8 ms·

It’s basically the same model as social security is supposed to be. It’s reciprocated societally by you putting in lots when you’re young and then you get the b

It’s basically the same model as social security is supposed to be. It’s reciprocated societally by you putting in lots when you’re young and then you get the benefits when you’re old.

maest 2y ago
That's tremendously reductionistic.
- kortilla 2y ago
  Not really. Societies all over structure taking care of old retired people in different ways. They all generally depend on the model of there being population growth though in order to keep the burden on the younger generations tolerable.
jefbyokyie 2y ago
Yes, but it matters how much it intrudes on your personal life. Paying social security (and saving for retirement) when you are young, and getting (some) coverage when you are old, is one thing. It's "only" money. Having your time, availability, emotional capacity, mental health sucked dry by the elderly in your own family is an entirely different thing. Raising small children is an extreme challenge that requires all your resources; young and middle-aged Japanese are entirely reasonable not to start families. I recommend reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich_generation#Other_challenges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich_generation#Other_chal...
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > Raising small children is an extreme challenge that requires all your resources Indeed, and in the past, this would've been offset by everyone around the parents - the old, the young, the other families and the childless aunts and uncles - all chiming in to share the burden. Social security & retiremenet is basically an attempt to give a substitute for that, for the village, but things are getting more and more pathological with each generation.
  - djtango 2y ago
    Someone close to me told me they chose to have two kids because they didn't want the burden and responsibility of caring for their parents to fall solely onto one child.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      It still might, eventually. One kid will live too far away, the other will have family with small children, etc. and the burden will end up falling on the one who's closest and/or doesn't have kids of their own.
nimish 2y ago
“A society grows great when the old plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit”

It’s basically the same model as social security is supposed to be. It’s reciprocated societally by you putting in lots when you’re young and then you get the benefits when you’re old.

maest 2y ago

That's tremendously reductionistic.

kortilla 2y ago
Not really. Societies all over structure taking care of old retired people in different ways. They all generally depend on the model of there being population growth though in order to keep the burden on the younger generations tolerable.

jefbyokyie 2y ago

Yes, but it matters how much it intrudes on your personal life. Paying social security (and saving for retirement) when you are young, and getting (some) coverage when you are old, is one thing. It's "only" money. Having your time, availability, emotional capacity, mental health sucked dry by the elderly in your own family is an entirely different thing. Raising small children is an extreme challenge that requires all your resources; young and middle-aged Japanese are entirely reasonable not to start families. I recommend reading this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich_generation#Other_challenges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich_generation#Other_chal...

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> Raising small children is an extreme challenge that requires all your resources Indeed, and in the past, this would've been offset by everyone around the parents - the old, the young, the other families and the childless aunts and uncles - all chiming in to share the burden. Social security & retiremenet is basically an attempt to give a substitute for that, for the village, but things are getting more and more pathological with each generation.
- djtango 2y ago
  Someone close to me told me they chose to have two kids because they didn't want the burden and responsibility of caring for their parents to fall solely onto one child.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    It still might, eventually. One kid will live too far away, the other will have family with small children, etc. and the burden will end up falling on the one who's closest and/or doesn't have kids of their own.

nimish 2y ago

“A society grows great when the old plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit”