When children become caregivers, who cares for them?(csmonitor.com)
csmonitor.com
When children become caregivers, who cares for them?
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/2024/0320/When-children-become-caregivers-who-cares-for-them
166 comments
>I feel it is my duty to care for my parents
As a parent and a child who saw my parents waste all of their youth being a cook/nurse/maid for my paternal grandparents that lived way too long, I feel it is my duty to end myself (I’m sure this is easier said than done), or at least free my kids of the expectation that they need to care for me, so that they can prioritize their life for themselves and their kids’ futures.
Transport to a few doctor appointments and helping out a few hours per week is no big deal, but I don’t want to see my kids organizing their life around supporting me.
As a parent and a child who saw my parents waste all of their youth being a cook/nurse/maid for my paternal grandparents that lived way too long, I feel it is my duty to end myself (I’m sure this is easier said than done), or at least free my kids of the expectation that they need to care for me, so that they can prioritize their life for themselves and their kids’ futures.
Transport to a few doctor appointments and helping out a few hours per week is no big deal, but I don’t want to see my kids organizing their life around supporting me.
This so much. I will never ever want to ruin my kid's life with such an expectation, I moved permanently to society where basic dignity is cca guaranteed if possible, and if it cannot be provided, so be it, death of me is fine and just a question of time. I wish to still being able to end it myself, on my terms, somewhere not bothering anybody, causing as little problems as possible (and settle will well ahead of it).
My useless last years are worthless compared to (remaining) prime age of the most important people in my lives - my children. What kind of piece of shit I would be to expect them to waste it on me.
Now is the time to live your life to see it as well spend, whatever it means to you. Then you can be dying in peace. You really can live off good stuff in life for a long time, and raising kids well is the ultimate achievement for me.
There is one issue with all this - I can't take such care for my own parents due to big distance. I can though easily pay for full support in any way they will ever require, which is still massively better objectively than me risking getting fired constantly and juggling their needs with my & my family. So the transition generation and those just before doesn't have it easiest, but I honestly believe this is the right, non-selfish way.
And if I succumb to dementia (which is never sudden), I will specifically beg all around me repeatedly that I want as little time & energy from them as possible, just a bit to cover their own emotional needs and happiness. Anything above is just a gift that shouldn't be too common.
My useless last years are worthless compared to (remaining) prime age of the most important people in my lives - my children. What kind of piece of shit I would be to expect them to waste it on me.
Now is the time to live your life to see it as well spend, whatever it means to you. Then you can be dying in peace. You really can live off good stuff in life for a long time, and raising kids well is the ultimate achievement for me.
There is one issue with all this - I can't take such care for my own parents due to big distance. I can though easily pay for full support in any way they will ever require, which is still massively better objectively than me risking getting fired constantly and juggling their needs with my & my family. So the transition generation and those just before doesn't have it easiest, but I honestly believe this is the right, non-selfish way.
And if I succumb to dementia (which is never sudden), I will specifically beg all around me repeatedly that I want as little time & energy from them as possible, just a bit to cover their own emotional needs and happiness. Anything above is just a gift that shouldn't be too common.
> death of me is fine and just a question of time. I wish to still being able to end it myself, on my terms, somewhere not bothering anybody, causing as little problems as possible
I've heard this sentiment over and over again, from older people around me growing up, and then from my peers as I've aged. I think most of them were perfectly sincere when they said it, some said it regularly for years.
In the end though, zero of these people chose suicide in the end. Despite many of them ultimately having severe chronic illnesses and disability. I'm not saying you're wrong to say this, or even to believe it about yourself. But something I've noticed in working with disability work is that disabled people still generally find life worth living, still find the cost worth it. You want to end it "when the time comes" but probably the time will never come.
I've heard this sentiment over and over again, from older people around me growing up, and then from my peers as I've aged. I think most of them were perfectly sincere when they said it, some said it regularly for years.
In the end though, zero of these people chose suicide in the end. Despite many of them ultimately having severe chronic illnesses and disability. I'm not saying you're wrong to say this, or even to believe it about yourself. But something I've noticed in working with disability work is that disabled people still generally find life worth living, still find the cost worth it. You want to end it "when the time comes" but probably the time will never come.
In reality there's a big difference between saying "I want to die in some unforeseeable future" and "I want to die tomorrow"
If you can still see your family, if you can still enjoy an afternoon sitting in the sunshine, if you really want watch the next episode of Shogun, you aren't going to be willing to give up that last bit of existence. Not yet.
If you can still see your family, if you can still enjoy an afternoon sitting in the sunshine, if you really want watch the next episode of Shogun, you aren't going to be willing to give up that last bit of existence. Not yet.
It's not that they don't choose suicide, it's that by the time your quality of life is gone you very often can't choose suicide or are faced with doing so by the one act they can still do--refuse food/water.
Look at the countries that permit euthanasia. Inability no longer is relevant and there are parts of the Netherlands where it's 10% of the population that take that route--and note that this is a substantial undercount because by no means everyone is in a position to make the choice. (Sudden events, those whose mind is going.)
Look at the countries that permit euthanasia. Inability no longer is relevant and there are parts of the Netherlands where it's 10% of the population that take that route--and note that this is a substantial undercount because by no means everyone is in a position to make the choice. (Sudden events, those whose mind is going.)
Did they have foolproof, painless assisted suicide as an option? As far as I know, that is not really available anywhere except for when the doctors prescribe extra morphine once someone is in their final days and is unable to administer it to themselves and “warns” their family what would happen if too much morphine is given.
Oregon, Canada, Netherlands all have it.
Also could jump off a building.
Also could jump off a building.
Oregon is a lethal prescription situation, you still have to have enough physical function to do it.
And jumping off a building requires being able to access the exterior of a building tall enough for the purpose. Such access is common to residents (balconies), but typically not to visitors. And it requires being able to climb over whatever safety barriers exist. I am aware of *one* spot--and if things were bad enough I doubt I could either reach it or get over the barrier. Without a conveniently-placed vehicle (it's a parking garage) I doubt my wife could get over the barrier even in good health.
And jumping off a building requires being able to access the exterior of a building tall enough for the purpose. Such access is common to residents (balconies), but typically not to visitors. And it requires being able to climb over whatever safety barriers exist. I am aware of *one* spot--and if things were bad enough I doubt I could either reach it or get over the barrier. Without a conveniently-placed vehicle (it's a parking garage) I doubt my wife could get over the barrier even in good health.
Jumping off a building is not foolproof, and leaves quite a mess for others’ to clean up.
The desire is to be able to choose to die peacefully, with as minimal (negative) impact on others as possible.
Another easy one is falling off the boat while fishing, but again, you might leave a body or body part floating around for someone to find. And the boat is left unattended.
The desire is to be able to choose to die peacefully, with as minimal (negative) impact on others as possible.
Another easy one is falling off the boat while fishing, but again, you might leave a body or body part floating around for someone to find. And the boat is left unattended.
I mean, social stigma makes some acts very difficult or very easy. When I was young there was no social stigma against drinking and driving, huge numbers of people did it (and died from it). Now we're in an age where drinking and driving is stigmatized and far less people do it, and you're apt to be called out for it.
The reason I'm bringing up this analogy is suicide has been heavily stigmatized in most cultures so even if people wanted to do it the "but what will people think" factor is powerful, even for those that wouldn't be around for what those people think.
The reason I'm bringing up this analogy is suicide has been heavily stigmatized in most cultures so even if people wanted to do it the "but what will people think" factor is powerful, even for those that wouldn't be around for what those people think.
Maybe because suicide has a terrible impact on the surviving family? It is a really shitty situation to be in.
heh, so is wiping your parents asses.
Usually when you get to the point of needing to have your ass wiped you are no longer in a position to decide that stuff.
The dementia patient is very poorly equipped to evaluate the evolution of the disease. Most of time he thinks he is ok, when he is clearly no longer ok.
The dementia patient is very poorly equipped to evaluate the evolution of the disease. Most of time he thinks he is ok, when he is clearly no longer ok.
The time came for me to serve my grandfather in that way (for short moments, the interstitial generation took on most of the effort). The small effort on my part overcame large difficulties for him and I was grateful to serve the person among those who gave me myself.
Secretly, that's what I think too. The biggest problem is the estigma associated with Euthanasia and the potential mental issues related to guilty it could induce in my kids, should I ever need to consider it before becoming a burden to them.
I had to care for my mother for a long part of my adult life, and while I loved her, I must admit that I frequently resented the feeling of having my youth years being stolen. For a few years I even left my family because I didn't want to make my wife and kids share this burden at the worst phase.
I had to care for my mother for a long part of my adult life, and while I loved her, I must admit that I frequently resented the feeling of having my youth years being stolen. For a few years I even left my family because I didn't want to make my wife and kids share this burden at the worst phase.
I like to imagine following the kids around like a friendly barnacle. Dragging young adults away from their prospects seems avoidable that way, let them drive and follow along.
I feel the same way about my parents, but many people don't have such a good relationship with their own parents. If you (ubiquitous) want your children to take care of you in old age, then you'd better not treat them like crap. I can't say I would blame my best friend if he left his dad to die alone in some hospice or for another friend's mother to fend for herself in some way. Some parents are truly unpleasant or full-blown despicable, and I'm glad there's no cultural duty in America to take care of them despite this.
Those were extreme examples, though. For a lot of people, taking care of their parents is signing up for a never ending stream of criticism. I don't know of many individuals past the age of maybe 40 who have negative personality traits and come to the conclusion that "maybe the problem is with me." I can only think of one in my life. Just about as bad is when one's parents are conservative and cannot get with the times, or they pretend to be with the times only for you to discover that they actually aren't when the rubber meets the road. I don't believe in abandoning one's parents if they have more "benign" personality traits, but the financially intelligent decision of "you can live with us" probably isn't a sound one from an interpersonal level, and hopefully healthy distance can still be had.
Oh, but if parents make no effort to survive retirement, forced or otherwise, then I don't think anyone should be obligated to help them. People have varying amounts of luck, but if one doesn't save anything then they've chosen to be screwed.
Personally, if I end up with one option being my children sacrificing their financial independence and youth, and the other signing up for the Smith & Wesson retirement plan, I'll take the latter.
Those were extreme examples, though. For a lot of people, taking care of their parents is signing up for a never ending stream of criticism. I don't know of many individuals past the age of maybe 40 who have negative personality traits and come to the conclusion that "maybe the problem is with me." I can only think of one in my life. Just about as bad is when one's parents are conservative and cannot get with the times, or they pretend to be with the times only for you to discover that they actually aren't when the rubber meets the road. I don't believe in abandoning one's parents if they have more "benign" personality traits, but the financially intelligent decision of "you can live with us" probably isn't a sound one from an interpersonal level, and hopefully healthy distance can still be had.
Oh, but if parents make no effort to survive retirement, forced or otherwise, then I don't think anyone should be obligated to help them. People have varying amounts of luck, but if one doesn't save anything then they've chosen to be screwed.
Personally, if I end up with one option being my children sacrificing their financial independence and youth, and the other signing up for the Smith & Wesson retirement plan, I'll take the latter.
> Personally, if I end up with one option being my children sacrificing their financial independence and youth, and the other signing up for the Smith & Wesson retirement plan, I'll take the latter.
As a serious note from observations, if you do this, make it look like a goddamn accident doing something you enjoyed or your kids will be fucked in the head for decades to come.
Take up mountain climbing or skydiving and have a fatal accident instead of suck-starting a shotgun. Trust me.
As a serious note from observations, if you do this, make it look like a goddamn accident doing something you enjoyed or your kids will be fucked in the head for decades to come.
Take up mountain climbing or skydiving and have a fatal accident instead of suck-starting a shotgun. Trust me.
This doesn't really work for, lack of a better term, 'at scale'.
My parents for example live far away from my career and career options. I can't afford to move them to live with me. Full remote work helps, but companies want to drag workers back into the office at the cost of their family. If my parents got sick or had issues in order to help them I would need to abandon my job, drain my savings and become a full time caregiver.
Business culture, career advancement, the way jobs are structured are all at odds with taking care of elderly family members. The only people that can afford to do so are those already well off.
My parents for example live far away from my career and career options. I can't afford to move them to live with me. Full remote work helps, but companies want to drag workers back into the office at the cost of their family. If my parents got sick or had issues in order to help them I would need to abandon my job, drain my savings and become a full time caregiver.
Business culture, career advancement, the way jobs are structured are all at odds with taking care of elderly family members. The only people that can afford to do so are those already well off.
Yup, my wife (China born, now naturalized US) felt it was her duty to care for her parents--but that stopped when she felt she was being exploited.
what do you mean by exploited
Being asked to fund more than she agreed to and some financial shenanigans.
If I treated my parents the way they treated me, I'd be in jail. I chose instead to fire them.
Completely agree. We didn't agree to the bargain when we were born.
That'd be like adopting a adopting a puppy and expecting it to take care of you later because you cared for it and fed it for a few years.
That said, I'll do anything for my father and step mother, they've always treated me with love and compassion.
But my birth mother? She couldn't get the time of day from me. She donated an egg and a laundry list of ACEs, and still refuses to call my husband anything than "your.... Friend" even though we've been married ten years
That'd be like adopting a adopting a puppy and expecting it to take care of you later because you cared for it and fed it for a few years.
That said, I'll do anything for my father and step mother, they've always treated me with love and compassion.
But my birth mother? She couldn't get the time of day from me. She donated an egg and a laundry list of ACEs, and still refuses to call my husband anything than "your.... Friend" even though we've been married ten years
One of the clearest moments I've ever had of not realizing my privilege was a conversation with someone who, once they started earning money, had to give money to their parents to support the household. Embarrassingly this absolutely blew my mind. I grew up with my parents as providers and even today if my life collapsed around me I know I still have them as a safety net if I needed it. I've been able to capitalize on so many opportunities because of that.
I do this, but my parents don’t expect it. I just make 10x their income and would never let them buy their own ticket to come see me, or not help them change the car when needed. But my parents never want it. Never implied I had to. I just do it because l am where I am because of their own sacrifices. Now I have to convince them to have some fun in life because all they know is work.
(For perspective, I’m low income in SF).
I'm not discounting what you do, but having to support a household as a child is materially different to what you do for your parents. It sounds like if you don't chip in - no one will go to bed hungry, and bills will still be paid.
I have done both. And any time my own expenses go up or their expenses go up and I don’t feel like I’ll have enough to send my stress spikes.
What I was trying to say was that there are cases of selfless parents out there that don’t want any money back. My parents have gone without eating to feed me. We’ve struggled to pay the bus fare to go to school, but they never asked for anything in return. That doesn’t mean I don’t help them.
Were they Asian by any chance? I’m Asian American and it’s a cultural norm. We have a saying for the money we give to our parents (“family usage” in direct translation). It’s quite a financial burden for some of my friends. Some parents expect their kids to buy them a house and you can imagine how brutal it is in the current housing market.
>>Some parents expect their kids to buy them a house and you can imagine how brutal it is in the current housing market.
Yes, but you left out that in most Asian-X cultures, first generation immigrant parents typically sacrificed almost everything they had, including in many cases the parental-filial relationship, to provide the children with enough education to claw their way out of their current situation and give them an extra leg up into a higher socioeconomic circumstance.
My parents had this expectation, and my wife and I gladly and willingly obliged on both sides as only children. This expectation/obligation became even more poignant when we had our own kids and realized belatedly just how much our parents had sacrificed for us. Whether driven by cultural norms (or not), we appreciate what our parents did for us so that we can "pass it on" now that we're on better footing than either side ever was.
While not always convenient or logistically possible, multi-generational housing (where one or both sets of parents live together or very close by) can go a long way to addressing astronomical housing costs at least until they need more intensive daily care due to aging.
Yes, but you left out that in most Asian-X cultures, first generation immigrant parents typically sacrificed almost everything they had, including in many cases the parental-filial relationship, to provide the children with enough education to claw their way out of their current situation and give them an extra leg up into a higher socioeconomic circumstance.
My parents had this expectation, and my wife and I gladly and willingly obliged on both sides as only children. This expectation/obligation became even more poignant when we had our own kids and realized belatedly just how much our parents had sacrificed for us. Whether driven by cultural norms (or not), we appreciate what our parents did for us so that we can "pass it on" now that we're on better footing than either side ever was.
While not always convenient or logistically possible, multi-generational housing (where one or both sets of parents live together or very close by) can go a long way to addressing astronomical housing costs at least until they need more intensive daily care due to aging.
Kudos to you if you appreciate the moves your parents made in their lives and you have achieved a working relationship with your parents.
But I don't think this is a fair expectation from the parents' side, at all. As a child, you did not ask to be burdened with this. If this is a contract, it was signed not by you, but by your parents unilaterally.
But I don't think this is a fair expectation from the parents' side, at all. As a child, you did not ask to be burdened with this. If this is a contract, it was signed not by you, but by your parents unilaterally.
Until a few years ago, I thought the same. They made that decision, not me. I shouldn't have to burden myself with any obligations and should get to just reap the benefits for me and my children alone.
But something changed somewhere. I now see my parents in a whole new light.
There is a book "Factfulness", in which the author lists a matrix for four income levels. My parents started at level 2. I still remember their parents houses: the makeshift kitchen with dim lighting, the four walls and the hole they named a bathroom, the leaky faucets at the ends of pipes ran across the house and exterior to the uneven, unpainted walls.
The sacrifices they must have took to change their socioeconomic standing and subsequently my own can never be requited. I now fit somewhere along the fourth level. I can't help but feel immense gratitude when I see them now. I now try to give them all that I can so they enjoy the time they have left. And I wish I had the foresight in my earlier years to tell them how I appreciate their efforts but then again, those stubborn bastards loved to argue then.
I don't know what I wanted to communicate saying all this so excuse me while I text my mother.
But something changed somewhere. I now see my parents in a whole new light.
There is a book "Factfulness", in which the author lists a matrix for four income levels. My parents started at level 2. I still remember their parents houses: the makeshift kitchen with dim lighting, the four walls and the hole they named a bathroom, the leaky faucets at the ends of pipes ran across the house and exterior to the uneven, unpainted walls.
The sacrifices they must have took to change their socioeconomic standing and subsequently my own can never be requited. I now fit somewhere along the fourth level. I can't help but feel immense gratitude when I see them now. I now try to give them all that I can so they enjoy the time they have left. And I wish I had the foresight in my earlier years to tell them how I appreciate their efforts but then again, those stubborn bastards loved to argue then.
I don't know what I wanted to communicate saying all this so excuse me while I text my mother.
Thanks for sharing. I saved your comment because it’s something I can see myself coming back to.
I can definitely relate to your story. Child of first generation immigrants. We had to move back to Hong Kong when I was 9 because my dad died and it was too difficult for a single mom in a new country to support us. When I was 18, I took advantage of my citizenship and moved back.
The constant pressure to find a way to take care of my mom has always been difficult for me, especially because it sometimes feels at odds with pursuing personal truths. I can go work for the bank, make sure mom is taken care of, but lose my own life. In my twenties, I spent some time living an “alt” lifestyle, working as a musician, and hanging out with B-listers in Beverley Hills. But I could never really enjoy it, not just because it was vapid, but because finding a way to truly secure a future for my mom was always in my mind. It was like wrestling with two sides of the American Dream. And no one around me could relate.
As I’ve gotten older the balance between “serving the parents” versus myself has become fuzzier. It’s obvious now that making sure my mom can enjoy the rest of the time she has is the right thing to do. But in turn, her expectations of me have relaxed. She understands that she’s raised a free, independent adult, and in the culture we live in, that’s a virtue.
It’s all so complicated, as I’m sure anyone who has had a similar upbringing would know, and the details are so specific to each person. But it’s good to know that it’s a common human experience.
I can definitely relate to your story. Child of first generation immigrants. We had to move back to Hong Kong when I was 9 because my dad died and it was too difficult for a single mom in a new country to support us. When I was 18, I took advantage of my citizenship and moved back.
The constant pressure to find a way to take care of my mom has always been difficult for me, especially because it sometimes feels at odds with pursuing personal truths. I can go work for the bank, make sure mom is taken care of, but lose my own life. In my twenties, I spent some time living an “alt” lifestyle, working as a musician, and hanging out with B-listers in Beverley Hills. But I could never really enjoy it, not just because it was vapid, but because finding a way to truly secure a future for my mom was always in my mind. It was like wrestling with two sides of the American Dream. And no one around me could relate.
As I’ve gotten older the balance between “serving the parents” versus myself has become fuzzier. It’s obvious now that making sure my mom can enjoy the rest of the time she has is the right thing to do. But in turn, her expectations of me have relaxed. She understands that she’s raised a free, independent adult, and in the culture we live in, that’s a virtue.
It’s all so complicated, as I’m sure anyone who has had a similar upbringing would know, and the details are so specific to each person. But it’s good to know that it’s a common human experience.
A signed contract is one way to frame it but this is informed by a religious/cultural world view.
My own view is that it's at least a responsibility and at most a privilege to take care of my parents in any way that i can.
My own view is that it's at least a responsibility and at most a privilege to take care of my parents in any way that i can.
Life is not a contract.
Exactly! In my opinion, one of the implications of this fact is that you cannot make trades like "I am sacrificing x now, so you will buy me a house/whatever when I am older" with your unborn children.
How about "I am sacrificing x now, in the hopes that you will buy me a house/whatever when I am older"
Or what about "Sorry, kid, I technically provided you with food, water, and shelter. You can walk to soccer practice, as I have no legal obligations in this matter"
Which fits into your world view better?
Or what about "Sorry, kid, I technically provided you with food, water, and shelter. You can walk to soccer practice, as I have no legal obligations in this matter"
Which fits into your world view better?
> Which fits into your world view better?
For some people, the answer may rest on whether the child is younger or older than 18.
That said, I don't think people from collectivist and individualist cultures can ever agree on what the obligations a child has - if any - to their parents and extended family.
For some people, the answer may rest on whether the child is younger or older than 18.
That said, I don't think people from collectivist and individualist cultures can ever agree on what the obligations a child has - if any - to their parents and extended family.
I feel sorry for you; not knowing what true love between family is.
I don't think it's strictly an Asian thing. A lot of first generation Americans have this expectation. It's very common to see their parents remunerate money back their parents in foreign countries.
It isn't. This is typical of most 1st gen immigrants. Growing up in NYC I have friends who were Sri Lankan, Polish, Italian, and Guyanese who's parents came here and worked their asses off to provide a better future for their kids while sending money back home.
That much is complicated. In the SF Bay Area, predominantly South Bay, I knew Asian families (all of them well-to-do, because South Bay), whose parents and extended family helped the new grads buy a house after a few years out of college.
Then those kids were expected to help the next generation, when the time came. It was like a multi-generation, extended-family economic collective of sorts. I didn't know what to make of it. On one hand I admired the effort, on some level. On the other hand, I think it really gimped the kids as far as pursuing entrepreneurship goes.
But hey, at least they can afford the "rent" in South Bay, I guess? I have never wanted to live there, so I can't say I envy the arrangement.
Then those kids were expected to help the next generation, when the time came. It was like a multi-generation, extended-family economic collective of sorts. I didn't know what to make of it. On one hand I admired the effort, on some level. On the other hand, I think it really gimped the kids as far as pursuing entrepreneurship goes.
But hey, at least they can afford the "rent" in South Bay, I guess? I have never wanted to live there, so I can't say I envy the arrangement.
>One of the clearest moments I've ever had of not realizing my privilege was a conversation with someone who, once they started earning money, had to give money to their parents to support the household.
This was a ubiquitous practice in the circles I grew up in - Once a child was old enough to work they were expected to get a job and help the family with the bills. Coworkers would talk about it at every job I worked at as a teenager and my parents talked about having to help their parents out with the bills as a teenager.
It was so common I felt pretty lucky that I got to keep all the money I made.
This was a ubiquitous practice in the circles I grew up in - Once a child was old enough to work they were expected to get a job and help the family with the bills. Coworkers would talk about it at every job I worked at as a teenager and my parents talked about having to help their parents out with the bills as a teenager.
It was so common I felt pretty lucky that I got to keep all the money I made.
There's a substantial difference between "once you're making money we treat you somewhat like a boarder" while you're living at home and "you remit a tithe to your family every month for your life".
The second, if done well, can be incredibly powerful, however. If the family is strong enough and trusted enough, you can get outsized economic benefits from it.
The second, if done well, can be incredibly powerful, however. If the family is strong enough and trusted enough, you can get outsized economic benefits from it.
> The second, if done well, can be incredibly powerful, however. If the family is strong enough and trusted enough, you can get outsized economic benefits from it.
That is also how you cultivate nepotism. It feels powerful if your family does it and others don't, but once everyone starts doing it, it's a caste system and everyone's worse off.
That is also how you cultivate nepotism. It feels powerful if your family does it and others don't, but once everyone starts doing it, it's a caste system and everyone's worse off.
For what it's worth, I do this, and don't particularly see it as being a handicap. By contrast, it's a sign of a healthy family where everyone chips in for the common good.
As a man I feel that my first duty is to provide stability for myself and my family, both upwards and downwards.
The real handicap is when family members are degenerates, i.e. absent parents, feuding, self destructive behaviour, etc. That's harder to climb out of because even if you escape, you now need to build a new structure by yourself.
As a man I feel that my first duty is to provide stability for myself and my family, both upwards and downwards.
The real handicap is when family members are degenerates, i.e. absent parents, feuding, self destructive behaviour, etc. That's harder to climb out of because even if you escape, you now need to build a new structure by yourself.
Pretty much any Indian you meet in the US is in this situation.
no most indians that come to US are from middle upper strata of indian society. They don't "have" to send money to parents for sustenance, maybe for luxuries.
Not true, many of those middle to upper strata parents sell significant assets to send their kids abroad. Middle and upper class is much different in India than the USA
There’s an unwritten expectation for the kids to reciprocate.
There’s an unwritten expectation for the kids to reciprocate.
Definitely untrue. Like everywhere else it's a wide spectrum. You'd be surprised how many Indians come to the US from modest means. Parents sunk their savings into educating their kids and sending them abroad. It is not uncommon for these parents to now rely on their foreign resident children.
A lot of Indians (and I am sure it's true for other nationalities) owe a lot to the Tech industry for absolutely transforming their standard of living in the last 1-2 generations. Tech was also remarkably egalitarian since anyone with the inclination could learn it with a relatively modest investment in a computer or even unimpeded access to a computer at school.
I wonder if future generations will see the same lifestyle transformative effect. Or perhaps the new bar is access to an H100 GPU.
A lot of Indians (and I am sure it's true for other nationalities) owe a lot to the Tech industry for absolutely transforming their standard of living in the last 1-2 generations. Tech was also remarkably egalitarian since anyone with the inclination could learn it with a relatively modest investment in a computer or even unimpeded access to a computer at school.
I wonder if future generations will see the same lifestyle transformative effect. Or perhaps the new bar is access to an H100 GPU.
The Indians who come for undergrad are different from those who come here for grad school. Undergrads are rich, grad students less so.
A significant section of my grad school class sends around ~$1000/ month back home.
Also, the upper-middle rung of Indian society (top 5 - top 15%) is still pretty poor by western standards.
A significant section of my grad school class sends around ~$1000/ month back home.
Also, the upper-middle rung of Indian society (top 5 - top 15%) is still pretty poor by western standards.
That depends. Indian parents, even from the upper middle class don’t always save enough for retirement. They’re fine while they work but a significant number rely on their kids once they retire (with the exception of pensioners and entrepreneurs).
I would say a good 80% of Indian immigrants I know send money back to their parents every month.
I would say a good 80% of Indian immigrants I know send money back to their parents every month.
You'd be surpised.
If you come from Africa, this is just the reality. Makes it hard to get ahead, or take risks, but it is what it is. Most of my generation's goal is to end it, and not have to pass that burden to our kids.
And it’s because poor countries provide virtually no safety net for retirees and pensioners, so parents have little choice but to depend on kids for survival.
The solution to this issue is good governance, which translates to good economies and better social and welfare systems, but that’s kinda a pipe dream for African nations at this point.
The solution to this issue is good governance, which translates to good economies and better social and welfare systems, but that’s kinda a pipe dream for African nations at this point.
The irony of it is that in a few decades, you end up with sub replacement fertility rates in all the societies with good governance and social and welfare systems, resulting in those social and welfare systems (eventually) failing.
While I am not suggesting eliminating financial/logistic independence between generations within a family, but it is an interesting side effect.
Edit: to respond to vkou’s comment below, I don’t see any empirical evidence for this to be true. For one, the work involved in supporting old, disabled people is highly undesirable (meaning high prices for labor). And second, I do not see automation advancing quickly enough to change all those bedpans.
Also, the more resources a country spends on healthcare and defined benefit pensions (far and away the most expensive part of caring for old people), the less resources a country has to spend on other stuff (that benefits younger people).
This is evident in the fact that nursing facilities cost $10k to $20k per month for round the clock care, and the common adage is you don’t want to be stuck in a $10k per month facility.
There is, of course, truth to some of the productivity surplus being eaten by rentiers, but from what I can tell, nowhere near enough to make up for the economic boost that fertility rates of 4+ give.
While I am not suggesting eliminating financial/logistic independence between generations within a family, but it is an interesting side effect.
Edit: to respond to vkou’s comment below, I don’t see any empirical evidence for this to be true. For one, the work involved in supporting old, disabled people is highly undesirable (meaning high prices for labor). And second, I do not see automation advancing quickly enough to change all those bedpans.
Also, the more resources a country spends on healthcare and defined benefit pensions (far and away the most expensive part of caring for old people), the less resources a country has to spend on other stuff (that benefits younger people).
This is evident in the fact that nursing facilities cost $10k to $20k per month for round the clock care, and the common adage is you don’t want to be stuck in a $10k per month facility.
There is, of course, truth to some of the productivity surplus being eaten by rentiers, but from what I can tell, nowhere near enough to make up for the economic boost that fertility rates of 4+ give.
Given productivity gains in industrialized society, there is no reason for why high QOL can't be sustained with a smaller percentage of the population working at any particular time.
The demographic implosion narrative is just a nativist distraction from the investment class eating all the productive surplus.
The demographic implosion narrative is just a nativist distraction from the investment class eating all the productive surplus.
This is the most succinct description of the boom bust population pyramid realized and the economic system first exploiting and now in fear of the go forward I've read. Well done.
It’s succinct, but it says nothing of how to get there from where we are. It doesn’t talk about the constraints of the status quo and its inertia, let alone how any approach plays with the human psyche.
What I’m saying is that sure, I think I agree with GP that there is much getting in the way of us doing more with less. Namely inefficient, greed, and inertia. But how do we get out of this trap?
What I’m saying is that sure, I think I agree with GP that there is much getting in the way of us doing more with less. Namely inefficient, greed, and inertia. But how do we get out of this trap?
Actively engage in politics and realize the problem will take decades to incrementally solve, while taking tactical action in your life to protect yourself from current state. What the latter looks like is a broad conversation depending on what your potential trajectories are, what you're optimizing for, and what you're defending against.
Put the metaphorical oxygen mask on yourself first before you try to help others, and then, if you so choose and are able, defend and empower others as your sphere of influence (a function of time and resources itself) grows. Defend and empower the human, broadly speaking.
Put the metaphorical oxygen mask on yourself first before you try to help others, and then, if you so choose and are able, defend and empower others as your sphere of influence (a function of time and resources itself) grows. Defend and empower the human, broadly speaking.
I say nothing about how to get from where we are to where we should be, because there are many solutions. Each flavor of political system claims to have one.
For a list:
* Shift some of the tax burden to profits and rent-seeking, and away from income.
* Front-load elder care costs by setting aside a bigger share of productive work done today for pensions.
* Aggressively reduce costs and waste across the economy. Cap student loan amounts. Mandate what % of tuition has to go towards instruction. Make medical school free, make doctors pay it off through X,000 hours of service.
* Deal with supply shortages for inelastic goods. Housing is a major one. Tax-advantage denser developments. Or turn cities/states/provinces into developers themselves.
* Fix low-hanging fruit in public health. Make vaccination free. We lose more economic output in sick days than we do from people not getting a flu jab.
* Fix waste in medical-adjacent spaces. Mandate that eye exams provide a pupil distance measurement. There should be no reason for why I can't get an eye exam, and then directly plug those numbers into an online glasses retailer, that will ship me a pair for $30.
* Wild-ass stretch goal: Make public transit/biking/walking/scooting preferable to car ownership wherever feasible. The societal cost of universal car ownership is huge, even if we only measure in dollars, and disregard all the other negative externalities.
* Reduce spend on zero-sum and negative-sum industries: Ban gambling, tobacco, alcohol advertising.
Or, you know, if you don't like any of these active-involvement ideas, another alternative is to shrug your shoulders and pray that the free market will sort things out before you get bread riots and a revolution.
Or, shrug your shoulders and just import more young immigrants. Preferably with skills that we need, other countries can spend their resources on training their youth, and we'd poach them once they are in their prime productive years.
All of the active-involvement ideas come down to 'There's a pit somewhere in our economy that we shovel endless amounts of money into, that is not efficient at producing material goods that people need to live. What can we do to reduce the fraction of the economy that is wasted in them?'
For a list:
* Shift some of the tax burden to profits and rent-seeking, and away from income.
* Front-load elder care costs by setting aside a bigger share of productive work done today for pensions.
* Aggressively reduce costs and waste across the economy. Cap student loan amounts. Mandate what % of tuition has to go towards instruction. Make medical school free, make doctors pay it off through X,000 hours of service.
* Deal with supply shortages for inelastic goods. Housing is a major one. Tax-advantage denser developments. Or turn cities/states/provinces into developers themselves.
* Fix low-hanging fruit in public health. Make vaccination free. We lose more economic output in sick days than we do from people not getting a flu jab.
* Fix waste in medical-adjacent spaces. Mandate that eye exams provide a pupil distance measurement. There should be no reason for why I can't get an eye exam, and then directly plug those numbers into an online glasses retailer, that will ship me a pair for $30.
* Wild-ass stretch goal: Make public transit/biking/walking/scooting preferable to car ownership wherever feasible. The societal cost of universal car ownership is huge, even if we only measure in dollars, and disregard all the other negative externalities.
* Reduce spend on zero-sum and negative-sum industries: Ban gambling, tobacco, alcohol advertising.
Or, you know, if you don't like any of these active-involvement ideas, another alternative is to shrug your shoulders and pray that the free market will sort things out before you get bread riots and a revolution.
Or, shrug your shoulders and just import more young immigrants. Preferably with skills that we need, other countries can spend their resources on training their youth, and we'd poach them once they are in their prime productive years.
All of the active-involvement ideas come down to 'There's a pit somewhere in our economy that we shovel endless amounts of money into, that is not efficient at producing material goods that people need to live. What can we do to reduce the fraction of the economy that is wasted in them?'
I don't know how you can say that, demands of Hcol societies out pace their productive capabilities as it is.
We would need radical changes to our expectations or to the efficiency of our governments
We would need radical changes to our expectations or to the efficiency of our governments
> I've been able to capitalize on so many opportunities because of that.
This is so true for me as well. I started and ran my own business for a number of years, and I've resigned from jobs multiple times before I had something else lined up. Being able to take those risks has absolutely helped me in my career, and there's no way I could have taken them if I didn't have an implicit safety net beneath me.
This is so true for me as well. I started and ran my own business for a number of years, and I've resigned from jobs multiple times before I had something else lined up. Being able to take those risks has absolutely helped me in my career, and there's no way I could have taken them if I didn't have an implicit safety net beneath me.
Talking about one's own privilege is a form of self-defeating nonsense that serves no purpose. It only harms your future potential. There's no reason morally to frown on having more potential from your starting point versus someone else.
At best it's a form of "humble brag" that just makes you look silly.
At best it's a form of "humble brag" that just makes you look silly.
[deleted]
I mean it'd be reasonable thing to do even outside parent-children relationship. If someone helped you, you may want to pay it back in same proportion when you have a chance and means to do so.
Now the west so rich and govt support for old/retired folks is very-very decent it does look totally out of way to support parent's household expenses.
Now the west so rich and govt support for old/retired folks is very-very decent it does look totally out of way to support parent's household expenses.
Yeah, I had to drop out of school and work fulltime from 15 to support my family.
It's an absolutely devastating burden. I am currently in the top 1% of my socioeconomic cohort but I'd trade all that hard work, effort and application of intelligence over 20 years to have started in a slightly better cohort.
I've mostly untangled myself from that period of life but it's taken far more work, self discipline, sacrifice and willingness to live in degradation and homelessness just to sidle up to an easy peasy upper middle class peer group.
It's an absolutely devastating burden. I am currently in the top 1% of my socioeconomic cohort but I'd trade all that hard work, effort and application of intelligence over 20 years to have started in a slightly better cohort.
I've mostly untangled myself from that period of life but it's taken far more work, self discipline, sacrifice and willingness to live in degradation and homelessness just to sidle up to an easy peasy upper middle class peer group.
As a parent of a disabled child I sometimes feel alone and overwhelmed even with a loving spouse and a well paid tech job. I can't imagine the experience as a teenaged solo carer with no options.
Without quibbling with this basic directional correctness, the numbers in the article are bunk.
> "In the United Kingdom, about a million young people under 18 years old spend more than 50 hours a week caring for family members"
There are 14 million people under 18 in the UK [1]. If 1 million under-18s spend 50+ hours caring for family members, and only a few thousand tragic cases are under 9 (as the article claims) then the claim is that something like 1 in 3.5 children aged 9 to 18 spends 50+ hours caring for family members?
[1] https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-...
Without quibbling with this basic directional correctness, the numbers in the article are bunk.
> "In the United Kingdom, about a million young people under 18 years old spend more than 50 hours a week caring for family members"
There are 14 million people under 18 in the UK [1]. If 1 million under-18s spend 50+ hours caring for family members, and only a few thousand tragic cases are under 9 (as the article claims) then the claim is that something like 1 in 3.5 children aged 9 to 18 spends 50+ hours caring for family members?
[1] https://data.unicef.org/how-many/how-many-children-under-18-...
> 1 in 3.5 children aged 9 to 18 spends 50+ hours caring for family members.
Surprising, but you can't just dismiss statistics on the basis that they're surprising to you. A lot of people lead very different lives, invisibly.
15-20% of people are disabled: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
Not immediately clear if "caring for family members" includes older children caring for younger children, but that would certainly bring up the numbers.
It is possible that the "50+ hours" is not accurately counted.
Surprising, but you can't just dismiss statistics on the basis that they're surprising to you. A lot of people lead very different lives, invisibly.
15-20% of people are disabled: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
Not immediately clear if "caring for family members" includes older children caring for younger children, but that would certainly bring up the numbers.
It is possible that the "50+ hours" is not accurately counted.
Note that the 15-20% of people who are "disabled" are not defined as needing around-the-clock caregivers. Disability is a spectrum.
I would indeed dismiss that particular statistic about the number of kids spending 50+ hours looking after family members, because it is likely wrong by an order of magnitude.
I would indeed dismiss that particular statistic about the number of kids spending 50+ hours looking after family members, because it is likely wrong by an order of magnitude.
Also that doesn't mean that 15-20% of people of parenting age are disabled. It might skew elderly.
>Surprising, but you can't just dismiss statistics on the basis that they're surprising to you.
Why not? While there are many falacies that people are surprised by that are mathematically true, when someone presents numbers, the more surprising the claim, the more evidence they need to present to back it. Science isn't perfect, there is the possibility of error, fraud, and the whole messy bit of scientific reporting having an abysmal record of accurately reporting what scientists say. For a surprising enough claim, without multiple verifications from independent sources, it is fine to dismiss it.
Why not? While there are many falacies that people are surprised by that are mathematically true, when someone presents numbers, the more surprising the claim, the more evidence they need to present to back it. Science isn't perfect, there is the possibility of error, fraud, and the whole messy bit of scientific reporting having an abysmal record of accurately reporting what scientists say. For a surprising enough claim, without multiple verifications from independent sources, it is fine to dismiss it.
My hunch is that either:
Somewhere an "up to 50 hours" has become "over 50 hours". If written as "up to 50 hours" it would be much less surprising.
Or
It should read "Over 5 hours". A million spending 5+ hours a week would also be much less surprising.
A million spending over 50 hours would imply perhaps another million spending say, 20-50 hours, still a huge burden.
Somewhere an "up to 50 hours" has become "over 50 hours". If written as "up to 50 hours" it would be much less surprising.
Or
It should read "Over 5 hours". A million spending 5+ hours a week would also be much less surprising.
A million spending over 50 hours would imply perhaps another million spending say, 20-50 hours, still a huge burden.
>> It is possible that the "50+ hours" is not accurately counted.
Or we do not understand the definition of care. Perhaps "care" covers all those times where the child has custody or otherwise is the only person watching over a disabled person. That could therefore include nights when perhaps the kid is the only carer in the household even though all are asleep. Then 50+hours doesn't seem so huge.
Or we do not understand the definition of care. Perhaps "care" covers all those times where the child has custody or otherwise is the only person watching over a disabled person. That could therefore include nights when perhaps the kid is the only carer in the household even though all are asleep. Then 50+hours doesn't seem so huge.
That's my thought, also. If you count older siblings keeping an eye on younger ones I don't see it's that hard to rack up 50 hours/wk. I get the feeling we are seeing the all-to-common pattern of taking a real problem and presenting statistics about it to create a deception that it's bigger than it really is.
I'm sure you're right that bad things tend to be invisible to me, the article even has an example of children trying to keep their shopping a secret.
But 1 in 3.5... idk, if you assume households with kids have a couple of kids, that's getting pretty close to saying the median UK household with a 9 to 18 year old has a 50+ hour caring situation. I don't see that being invisible.
> Not immediately clear if "caring for family members" includes older children caring for younger children, but that would certainly bring up the numbers.
Suspect this is basically right as well.
But 1 in 3.5... idk, if you assume households with kids have a couple of kids, that's getting pretty close to saying the median UK household with a 9 to 18 year old has a 50+ hour caring situation. I don't see that being invisible.
> Not immediately clear if "caring for family members" includes older children caring for younger children, but that would certainly bring up the numbers.
Suspect this is basically right as well.
I suspect it hinges on "caring" - if we assume a child aged 0 to 5 needs constant supervision, that is 84 waking hours or so that need to be supervised. If that supervision is caring, then someone could easily spend 50+ hours caring for them even as they do other things.
And you can just walk off when they're asleep? The might wake up. Someone in that age bracket needs 24/7 care, although much of it is merely requires presence.
"It is possible that the "50+ hours" is not accurately counted." Furthermore, what do those hours entail and how is 'care' quantified? It could drastically change how those hours are tallied.
Are we talking strictly changing sheets, assisting with a bed-pan, medication administration? Or 'softer' tasks like enrichment/entertainment and quality family time.
Do those hours also include emotional toll it takes on a person to constantly straddle the line between family member and caregiver? It's like secondary school coursework: for every hour spent draining catheter bags, suctioning tracheotomy tubes, or administering nutrients through a feeding tube (Jevity Plus smells like death, ask me how I know), there thrice that many hours spent toiling and dealing with the emotional fallout of "protecting your protector".
All that to say, as meaningful as it is to try and collect this data, I would posit that there is no true way to quantify the full breadth of the reality that many people live day in and day out. I, for one, have been forever impacted by my upbringing that included immense amount of caregiving.
Are we talking strictly changing sheets, assisting with a bed-pan, medication administration? Or 'softer' tasks like enrichment/entertainment and quality family time.
Do those hours also include emotional toll it takes on a person to constantly straddle the line between family member and caregiver? It's like secondary school coursework: for every hour spent draining catheter bags, suctioning tracheotomy tubes, or administering nutrients through a feeding tube (Jevity Plus smells like death, ask me how I know), there thrice that many hours spent toiling and dealing with the emotional fallout of "protecting your protector".
All that to say, as meaningful as it is to try and collect this data, I would posit that there is no true way to quantify the full breadth of the reality that many people live day in and day out. I, for one, have been forever impacted by my upbringing that included immense amount of caregiving.
Disabled does not mean you need a caregiver
I think you’re correct, this recent press release from the cited source (Carers Trust) says it’s 1 million total caregivers under 18, of whom 50,000 spend 50 hours/week caring for others.
https://carers.org/news-and-media/news/post/361-carers-trust...
https://carers.org/news-and-media/news/post/361-carers-trust...
Did a little digging and while I can’t find the raw data from Carers’ Trust, this report definitely seems to misrepresent some of the definitions they use.
Carers’ Trust seem to identify groups they call ‘young carers’ (18 and under) and ‘young adult carers’ (18-25) in various of their reports. This is an example of their own writing on the subject: https://carers.org/news-and-media/news/post/361-carers-trust...
They generally claim that there are 1 million ‘young carers’ in the UK, and 600,000 additional ‘young adult carers’
That page gives the more plausible rate of high intensity (50 hours a week+) care as “At least 50,000 children and young people, including 3,000 aged just five to nine, spend 50 hours or more a week looking after ill or disabled family members.”
It’s not clear whether ‘young people’ is synonymous with ‘young carers’ or also includes ‘young adult carers’
Carers’ Trust seem to identify groups they call ‘young carers’ (18 and under) and ‘young adult carers’ (18-25) in various of their reports. This is an example of their own writing on the subject: https://carers.org/news-and-media/news/post/361-carers-trust...
They generally claim that there are 1 million ‘young carers’ in the UK, and 600,000 additional ‘young adult carers’
That page gives the more plausible rate of high intensity (50 hours a week+) care as “At least 50,000 children and young people, including 3,000 aged just five to nine, spend 50 hours or more a week looking after ill or disabled family members.”
It’s not clear whether ‘young people’ is synonymous with ‘young carers’ or also includes ‘young adult carers’
Too late to edit but 1 in 3.5 should have been 1 in 7 which is double 1 in 14, thanks adammarples.
:/
[deleted]
Half of 1/14 is 1/7, not 2/7
Bah. Thank you. You are right. It's too late to edit.
1/7 is double 1/14 since 1/7 == 2/14.
Half of 1/14 is 1/28 since 2(1/28) == 1/14.
Half of 1/14 is 1/28 since 2(1/28) == 1/14.
It's obvious what he meant and he was right.
Yes good point, I didn't mean that
It seems to me that there are two main sources for the parent's expectation that their children should take care of them in the old age. I'm just referring to the "regular" cases here, with parents into the 80s and children past their 50s.
1) "Old fashion mentality". Usually framed as "I wiped your butt when you were a kid, now it's your time to change my diapers".
I object to #1 with "It's not the same effort to take care of a 5kg kid as of an 80kg adult". When my father had late-phase Parkinson and could hardly stand, it was almost impossible for two persons (like me and my mum) to lift him up. Doing this every day wrecks your back and physical health as well. Not to mention the mental toll. Changing their parent adult diapers is also not good for children's mental health.
2) Lack of financial resources. In the old days people had to take care of their very old parents themselves because there was noone to do it otherwise for a price they could afford.
I re-iterate, mainly there's the problem of physical strain, literally impossible to lift a full grown adult without special equipment or at least three persons without risking back injury. The rich can hire full time personnel (lifting needs to be done at night too, several times possibly), otherwise the solution is to share this hired personnel in a hospice. One can visit every day or even commit their parents only intermittently but a severely disabled adult is no baby and it's unfair ask for "duty to kill yourself" as a child taking care of one.
1) "Old fashion mentality". Usually framed as "I wiped your butt when you were a kid, now it's your time to change my diapers".
I object to #1 with "It's not the same effort to take care of a 5kg kid as of an 80kg adult". When my father had late-phase Parkinson and could hardly stand, it was almost impossible for two persons (like me and my mum) to lift him up. Doing this every day wrecks your back and physical health as well. Not to mention the mental toll. Changing their parent adult diapers is also not good for children's mental health.
2) Lack of financial resources. In the old days people had to take care of their very old parents themselves because there was noone to do it otherwise for a price they could afford.
I re-iterate, mainly there's the problem of physical strain, literally impossible to lift a full grown adult without special equipment or at least three persons without risking back injury. The rich can hire full time personnel (lifting needs to be done at night too, several times possibly), otherwise the solution is to share this hired personnel in a hospice. One can visit every day or even commit their parents only intermittently but a severely disabled adult is no baby and it's unfair ask for "duty to kill yourself" as a child taking care of one.
Remember that you are fully allowed to dump your parents. Took me way too long to realize this.
Remember also that who you are (or even just the fact that you are) is in a very large part due to them.
You are also fully allowed to feel an unconditional gratitude (dare I say, love) towards them for simply existing, while accepting them as they are, as individuals, without owing each other anything, and regardless of what they have done or not done. It also takes some people way too long to realize this, and it can be a liberating feeling.
You are also fully allowed to feel an unconditional gratitude (dare I say, love) towards them for simply existing, while accepting them as they are, as individuals, without owing each other anything, and regardless of what they have done or not done. It also takes some people way too long to realize this, and it can be a liberating feeling.
Not everyone is thrilled about existing, and they didn't get a say in that. I could never imagine having children and I never understood why people wanted them, and then I realized that these people must have actually enjoyed their childhood; a concept that was obviously foreign to me. I don't harbor any ill will towards my parents, but nothing for me is unconditional.
I know a decent handful of people who definitely did NOT enjoy their childhood (or at least had major issues that they'd rather not have had; it's not like they never had any fun whatsoever) who have quite enjoyable families now; they've intentionally set out to avoid the pitfalls that happened to them and actively work to identify other ones.
Mine was due to medical issues; not all pitfalls are avoidable.
We have a 3.5 year old who is amazing and has brought a lot of joy to our lives.
I had a great childhood and still questioned if it was irresponsible to bring a child into a world of inherent suffering. Ultimately, planned parenting is a selfish act.
I had a great childhood and still questioned if it was irresponsible to bring a child into a world of inherent suffering. Ultimately, planned parenting is a selfish act.
>Ultimately, planned parenting is a selfish act.
I agree, but with the exception that parenting adopted children is not selfish
I agree, but with the exception that parenting adopted children is not selfish
I had a fantastic childhood (well, compared to the mean I guess), but that doesn’t mean my love of my parents is unconditional.
I suppose the implication is that most people who say they had miserable childhoods blame their parents; I might be a bit odd in that I think my parents did really well, but my problems are inherent to me, and that is why I can't really be mad at them. In some sense, you can blame your parents for everything since they provide both the nature and the nurture, but if you think they truly meant well, it's hard to resent them.
> if you think they truly meant well, it's hard to resent them.
It's easy to resent someone who means well if what they're trying to do is make you miserable because they can't see how you could be happy. That's my parents. They can't fathom how I can enjoy my life and and have done everything in their power to keep me from living the way I want to live. They are willfully ignoring that I'm not them. They may have good intentions but I had a happy childhood in spite of them, not because of them. If adults in the world didn't take an interest in and see me, I could have been a miserable person. So in that sense, I do resent them. Good intentions don't mean anything when you refuse to acknowledge people as they are instead of who they are.
It's easy to resent someone who means well if what they're trying to do is make you miserable because they can't see how you could be happy. That's my parents. They can't fathom how I can enjoy my life and and have done everything in their power to keep me from living the way I want to live. They are willfully ignoring that I'm not them. They may have good intentions but I had a happy childhood in spite of them, not because of them. If adults in the world didn't take an interest in and see me, I could have been a miserable person. So in that sense, I do resent them. Good intentions don't mean anything when you refuse to acknowledge people as they are instead of who they are.
My parents are religious and I am not, but I wish I could believe what they believe.
> Good intentions don't mean anything when you refuse to acknowledge people as they are instead of who they are.
Was the last part meant to be: “Who you want them to be?”
I mean, that’s kinda hard as a parent, since you bring children into the world to raise them as you think they should be. If they then ignore all of that and go their own way, while perfectly acceptable, I can see how that’d suck for them.
I guess that’s my biggest worry as a parent anyway. I want them to be happy, but I also want them to be what I consider to be ‘good’.
Was the last part meant to be: “Who you want them to be?”
I mean, that’s kinda hard as a parent, since you bring children into the world to raise them as you think they should be. If they then ignore all of that and go their own way, while perfectly acceptable, I can see how that’d suck for them.
I guess that’s my biggest worry as a parent anyway. I want them to be happy, but I also want them to be what I consider to be ‘good’.
You should probably add a clause in there that this refers to people with happy (or at least average) childhoods.
The internet is fairly unfiltered (and uncensored) so you hear a lot about people with horribly childhoods. It's probably a good thing for humanity as a whole but man, does it bum you out sometimes... let alone living through said horrible childhoods.
The internet is fairly unfiltered (and uncensored) so you hear a lot about people with horribly childhoods. It's probably a good thing for humanity as a whole but man, does it bum you out sometimes... let alone living through said horrible childhoods.
No my point was that adopting this feeling of unconditional gratitude can be liberating even if one had a miserable childhood.
I am a good person in spite of my parents.
My existence is difficult because my parents were abusive and negligent to a disabled child. My right to exist was questioned by the very people who created me.
Is there a viable path toward realizing that I am 'allowed' to feel unconditional gratitude towards my parents for existing?
My existence is difficult because my parents were abusive and negligent to a disabled child. My right to exist was questioned by the very people who created me.
Is there a viable path toward realizing that I am 'allowed' to feel unconditional gratitude towards my parents for existing?
I don't think gp was suggesting you should forgive all and love. Just, don't judge those that do (or don't), but maybe I'm reading it differently.
It really seemed like the grandparent commentator was chiding the mention that relationships aren't only held together by blood, and that children don't have a choice in who birthed them nor who raised them through childhood.
In many cases, perhaps more than most people are comfortable with, children are raised by malicious parents.
In many cases, perhaps more than most people are comfortable with, children are raised by malicious parents.
I don’t think children are raised by malicious parents (at least, in the far majority of cases). They’re just often raised by people that didn’t know what they were in for, and have no idea how to live, much less how to parent.
It’s a miracle most kids turn out ok despite that, but I’m fairly certain it’s evolved to be that way.
It’s a miracle most kids turn out ok despite that, but I’m fairly certain it’s evolved to be that way.
In the far majority of cases, people are behaving commonly, including common parent behavior. However, significant amounts of minorities exist in this state. Just because a demographic is a minority doesn't mean its considerate to behave as if the demographic doesn't exist at all.
Some people are genuinely having children for completely malicious reasons, like using a child as a tool to trap a domestic abuse victim, for which no gratitude is warranted or reasonable. And I daresay telling those children "you are who you are because of them" is horrifying and cruel.
Some people are genuinely having children for completely malicious reasons, like using a child as a tool to trap a domestic abuse victim, for which no gratitude is warranted or reasonable. And I daresay telling those children "you are who you are because of them" is horrifying and cruel.
I like your interpretation, and GP could be rewritten to mean that.
As it stands now:
GP responded to someone with presumably bad parents by reminding them that their parents contributed to their existence. This sets the stage for their followup advice.
Their followup statement about unconditional gratitude is either directed at this person or uses a universal 'you'. This advice cannot be applied universally, especially in cases of abuse.
The final sentence also implies that GP has found something universal: "It also takes some people way too long to realize this".
---
A lot of people say to themselves - "Of course there are exceptions!" A person's understanding of what counts as an exception is based entirely on their personal experience. Humans also tend to presume that other humans are "normal" unless given evidence otherwise: evidence also based on their personal experience.
We don't know the history of the majority of the people we meet, nor are we entitled to it. How do you determine who is an exception and who is not? It isn't feasible. GP's final sentence implies that it is.
All of these things underpin GP's comment - it's a common pattern of thinking.
As it stands now:
GP responded to someone with presumably bad parents by reminding them that their parents contributed to their existence. This sets the stage for their followup advice.
Their followup statement about unconditional gratitude is either directed at this person or uses a universal 'you'. This advice cannot be applied universally, especially in cases of abuse.
The final sentence also implies that GP has found something universal: "It also takes some people way too long to realize this".
---
A lot of people say to themselves - "Of course there are exceptions!" A person's understanding of what counts as an exception is based entirely on their personal experience. Humans also tend to presume that other humans are "normal" unless given evidence otherwise: evidence also based on their personal experience.
We don't know the history of the majority of the people we meet, nor are we entitled to it. How do you determine who is an exception and who is not? It isn't feasible. GP's final sentence implies that it is.
All of these things underpin GP's comment - it's a common pattern of thinking.
>You are also fully allowed to feel an unconditional gratitude (dare I say, love) towards them for simply existing
Excuse me? This terrible life was imposed on me against my will be mean and evil people. I will absolutely not be "grateful" for it.
Excuse me? This terrible life was imposed on me against my will be mean and evil people. I will absolutely not be "grateful" for it.
> Remember also that who you are (or even just the fact that you are) is in a very large part due to them.
Remember that you didn't ask for that though.
Remember that you didn't ask for that though.
> Remember also that who you are (or even just the fact that you are) is in a very large part due to them.
I’ve got a PTSD when it comes to being in a relationship and struggling to make my own family because my parents cheated on one another, and I’m in huge debt and living in friend’s house because I allowed them to move into my house after they lost their incomes due to covid.
Yeah, I remember everything.
I’ve got a PTSD when it comes to being in a relationship and struggling to make my own family because my parents cheated on one another, and I’m in huge debt and living in friend’s house because I allowed them to move into my house after they lost their incomes due to covid.
Yeah, I remember everything.
> "In the United Kingdom, about a million young people under 18 years old spend more than 50 hours a week caring for family members"
> "Roughly 15,000 of them are children, with 3,000 just 5 to 9 years old.
You can't dump your parents that easilly when you're under 18, and at 5-9 the only other option is being placed into local authority care.
> "Roughly 15,000 of them are children, with 3,000 just 5 to 9 years old.
You can't dump your parents that easilly when you're under 18, and at 5-9 the only other option is being placed into local authority care.
Depending on the country you might actually be legally obligated to take care of them unless you can prove serious crimes like physical/sexual abuse
I'm aware of some places where you might be financially obligated to support parents (Pennsylvania, for example has a filial support law). Is there any place where you literally have to care for them?
The majority of states in the us have those laws and with increasing burden on the government due to greying of the population the courts are likely to shift towards more rigorous enforcement.
Yeah, but they're about financial support, from what I see. Which can already be a big thing, but I doubt there are laws that turn into you a literal nurse for them.
Have you looked at what skilled care costs? It's either be their nurse or be bankrupt.
My point was: do these laws mandate that you have to take care of them? Or is just pay a percentage of your income, like alimony?
In American law you usually can't get a court order requiring someone to do a job, you can usually only get a court order for restitution via financial payment if they failed to do a job they were supposed to do.
So my educated guess would be you never have to actually care for your parents, but I'd be curious if any other countries actually will order children to nurse their parents.
So my educated guess would be you never have to actually care for your parents, but I'd be curious if any other countries actually will order children to nurse their parents.
moffkalast(1)
No free country.
HN has readers from all over the world, including Pennsylvania: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-do-you-mean-i-am-resp...
USA, Germany, Singapore are some of them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws
I get that “no free country” can have many meanings, but these laws certainly exist in countries people call free.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws
I get that “no free country” can have many meanings, but these laws certainly exist in countries people call free.
[deleted]
That depends where you live. Some US states have filial support laws and adult children are legally responsible for paying for care.
https://blog.aarp.org/legal-grounds/more-filial-support-case...
https://blog.aarp.org/legal-grounds/more-filial-support-case...
That's certainly the easiest route. Depending on circumstances, you might have to live with that for the rest of your life. Also, if you have kids, you'll be teaching them through example of how they should take care of you as well.
Taking care of elderly parents is one of the toughest things in life that nobody talks about.
Taking care of elderly parents is one of the toughest things in life that nobody talks about.
Makes me realize how different lives are. I’d rather cut off a couple of fingers than dump my excellent parents.
How did your parents hurt you?
As a parent, I say this to other parents: putting your kids in this situation due to failure to buy long term care/disability insurance for yourself, or having some contingent plan for other adult relatives to care for you daily in the event of a catastrophic but non fatal event is a disgrace. You failed to protect your children.
In the USA if you cannot afford long term care insurance (and it can be expensive depending on how much it is, etc) your best bet is to work out how to be "Medicaid bankrupt" when the time comes.
What is that?
Reducing your assets to the point where you can get long-term care from Medicaid.
In the US, if you get into that situation Medicaid will first require that you "spend down your assets" before the state steps in and starts paying for certain types of care. And if you do something like give your house to your kids, if the time limits aren't right, the state could come looking for that house.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/01/1159490...
There are various planning options to reduce the impact from this, but you have to know to do it, and you have to execute on the plans well in advance.
(Updated original post, it's Medicaid that can clawback, Medicare does not. So if you die of turbo cancer it's taken care of, but if you die of dementia it's not.)
In the US, if you get into that situation Medicaid will first require that you "spend down your assets" before the state steps in and starts paying for certain types of care. And if you do something like give your house to your kids, if the time limits aren't right, the state could come looking for that house.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/03/01/1159490...
There are various planning options to reduce the impact from this, but you have to know to do it, and you have to execute on the plans well in advance.
(Updated original post, it's Medicaid that can clawback, Medicare does not. So if you die of turbo cancer it's taken care of, but if you die of dementia it's not.)
Thanks
[deleted]
Does anyone know of any tools that can help caregivers organize effectively? Caregivers generally have to organize a lot of information, re: scheduling, important health info + various other information. I haven't found any effective or good solutions in this space, which is shocking. Especially it's difficult to find a solution that incorporates a useable calendar that enables everyone in the orbit of a caregiver (and the person they're caregiving for) to be able to schedule and plan within a community, shared calendars, etc.
Has anyone seen any tools like this? Would be much appreciated, else I'm building it myself. Thanks.
Has anyone seen any tools like this? Would be much appreciated, else I'm building it myself. Thanks.
That's why China have almost committed suicide with the one-child policy. That's why all who can try push automation at maximum... That's also why some neo-malthussian think we should drop to around 3G humans, not saying directly but evidently meaning mass killing an enormous amount of people, not counting the fact that good ideas tend to emerge rarely, so to have many we need a large population.
My mother fully expected me to financially support her, her husband and my elderly grandmother, even well before she turned 60. (Meanwhile they were sitting on 4-5 apartments between them). When queried about their spend, it became apparent to me is they expected me to finance a "luxury" lifestyle of travel and pay-per-view cable television.
Unfortunately, some of the "boomer" generation don't really understand one earning is not enough to support a full extended family these days.
Unfortunately, some of the "boomer" generation don't really understand one earning is not enough to support a full extended family these days.
Really feel for these kids.
If you are able, this is a reason why it’s a good idea to have 5+ kids: spread the load among siblings for this kind of thing.
Never seen that actually happen. More likely is a diffusion of responsibility and one sibling drawing the short stick and doing all the work.
It is not even conscious malice by the other siblings. Stuff like that happens naturally. All siblings would need to live close by, have similar family circumstances (I have a family on my own that I need to prioritize. Betty who is single can take care of dad.) and similar level of skills in caring for the parent for that to work.
Also people underestimate how horrible caring for people with dementia and other disabilities that require a high level of care is for people not trained in it. It is not socially acceptable to talk about the bad stuff.
It is not even conscious malice by the other siblings. Stuff like that happens naturally. All siblings would need to live close by, have similar family circumstances (I have a family on my own that I need to prioritize. Betty who is single can take care of dad.) and similar level of skills in caring for the parent for that to work.
Also people underestimate how horrible caring for people with dementia and other disabilities that require a high level of care is for people not trained in it. It is not socially acceptable to talk about the bad stuff.
This (along with odds of survival) was traditionally the main reason for having many children. They were help around the farm but also a form of life insurance.
Also as in the case of my mother’s family (11 kids), the onus for taking care of the younger siblings progressively falls on the siblings older than them.
Spread?!
My wife is the first of seven. Yes, she was the one financially most able to help her parents, both from being here rather than there and because she has a strong work ethic, unlike her siblings. That doesn't mean the load should have fallen virtually 100% on her when the other 6 were in the same city, not on the other side of the world.
My wife is the first of seven. Yes, she was the one financially most able to help her parents, both from being here rather than there and because she has a strong work ethic, unlike her siblings. That doesn't mean the load should have fallen virtually 100% on her when the other 6 were in the same city, not on the other side of the world.
Even in large families I know of, the burden usually rests on one or two - but the larger the family the more support of the burden-bearers there are, which can make a huge difference.
Most here will disagree with me, because public help is socialism but this is one of the places where the state could really help.
Sadly hospices are underfunded and just run wrong - people stay in their rooms to die. Those children could look at own parents part time, some help provided by the state, or to some degree others in same situation.
Sadly hospices are underfunded and just run wrong - people stay in their rooms to die. Those children could look at own parents part time, some help provided by the state, or to some degree others in same situation.
Historically every time the state gets involved it inevitably leads to substantial amounts of neglect and abuse. Rather than putting people into institutions we would be far better off making home help and care more accessible and relatively free market so that people can choose the types of care they need. We should be doing that for as long as its possible.
But in the UK today they are desperately trying to remove the meagre disability payments that people receive so the chances are more will just end up homeless as will their child carers.
But in the UK today they are desperately trying to remove the meagre disability payments that people receive so the chances are more will just end up homeless as will their child carers.
Some sort of a day-care / kindergarden for elderly would make a lot of sense. The children could even rotate to check if there is no abuse..
I have passed multiple businesses around here that say "adult day care". I have not investigated exactly what they provide.
Things like that do exist, the sad reality is that if the children care, the parents do decently well, the abuse kicks in when nobody cares (or nobody exists, there are many people with no living relatives).
Or when the children care but can't be there to see what's going wrong.
> Historically every time the state gets involved it inevitably leads to substantial amounts of neglect and abuse.
The asylum system is one excellent example of this.
With that being said, those most in need of what an asylum would provide are now living on the street, so I'm not sure deleting the repo without even a plan for a rewrite in place was the best choice...
The asylum system is one excellent example of this.
With that being said, those most in need of what an asylum would provide are now living on the street, so I'm not sure deleting the repo without even a plan for a rewrite in place was the best choice...
> Historically every time the state gets involved it inevitably leads to substantial amounts of neglect and abuse
Yeah, having people without any professional training and zero oversight do the caring is the much safer option. Surely there can't be any abuse there?
The only advantage is that at home no one will see the abuse. And I am talking about abuse by both the carer and the one being cared for. Dementia changes a person often causing them to get violent. Plus caring for another being is exhausting but caring for a close family member even more so because you can not build a professional distance to keep you emotionally healthy. It is thankless and soul destroying work. Even the most caring person can grow bitter over time.
Yes, in state institutions abuse does happen because abuse happens everywhere but there are ways to implement oversight and reduce it. Not so much at home.
Plus in the case of underage children, making them care for family members is called parentifications and a form of abuse that can mess them up for the rest of their life.
Yeah, having people without any professional training and zero oversight do the caring is the much safer option. Surely there can't be any abuse there?
The only advantage is that at home no one will see the abuse. And I am talking about abuse by both the carer and the one being cared for. Dementia changes a person often causing them to get violent. Plus caring for another being is exhausting but caring for a close family member even more so because you can not build a professional distance to keep you emotionally healthy. It is thankless and soul destroying work. Even the most caring person can grow bitter over time.
Yes, in state institutions abuse does happen because abuse happens everywhere but there are ways to implement oversight and reduce it. Not so much at home.
Plus in the case of underage children, making them care for family members is called parentifications and a form of abuse that can mess them up for the rest of their life.
> Historically every time the state gets involved it inevitably leads to substantial amounts of neglect and abuse.
Not inevitable. Only when O&M and oversight are reduced by corruption, graft, or ineptitude.
Not inevitable. Only when O&M and oversight are reduced by corruption, graft, or ineptitude.
Historically, every time the state doesn't get involved, people die from poverty, neglect, and abuse. The free market is bullshit here because it has a profit motive, not a care or a duty motive. People don't just stop living or are worthy of care and respect simply because they can no longer provide cash to the money gods.
> we would be far better off making home help and care more accessible and relatively free market so that people can choose the types of care they need
Eh. People that don't have much money won't have much of a choice. So it'd work out great for the rich, shitty for the poor. Like much else in life, I suppose.
IMO the world would be better off with much better work flexibility in general, no matter if you have kids or elderly parents. But we sacrifice to much at the altar of productivity for that to ever happen.
Eh. People that don't have much money won't have much of a choice. So it'd work out great for the rich, shitty for the poor. Like much else in life, I suppose.
IMO the world would be better off with much better work flexibility in general, no matter if you have kids or elderly parents. But we sacrifice to much at the altar of productivity for that to ever happen.
One million? On 55 million inhabitants that’s absurd.
She cared for her mother, but it was a bit of a strain as her mother succumbed to dementia. She cared for my father as he withered away from cancer, until she could no longer physically do it. Then he was admitted to the hospital and then hospice. She was very sad that she was not able to live up to what she saw was her duty, to care for him.
I feel it is my duty to care for my parents, but there is a line for everyone that is reality. There are many factors such as a person's behavior, now or in the past, and the relationship that may not be there. My parents have treated me very well, so it is the least I can do to return this to them. I think we should strive towards that if we can.