5 ms·

Parents could have moved to SF, just sayin’ ETA: One set of parents could have moved from east coast to west. They had enough savings and could have found a mo

Parents could have moved to SF, just sayin’ ETA: One set of parents could have moved from east coast to west. They had enough savings and could have found a modest place in a nice peripheral location. We had good SV jobs and would have helped them. They never really liked where they lived, never made the most of it, and only stayed there out of inertia; I hated the weather and sprawly shabbiness, would never have moved back. We spent a lot of time looking for nice places for them and got a lot of excuses. Our jobs became fully remote. The other set of parents got sick. So we moved to their clean, quiet, beautiful, small town in the northern UK. It sucks, you’d hate it, stay away.

ElfinTrousers 4y ago
I was gonna say "not at these prices", but actually I'm feeling more optimistic about that...have even entertained the idea of moving back myself if current trends continue.
maerF0x0 4y ago
Though you're getting down voted I do think there's some merit to your comment. When I moved from Canada to the Bay area I thought, and everyone said, that they (friends, family) would come visit. I got 2 visits in 8 years, both by my mom. This despite me going back to see varying people roughly twice per year. I've sadly learned that many of those relationships are a one way street of convenience. They're happy to see me when I come, to walk down memory lane. But they'll never put in the effort to come see me. Sadly this realization has been the demise of many of those relationships that I was carrying.
- lezojeda 4y ago
  Well, I understand how you feel but... you are the one who moved, not them, I'm not from North America but I imagine it's not a small distance just judging from a map, not that easy. I have a friend who moved to Switzerland for example, being from Argentina it's impossible for me and almost anyone else to go there and visit him, but he chose that
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  Don't be too harsh. People have their own busy lives and perhaps relationships are often made when they are convenient. Also, too, sometimes the strength of the relationship is in a shared context — like co-workers. When a co-worker moves on, goes to another company, retires, there is less to chat about were you to meet up later, less shared context. Your oldest friends though will often always have that shared context of having grown up with you in the same environment, same "era". You act as a foil to one another in the degree to which you turned out differently (also to the degree you stayed similar). Your eyes and theirs will gaze upon the same landscape from the same vantage point: "Look at those kids and their phones, we were out riding bikes when we were their age." (Ha ha, etc.)
- leoedin 4y ago
  I understand this sentiment, but I've also been at the other end of it. The reality is that most people have a limited amount of travel time, fairly limited amount of money and a longer list of trips they'd like to make. I've got some great friends who've moved to places far away - but unless they're very, very close friends it's really hard to justify spending thousands, taking time off work and then spending hours travelling to see them for a few days. If I was in the area I'd definitely look them up - but I simply can't base my entire family's limited holiday time around seeing them. Add children into the mix and that becomes even harder.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    The part that you and peer commenters are missing -- they all wanted to see me, I _did_ travel to them, expended my limited PTO time and money to demonstrate that the relationship was worth keeping alive etc. But it was unrequited. Thats the part that stings the lip service of "Yeah we'd love to make it there someday, why dont you come see us this year?"... I do it. They Dont.
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
  That happened to me too. When I moved to the US a lot of people said they would visit, especially once I was in California. But so far only two of my sisters and my mom have visited in 20 years. This made me in turn very reluctant to visit people when I fly to Europe. I guess it is what is but it is very disappointing.
- bluGill 4y ago
  When I go back I have a large number of people to visit. When someone comes here they are here to visit me. Motivation is additive - I kind of want to visit X people and so in total it is worth going. While they only have their kind of motivation to visit me. I get a few visits just because I'm at a large crossroads and a good driving distance away to stop for the night. (they might go a few more hours if I didn't live here, but since they can have supper with me that makes stopping here worth it.
raisin_churn 4y ago
It doesn't seem to be a popular sentiment, but I agree. My parents are retired, moderately wealthy, and in reasonably good health, yet the burden to spend time with them seems to be entirely on my partner and me, who have demanding careers. Not to mention, my in-laws are in worse health than my parents, so now we have to prioritize our limited travel time between two sets of elderly parents, visiting our friends dispersed across the planet, and engaging in our own interests. Quitting our jobs and moving to be near my parents (or my partner's) isn't an option, so the status quo of seeing them every other year will remain until they decide to change it.
bel_marinaio 4y ago
This doesn't seem realistic. If they could afford to move to SF they could also afford to fly to SF to visit. The author would already see them more than once a year. Selling the east coast house and coming up with an extra $400k (wild guestimate) to move to SF is not spare change most people have lying around. just sayin'
eddieroger 4y ago
Sure they could have, but in the thread, the author mentions a partner with parents also on the east coast, and while that person is not the focus of the thread, it's "just math" that it is easier to move one set of people than two, particularly if that one set doesn't have as deeply set roots as the other two parties do. That's all market notwithstanding.
rcarr 4y ago
This. It is the responsibility of aging parents to move to where their children can earn a living, not the other way around. My grandparents lived around two and a half hours away from their daughter (my mother) and I and half an hour away from their son (my uncle). We were pretty poor after the financial crisis so it meant we could only really go visit once or twice a year. My uncle was away a lot (works in the military) so they didn’t get particularly frequent visits from him. We asked them to move closer to us, but neither of them liked change and my grandfather was fond of the view. My grandfather ended up getting ill and dying. We only got to see him a few times between diagnosis to death because of how far away they were. My grandmother ended up living alone in the house for about two years and getting Parkinsons. She’s now bed bound in a care home, again with hardly any visits because of how far away she is and the fact that we’re still not financially recovered, even after all this time. This whole sorry state of affairs could have been avoided if they just decided to move closer to us. They had more than enough resources to do so. But no. Primarily because they didn’t like change and my grandfather liked looking at the sunset over some hills. To anyone reading this, do not bury your head in the sand about the realities of aging and dying unless you want to end up living a similarly tragic story.
- lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  You may be overgeneralizing your particular situation. These sorts of things are subject to numerous factors and details that vary across families. You have three options: parents move closer to children, children move close to parents, or neither (both operate independently). Which is the best possible move is not the same everywhere and at all times.
  - rcarr 4y ago
    You’re definitely right. But if there are no extenuating circumstances then I do think the default view should be parents move to kids rather than the other way around. At the end of the day, one set of people are shortly going to become unable to take care of themselves and the other isn’t. Whilst you still have the ability to do something about it, lessen the burden on your loved ones by moving closer to them rather than increasing it by staying put. Personally, if I’m in terminal decline and have enough forewarning and ability left to do something about it, I think I’d be inclined to take myself out of the game and save my family the pain of having to spend thousands on care costs and watch me slowly wither away. I’d rather go out on my own terms with a bit of dignity and for my family to spend the extra inheritance money on whatever they want. But obviously that is a very personal decision and I wouldn’t ever cast judgement on someone for being for or against it. I will however, cast some judgement if you’re past seventy and burying your head in the sand about what’s coming down the pipeline rather than having a plan in place to lessen the burden placed on your loved ones.
blululu 4y ago
My Aunt did just that a few years back to be closer to my Cousin and her two kids. Of course she was born in San Francisco so it is maybe less of a leap but she seems really happy with the move. As you get older it is harder to make such changes even though you have more than enough time/money to do it comfortably.
sbaiddn 4y ago
How's it fair to uproot people from their communities, and their other children, at the twilight of their life to fulfill the material greediness of your kids?
- rcarr 4y ago
  Not material greediness if your kids do not have the financial means to move to you or if they have skills that are industry and location specific. Not everyone is a programmer that can work remotely.
  - sbaiddn 4y ago
    Then they can't afford to live in SV, and they are probably better off financially living close to their family and where they grew up.
    - rcarr 4y ago
      This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Throughout history, people have moved where the jobs are. You don’t escape poverty by staying stuck in a place with no opportunities. If you went to university and studied filmmaking for example you’re probably going to find a lot of work in LA, New York and other metropolitan areas. You’re not going to find work in a small village in the middle of Alaska. And sometimes you’ve got to slum it for a while to achieve financial independence. And that’s presuming the reason for the financial distress is work related. There are tons of other reasons why someone might be in a poor financial situation. Maybe their spouse left them or died and now they’re a single parent. Maybe they’re a victim of fraud. Maybe they lost their house in a wildfire. Literally thousands of reasons. Or should children just be happy to not have their own interests in life and instead just be slaves to whatever their parents wish until the parents die and the children are finally released of their bonds?
      - sbaiddn 4y ago
        People have moved where food is and war is not. Leaving the community you grew up in to live in a tiny rental home while your kid dodges junkies' used needles in the playground just so you cam afford to take a vacation in Aruba is a uniquely modern phenomenon.

ElfinTrousers 4y ago

I was gonna say "not at these prices", but actually I'm feeling more optimistic about that...have even entertained the idea of moving back myself if current trends continue.

maerF0x0 4y ago

Though you're getting down voted I do think there's some merit to your comment. When I moved from Canada to the Bay area I thought, and everyone said, that they (friends, family) would come visit. I got 2 visits in 8 years, both by my mom. This despite me going back to see varying people roughly twice per year. I've sadly learned that many of those relationships are a one way street of convenience. They're happy to see me when I come, to walk down memory lane. But they'll never put in the effort to come see me. Sadly this realization has been the demise of many of those relationships that I was carrying.

lezojeda 4y ago
Well, I understand how you feel but... you are the one who moved, not them, I'm not from North America but I imagine it's not a small distance just judging from a map, not that easy. I have a friend who moved to Switzerland for example, being from Argentina it's impossible for me and almost anyone else to go there and visit him, but he chose that
JKCalhoun 4y ago
Don't be too harsh. People have their own busy lives and perhaps relationships are often made when they are convenient. Also, too, sometimes the strength of the relationship is in a shared context — like co-workers. When a co-worker moves on, goes to another company, retires, there is less to chat about were you to meet up later, less shared context. Your oldest friends though will often always have that shared context of having grown up with you in the same environment, same "era". You act as a foil to one another in the degree to which you turned out differently (also to the degree you stayed similar). Your eyes and theirs will gaze upon the same landscape from the same vantage point: "Look at those kids and their phones, we were out riding bikes when we were their age." (Ha ha, etc.)
leoedin 4y ago
I understand this sentiment, but I've also been at the other end of it. The reality is that most people have a limited amount of travel time, fairly limited amount of money and a longer list of trips they'd like to make. I've got some great friends who've moved to places far away - but unless they're very, very close friends it's really hard to justify spending thousands, taking time off work and then spending hours travelling to see them for a few days. If I was in the area I'd definitely look them up - but I simply can't base my entire family's limited holiday time around seeing them. Add children into the mix and that becomes even harder.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  The part that you and peer commenters are missing -- they all wanted to see me, I _did_ travel to them, expended my limited PTO time and money to demonstrate that the relationship was worth keeping alive etc. But it was unrequited. Thats the part that stings the lip service of "Yeah we'd love to make it there someday, why dont you come see us this year?"... I do it. They Dont.
spaetzleesser 4y ago
That happened to me too. When I moved to the US a lot of people said they would visit, especially once I was in California. But so far only two of my sisters and my mom have visited in 20 years. This made me in turn very reluctant to visit people when I fly to Europe. I guess it is what is but it is very disappointing.
bluGill 4y ago
When I go back I have a large number of people to visit. When someone comes here they are here to visit me. Motivation is additive - I kind of want to visit X people and so in total it is worth going. While they only have their kind of motivation to visit me. I get a few visits just because I'm at a large crossroads and a good driving distance away to stop for the night. (they might go a few more hours if I didn't live here, but since they can have supper with me that makes stopping here worth it.

raisin_churn 4y ago

It doesn't seem to be a popular sentiment, but I agree. My parents are retired, moderately wealthy, and in reasonably good health, yet the burden to spend time with them seems to be entirely on my partner and me, who have demanding careers. Not to mention, my in-laws are in worse health than my parents, so now we have to prioritize our limited travel time between two sets of elderly parents, visiting our friends dispersed across the planet, and engaging in our own interests. Quitting our jobs and moving to be near my parents (or my partner's) isn't an option, so the status quo of seeing them every other year will remain until they decide to change it.

bel_marinaio 4y ago

This doesn't seem realistic. If they could afford to move to SF they could also afford to fly to SF to visit. The author would already see them more than once a year. Selling the east coast house and coming up with an extra $400k (wild guestimate) to move to SF is not spare change most people have lying around. just sayin'

eddieroger 4y ago

Sure they could have, but in the thread, the author mentions a partner with parents also on the east coast, and while that person is not the focus of the thread, it's "just math" that it is easier to move one set of people than two, particularly if that one set doesn't have as deeply set roots as the other two parties do. That's all market notwithstanding.

rcarr 4y ago

This. It is the responsibility of aging parents to move to where their children can earn a living, not the other way around. My grandparents lived around two and a half hours away from their daughter (my mother) and I and half an hour away from their son (my uncle). We were pretty poor after the financial crisis so it meant we could only really go visit once or twice a year. My uncle was away a lot (works in the military) so they didn’t get particularly frequent visits from him. We asked them to move closer to us, but neither of them liked change and my grandfather was fond of the view. My grandfather ended up getting ill and dying. We only got to see him a few times between diagnosis to death because of how far away they were. My grandmother ended up living alone in the house for about two years and getting Parkinsons. She’s now bed bound in a care home, again with hardly any visits because of how far away she is and the fact that we’re still not financially recovered, even after all this time. This whole sorry state of affairs could have been avoided if they just decided to move closer to us. They had more than enough resources to do so. But no. Primarily because they didn’t like change and my grandfather liked looking at the sunset over some hills. To anyone reading this, do not bury your head in the sand about the realities of aging and dying unless you want to end up living a similarly tragic story.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago
You may be overgeneralizing your particular situation. These sorts of things are subject to numerous factors and details that vary across families. You have three options: parents move closer to children, children move close to parents, or neither (both operate independently). Which is the best possible move is not the same everywhere and at all times.
- rcarr 4y ago
  You’re definitely right. But if there are no extenuating circumstances then I do think the default view should be parents move to kids rather than the other way around. At the end of the day, one set of people are shortly going to become unable to take care of themselves and the other isn’t. Whilst you still have the ability to do something about it, lessen the burden on your loved ones by moving closer to them rather than increasing it by staying put. Personally, if I’m in terminal decline and have enough forewarning and ability left to do something about it, I think I’d be inclined to take myself out of the game and save my family the pain of having to spend thousands on care costs and watch me slowly wither away. I’d rather go out on my own terms with a bit of dignity and for my family to spend the extra inheritance money on whatever they want. But obviously that is a very personal decision and I wouldn’t ever cast judgement on someone for being for or against it. I will however, cast some judgement if you’re past seventy and burying your head in the sand about what’s coming down the pipeline rather than having a plan in place to lessen the burden placed on your loved ones.

blululu 4y ago

My Aunt did just that a few years back to be closer to my Cousin and her two kids. Of course she was born in San Francisco so it is maybe less of a leap but she seems really happy with the move. As you get older it is harder to make such changes even though you have more than enough time/money to do it comfortably.

sbaiddn 4y ago

How's it fair to uproot people from their communities, and their other children, at the twilight of their life to fulfill the material greediness of your kids?

rcarr 4y ago
Not material greediness if your kids do not have the financial means to move to you or if they have skills that are industry and location specific. Not everyone is a programmer that can work remotely.
- sbaiddn 4y ago
  Then they can't afford to live in SV, and they are probably better off financially living close to their family and where they grew up.
  - rcarr 4y ago
    This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Throughout history, people have moved where the jobs are. You don’t escape poverty by staying stuck in a place with no opportunities. If you went to university and studied filmmaking for example you’re probably going to find a lot of work in LA, New York and other metropolitan areas. You’re not going to find work in a small village in the middle of Alaska. And sometimes you’ve got to slum it for a while to achieve financial independence. And that’s presuming the reason for the financial distress is work related. There are tons of other reasons why someone might be in a poor financial situation. Maybe their spouse left them or died and now they’re a single parent. Maybe they’re a victim of fraud. Maybe they lost their house in a wildfire. Literally thousands of reasons. Or should children just be happy to not have their own interests in life and instead just be slaves to whatever their parents wish until the parents die and the children are finally released of their bonds?
    - sbaiddn 4y ago
      People have moved where food is and war is not. Leaving the community you grew up in to live in a tiny rental home while your kid dodges junkies' used needles in the playground just so you cam afford to take a vacation in Aruba is a uniquely modern phenomenon.