Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

Favors economic policies that make kids unable to support their parents into old age, furthering the decline of the extended family.  Favors the idea that each American should be economically independent, an idea almost soley responsible for the smaller and less cohesive families we see in America compared to the rest of the country

Obviously you meant the rest of the world there, but that's not an issue.

But, sorry, nuclear families have nothing to do with USA / Republican policies and everything to do with industrialization. Nations which industrialized early have smaller families and less of an extended family thing going on than nations which industrialized recently.

For example, there's not a whole stack of extended-family type culture going on in Germany or the UK either (it's not that different to the USA), despite those places having significantly better welfare policies. Having good unemployment benefits also leads to a culture where people don't feel they need to rely on extended family, so I'd say neither side of the fence of economic policies breaks up extended families. In fact a "no government assistance" approach probably increases the amount people rely on family, rather than decreasing it.

The difference is that places like Greece, Spain were largely agrarian until even after WWII, so within living memory. The Italians who went to America might have more of an extended family tradition due to the fact that the vast bulk of the emigrants came from the rural south, not the more industrialized areas of Italy.

I mean pretty much the entire world except us and Europe.  For example India is an industrial nation but still has the "families should stick together and cover each other's expenses" ethic.  The adulthood cliff in America where you hit 18-22 and suddenly you're expected to be living on your own and supporting yourself doesn't exist in most of the world.  The general standard is that grandparents help take care of their grandkids.  And also that parents take care of their kids until said kids get older and then they're expected to support their parents.  That's why you hear about immigrants always sending small amounts of money home to their families, because they're expected to help support everyone.  Its also the standard in most of the world that an extended family will live together or, more likely, be consolidated into a 1 or a couple dwellings living in much closer quarters than people in the US would be used to.

Its a system that makes much more economic sense but also gives family members a lot of power over each other and would probably feel oppressive to most Americans.  But you can see how now that most Americans don't have money we're being dragged kicking and screaming into a more internationally typical family structure even tho we don't want it.  If I have any complaint about the US system its that in some cases it will give parents authority over their kids without responsibility for their kids.  This is becoming much more evident now that the generational income gap has become so wide, as almost all younger Americans require their parents' support but there's no social pressure making said support mandatory.  It provides the worst of both worlds: American parents still end up with a huge amount of power over their kids, but everyone is still trying to live as if kids - parents - grandparents will be 3 separate houses which makes no economic sense.  Its ultimately yet another problem caused by the cult of continuous growth, of course your kids rely on you NOW but if you just wait they'll inevitably make more money in the future.  Or on the flip side, of course you'll get that retirement money together sometime, there's no need to be a "burden" to your kids.  And its the US destiny to keep growing GDP every year, there's no way we could possibly admit the American on the street has gotten poorer since the 50s...

And as for it not being republicans fault, agreed, but.  When they say family values they mean anti-LGBT values, because the actual decline of the American family has nothing to do with what Republicans call family values.

[Reelya]

I mean pretty much the entire world except us and Europe.  For example India is an industrial nation but still has the "families should stick together and cover each other's expenses" ethic.

But ... that just isn't true about India being an "industrial nation". It was almost entirely an agricultural nation until very recently, which was my point. Currently, 67% of Indians live in rural areas. In a nation such as Australia, 10% live in rural regions.

Go to a big city in India, one that's industrial, and almost everyone there, they're no more than two generations away from the countryside. Gurgaon, which is considered one of the big financial hubs in India, like their version of Manhattan, only had the first industrial thing built there in the 1970s.

As a counter-example, UK has had a significant growing urban class since the 1700s. India only really got on the industrialization bandwagon in a serious way a few decades ago. The vast majority of the country still eke out a living out of the Earth. This is the point i was making about post-WWII industrialized nations still having the extended family thing going. The grandparents remember when everything was farmland still.

BTW Britain had previously been a purchaser of Indian textiles, but during the colonial era they set things up, through trade laws and tariffs, so that India supplied raw materials only, which were processed in Britain then sold back to India at a profit. Output of Indian textiles, which had been their major export industry, in fact, collapsed.

[Kagus]

Also, India actually has (or at least had) laws stating that you must support your parents in their old age.

Parents are entitled to a portion of their children's incomes... And if this amount isn't paid satisfactorily, the parents can sue their own kids. It's a fun system.

[Hanslanda]

Also, India actually has (or at least had) laws stating that you must support your parents in their old age.

Parents are entitled to a portion of their children's incomes... And if this amount isn't paid satisfactorily, the parents can sue their own kids. It's a fun system.

That sounds oppressive. /USAian

[Dunamisdeos]

Check out this aforementioned climate change report tho. Looks smooth AF.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

[BurnedToast]

Also, India actually has (or at least had) laws stating that you must support your parents in their old age.

Parents are entitled to a portion of their children's incomes... And if this amount isn't paid satisfactorily, the parents can sue their own kids. It's a fun system.

That sounds oppressive. /USAian

29 states (+puerto rico) have filial support laws legally requiring adult children to support their impoverished parents. It's sometimes not even required they be elderly, just poor. Some states even extend this to supporting your grandparents if your own parents can't support them.

Though, enforcement is currently... inconsistent. 11 states have never actually enforced their laws and the rest do so only rarely . Pennsylvania is the only state that regularly and aggressively enforces it.

That said, as nursing home costs skyrocket and social securty, medicaid, etc get slashed more and more it's not impossible (in fact it's quite likely IMO) that states will start enforcing them, as the alternative will be dumping indigent, demented elderly people on the street.

[Hanslanda]

... You mean, treating them like they were veterans?

[Dunamisdeos]

... You mean, treating them like they were veterans?

Can't have that. What would differentiate the veterans from people who are better than them?

[Karnewarrior]

The amount of stickers on the "will say racist things at Thanksgiving for food" sign.

[RedKing]

I know a great many old people that will say racist things all the time, for free.

[Karnewarrior]

All different colors and races too. I even saw an Oompaloompa doing it. The job market is flooded.

[McTraveller]

Filial care is expensive unless your elders are fully capable and they can just hang out in your house.  If your elder has any kind of physical ailment it gets expensive in money and stress.

Someone in my family could move into a handicap-friendly house, or pay for expensive renovations.  We'd still have to manage schedules for doctors appointments.  We have the added stress of dealing not only with our young children but an adult who is a fall risk and who is functional enough to try and do things on his own - like take coffee straight out of the pot and put it in the microwave and end up in the ER for burning his throat (has already happened).

We've been pricing assisted living, and it's at least $2700 a month (that's the lowest price we've found), and we'd still have to pay for other things he wants like cable and a phone and clothes and eating out.  Even things like life insurance and out-of-pocket medical payments would be on top of that $2700 or so.

We've looked at in-home care and it runs at least $100 a day for 2 hours of care ($50/hr, minimum 2 hrs). So even three days a week is $1200 a month or so (plus all the stresses above associated with having a high-need in home).

He is a vet (Marine Corps) but VA assistance has so many strings attached it's sad.

Suffice it to say American society doesn't really provide a good infrastructure for any of this. And I mean even as far as instilling a filial-care culture (it wouldn't be as hard if we were taught from early ages that caring for high-need elderly was "normal", but we weren't, so there is real stress there) and an environment that helps bring the costs down (not just merely socialize them).

[Max™]

I do feel less embarrassed watching Trump pretend he's the USA as he runs down the street trying to step on his own shoelaces, because I know I can always look further down the street and see the UK manage to not just step on one, but untie and lose said shoe before crying out "DAMNED IMMIGRANTS" to nobody in particular.

[Kagus]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[MorleyDev]

I do feel less embarrassed watching Trump pretend he's the USA as he runs down the street trying to step on his own shoelaces, because I know I can always look further down the street and see the UK manage to not just step on one, but untie and lose said shoe before crying out "DAMNED IMMIGRANTS" to nobody in particular.

Which is funny, because in Britain they basically think the same thing in reverse, looking at the mess and going "Well, at least we never elected Donald Trump"

Is there a term for the opposite of "greener grass"? "The grass always has more shit in it on the other side?" Or is that just schadenfreude?