prevailing factors in both the business world (Amazon's two-day shipping springs to mind) and the culture are seriously stacked against these mores.