3 ms·

> Society has cared for it's elderly basically forever, and _now_ we're saying it's too expensive? Because individuals used to look after their own elderly. No

> Society has cared for it's elderly basically forever, and _now_ we're saying it's too expensive? Because individuals used to look after their own elderly. Now there's a lot more institutions involved, meaning a lot more other people work, meaning a lot more other people need wages paid. It's a bad, crappy job that no one wants to work in, and no one wants to pay high fees for looking after mum and dad

kickout 4y ago
Correct. I don't disagree. However, in my experience increased money and scale (i.e tens of millions of people need this assistance) don't seem to be helping the problem. In my head I think its similar to the problems of public education in America. We pay extremely high $/kid on public education due in some areas, it doesn't improve outcomes. It's like the whole model is un-scaleable or something.
John23832 4y ago
Eh, not true. Communities looked after their elderly. We've just removed any aspect of community from society. Individualism to a fault is causing these problems.
- danny_codes 4y ago
  Totally agree. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and it seems there are many causes. Increased ability to move, and desirability of moving (school, jobs, exploration). Bad city design (at least in North America, we have a car problem) meaning it's difficult to have a local community. The decline in religious involvement and no replacement lined up. A culture of extreme individualism to the point of absurdity. These all seem tractable, but it is sad that we've let it get to this point. I feel there is a shifting in the wind though. At least for younger people, American capitalism and individualism seems to be viewed with increasing skepticism.
- drekipus 4y ago
  Yes, totally agree with that.
- sershe 4y ago
  The answer is much simpler, there used to be much less elderly per working person (and that only covers modern times, too, in a country with massive in-migration of new working people; plus it's obvious it's going to get worse): http://vis.stanford.edu/jheer/d3/pyramid/shift.html http://vis.stanford.edu/jheer/d3/pyramid/shift.html That is also why Social Security seemed like a good idea at one time.

kickout 4y ago

Correct. I don't disagree. However, in my experience increased money and scale (i.e tens of millions of people need this assistance) don't seem to be helping the problem. In my head I think its similar to the problems of public education in America. We pay extremely high $/kid on public education due in some areas, it doesn't improve outcomes. It's like the whole model is un-scaleable or something.

John23832 4y ago

Eh, not true. Communities looked after their elderly. We've just removed any aspect of community from society. Individualism to a fault is causing these problems.

danny_codes 4y ago
Totally agree. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and it seems there are many causes. Increased ability to move, and desirability of moving (school, jobs, exploration). Bad city design (at least in North America, we have a car problem) meaning it's difficult to have a local community. The decline in religious involvement and no replacement lined up. A culture of extreme individualism to the point of absurdity. These all seem tractable, but it is sad that we've let it get to this point. I feel there is a shifting in the wind though. At least for younger people, American capitalism and individualism seems to be viewed with increasing skepticism.
drekipus 4y ago
Yes, totally agree with that.
sershe 4y ago
The answer is much simpler, there used to be much less elderly per working person (and that only covers modern times, too, in a country with massive in-migration of new working people; plus it's obvious it's going to get worse): http://vis.stanford.edu/jheer/d3/pyramid/shift.html http://vis.stanford.edu/jheer/d3/pyramid/shift.html That is also why Social Security seemed like a good idea at one time.