5 ms·

I'm pretty young, but one of my retirement plans is my children. I can't be the only one. That is an additional incentive for me to treat them right and ensure

I'm pretty young, but one of my retirement plans is my children. I can't be the only one. That is an additional incentive for me to treat them right and ensure they have the means to take care of themselves.

lsj0627 4y ago
This is very polarizing and seems to be a cultural issue. Americans and westernized cultures are appalled at its selfishness, while many Asian cultures are accustomed to this totally normal and expected part of the closer family unit.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
I'm highly suspicious of saddling the younger generation, quite literally, to have their parents as dependents. Housing and medicine has only gotten more and more expensive. How are the children supposed to save up if they have to feed, house, and pay for the healthcare of their children and their parents simultaneously? At some point something is going to shatter in that generational chain if the cost of everything continues to go up.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  I agree--it's nice if they can help and are willing to, but it's kind of gross and presumptuous to simply assume they will help or obligate them to help. A parent is obligated to care for a child because [in most cases] they chose to have the child. The reverse is not true. Nobody chose to be born.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  > At some point something is going to shatter in that generational chain if the cost of everything continues to go up. Maybe that's the final push we need to adopt universal health care like the other civilized countries? When the cost of caring for Boomers will become too high for younger generations to bear, it will either solve itself out through policy or lots of misery.
  - InitialLastName 4y ago
    As of ~2030, all Baby Boomers will have access to government funded healthcare via Medicare.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cykros 4y ago
  Part of the answer there is, they're housing their family with their parents' home, cutting out the interest payments to the bank. In return, the parents are saving the cost of assisted living in the various sorts it takes, further adding to the efficiency. And then to boot, the parents, for a time anyway, are available as childcare. The amount of money that can be saved this way is nothing to shake a stick at. It may not be what most people want to put up with, but it's not without its financial benefits.
Invictus0 4y ago
[flagged]
packetlost 4y ago
The funny party is that's the "old way" of doing things. Multigenerational households are common in basically every culture except modern Western.
- Invictus0 4y ago
  Doesn't mean it's the right way
  - packetlost 4y ago
    Doesn't mean it's the wrong way.
  - MadSudaca 4y ago
    they’re going to pay for someone’s retirement, one way or another.
stuff4ben 4y ago
I would never want to put that burden on my kids. I'm a middle-aged gen-xer with teenagers. My boomer parents are doing well enough for themselves but still are relying on their kids (me and my siblings) to "do something" when they get into their 80's. Having to juggle both my kids and my parents is a lot of stress and worry. I'm doing everything I can to not let that happen to my kids when I'm in my 80's.
bipop5000 4y ago
Me too. I am from a south asian background. I choose to take care of my parents when they are old as they had done for their parents and so on up the generation tree. Its never a burden, its just a way of doing things. I would like to hope that my children would do the same for me as their value system would be passed down from me and my surroundings. I think its because of the cultural upbringing. I would also add most south asians would agree with my sentiment.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > Its never a burden I watched my parents, and especially my mom, give up their entire youth caring for my dad’s excessively elderly parents. They sacrificed portions of mine and my sister’s childhood to take care of two people, who from the age of 75 to almost 100 (both of them), were a net loss to the family since they did not speak English, could not drive, and “needed” home cooked meals 2 to 3 times per day. It was absolutely a burden for my family, and I hope to never be the parent that needs chronic care, and I am certainly not wanting my kids and grandkids to give up their youth for my senescence.
  - hcurtiss 4y ago
    It also gets more difficult when your parents can't pay their own way precisely because they've made horrible decisions over time. That they'd take comfort in the fact that their kids will take care of them -- I don't know how that doesn't breed resentment. No, I will not be squandering my retirement now with the plan that my kids will take care of me. Frankly, I find the very thought of that repulsive.
2ICofafireteam 4y ago
From a relative of mine: You should live off of your parents until your kids are old enough for you to live off of them.
yrdmb 4y ago
[flagged]
idiotsecant 4y ago
I have to say, that's a pretty crappy thing to do to your children.
- cykros 4y ago
  What, giving them a sense of purpose, a home to move into, and access to free childcare? Yea, how awful -- you might get in the way of their modern narcissistic lifestyle. But yes, it can go badly -- if, for instance, you're moving in with your kids, rather than providing the house for them to move into. And doing so when no longer physically capable of providing that childcare as a benefit. And then expecting them to pay for your groceries, etc. But then, the same has been known to happen when you've got ungrateful children, who can't be asked to lift a finger around the house, and who rely on child protective laws to shield them from ever being taught a lesson in reality. Living with other people isn't always easy, but it does typically pay dividends when you can make it work.

lsj0627 4y ago

This is very polarizing and seems to be a cultural issue. Americans and westernized cultures are appalled at its selfishness, while many Asian cultures are accustomed to this totally normal and expected part of the closer family unit.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

I'm highly suspicious of saddling the younger generation, quite literally, to have their parents as dependents. Housing and medicine has only gotten more and more expensive. How are the children supposed to save up if they have to feed, house, and pay for the healthcare of their children and their parents simultaneously? At some point something is going to shatter in that generational chain if the cost of everything continues to go up.

ryandrake 4y ago
I agree--it's nice if they can help and are willing to, but it's kind of gross and presumptuous to simply assume they will help or obligate them to help. A parent is obligated to care for a child because [in most cases] they chose to have the child. The reverse is not true. Nobody chose to be born.
antisthenes 4y ago
> At some point something is going to shatter in that generational chain if the cost of everything continues to go up. Maybe that's the final push we need to adopt universal health care like the other civilized countries? When the cost of caring for Boomers will become too high for younger generations to bear, it will either solve itself out through policy or lots of misery.
- InitialLastName 4y ago
  As of ~2030, all Baby Boomers will have access to government funded healthcare via Medicare.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
cykros 4y ago
Part of the answer there is, they're housing their family with their parents' home, cutting out the interest payments to the bank. In return, the parents are saving the cost of assisted living in the various sorts it takes, further adding to the efficiency. And then to boot, the parents, for a time anyway, are available as childcare. The amount of money that can be saved this way is nothing to shake a stick at. It may not be what most people want to put up with, but it's not without its financial benefits.

Invictus0 4y ago

[flagged]

packetlost 4y ago

The funny party is that's the "old way" of doing things. Multigenerational households are common in basically every culture except modern Western.

Invictus0 4y ago
Doesn't mean it's the right way
- packetlost 4y ago
  Doesn't mean it's the wrong way.
- MadSudaca 4y ago
  they’re going to pay for someone’s retirement, one way or another.

stuff4ben 4y ago

I would never want to put that burden on my kids. I'm a middle-aged gen-xer with teenagers. My boomer parents are doing well enough for themselves but still are relying on their kids (me and my siblings) to "do something" when they get into their 80's. Having to juggle both my kids and my parents is a lot of stress and worry. I'm doing everything I can to not let that happen to my kids when I'm in my 80's.

bipop5000 4y ago

Me too. I am from a south asian background. I choose to take care of my parents when they are old as they had done for their parents and so on up the generation tree. Its never a burden, its just a way of doing things. I would like to hope that my children would do the same for me as their value system would be passed down from me and my surroundings. I think its because of the cultural upbringing. I would also add most south asians would agree with my sentiment.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
> Its never a burden I watched my parents, and especially my mom, give up their entire youth caring for my dad’s excessively elderly parents. They sacrificed portions of mine and my sister’s childhood to take care of two people, who from the age of 75 to almost 100 (both of them), were a net loss to the family since they did not speak English, could not drive, and “needed” home cooked meals 2 to 3 times per day. It was absolutely a burden for my family, and I hope to never be the parent that needs chronic care, and I am certainly not wanting my kids and grandkids to give up their youth for my senescence.
- hcurtiss 4y ago
  It also gets more difficult when your parents can't pay their own way precisely because they've made horrible decisions over time. That they'd take comfort in the fact that their kids will take care of them -- I don't know how that doesn't breed resentment. No, I will not be squandering my retirement now with the plan that my kids will take care of me. Frankly, I find the very thought of that repulsive.

2ICofafireteam 4y ago

From a relative of mine: You should live off of your parents until your kids are old enough for you to live off of them.

yrdmb 4y ago

[flagged]

idiotsecant 4y ago

I have to say, that's a pretty crappy thing to do to your children.

cykros 4y ago
What, giving them a sense of purpose, a home to move into, and access to free childcare? Yea, how awful -- you might get in the way of their modern narcissistic lifestyle. But yes, it can go badly -- if, for instance, you're moving in with your kids, rather than providing the house for them to move into. And doing so when no longer physically capable of providing that childcare as a benefit. And then expecting them to pay for your groceries, etc. But then, the same has been known to happen when you've got ungrateful children, who can't be asked to lift a finger around the house, and who rely on child protective laws to shield them from ever being taught a lesson in reality. Living with other people isn't always easy, but it does typically pay dividends when you can make it work.