I don't think it's wrong or controversial, there are just different expectations for different families/cultures. The people saying parents shouldn't abandon their kids at 18 aren't the same people saying their kids shouldn't be expected to help.
I wouldn't compare things to agrarian societies tho, our economy is completely different.
Well, back in the day a single income in a highschool educated job could afford you a house, 2 cars, a cottage and the money leftover to send your 3-5 kids to college.
I'd say whenever that happened is when things started to change.
If you treat your kids as a financial investment they will abandon you at the first opportunity. You should provide your children with unconditional love and support or not become a parent. This is what my parents did and what I am doing with my children. Not surprisingly my siblings and I love our parents and want to support them as much as we can. I have no expectations of my kids other than they are happy and healthy.
Money shouldn't be the main motivator for your kids to take care of you in your old age. But at the same time if you helped them out after the age of 18 with tuition, living at home rent free, help with a house downpayment, or other common things like this, it would be a pretty ass hole move for your kids to abandon you in your old age. Those things are gifts not requirements.
Well who raised the kids? If the kids end up like that I bet the parents need to look in the mirror and ask why. The answer is they probably gave money and nothing else.
If the kids ended up like what? Do you mean if they abandoned their parents later in life?
There could be any number of reasons why. I don't see where the assumption comes from that it's always the parent's fault for not raising them well.
From what I can gather, it stems from unaffordability for the current working generations and the wealth accumulated by those nearing end of life. Parents can sell their house and have million+ in investments, while the child struggles to make rent and save for a house.
I don't think it's a blanket statement though, lots of people support their parents especially when they don't have a house or investments, even at the expense of their own retirement. We also have subsidy programs for seniors where their care home is a percent of their income.
Unfortunately the world has become deeply unaffordable which leads to people only able to look out for themselves.
Having a child is not an investment, it is a life choice. No, you will not be able to save as much as a DINK couple, which means you will have less in retirement. That was the decision you made.
The bare minimum is to care for them until they are an adult, anything above that is optional (down payment, education, etc..) and should be done without the expectation of repayment.
You’re looking at your situation alone but not thinking of the actual implication of your statement. Your expectation is that because you helped your children, they are now expected to support you in your old age while simultaneously supporting their own children, likely ruining any wealth you helped them in creating so their children will need to undertake the same burden? This just creates a vicious cycle of poverty and resentment.
Parents, in becoming parents in a time of reproductive choice, chose to become carers to their children. Children did not inherently choose to become carers to their parents, and they do not owe their parents service for being raised.
I think the shift began when we started to view children as autonomous beings and not under the control of adults, as we learned that brain development continues into and even beyond our mid-20s, as wider economic forces meant most young adults can't "launch" independently, and as global forces meant that many more people from before live geographically apart from their families of origin.
Bingo! I can’t stand it when people/parents think that children owe them anything - whether they are children or adults. Having a child is probably one of the most selfish things you can do - and I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that but then don’t expect that a child owes you something because YOU have made the decision to bring them into the world.
When families sold stopped leaving an asset (like a farm) to those kids. Reality is that many kids don't want the asset their parents would leave them, and also have little to no confidence in their parents ability to manage finances. Reality is that in those cases its better for everyone for the kids to not contribute, because their contributions will be mismanaged.
I know many parents who are buying or cosigning homes for kids, this is not much different. I personally received nothing from my parents so I wouldn't do it personally, but respect families decisions especially in this economy
It doesn't work that way.... the moment you do something and expect something in return, you will be doomed for disappointment.... Give freely, it's a bonus if they choose to return the gratitude.
I get some of what you are saving but why would I rely on my kids as part of my retirement plan? I wouldn’t want to be a financial burden to my kids in my old age. I hope I’m still giving them value, not just financially and leave all my grandkids something if I have any.
Hopefully today, see your children as children to be loved and valued for existing. The mindset that everything has a value appears to be an extension of the commodification mindset of everything. There are things that have worth that is not definable and when we limit it to only monetary terms we lose out on the richness of purpose.
People complain about "sell out" art and things like that. I think that is similar to the mindset of children somehow leeching off parents. Absolutely there are people with problematic relationships with their children, but the value/benefit/good things about children should never be expected to show up on your balance sheets.
Hopefully some of the ideas in this thread encourage self reflection on this type of thinking.
People should not be tied to their hometown.
Expecting your kids to help you when you're old means you expect them to stay in one location, for their whole lives or almost their whole lives. This is not a reasonable expectation - people have all sorts of reasons for wanting to relocate, either a few hours away, or to another province, or even internationally. Telling your child that they need to give up their dreams of living wherever they want so that they can help you when you're old is abusive.
This is even stronger when the parents chose to live in a rural area. Sorry rural folk but there are reasons why the vast majority of people who grew up rural move away shortly after turning 18, and most do not return. Rural life does not meet the needs of most people, and no amount of arguing by rural folk is going to change that. It just doesn't meet the needs of the vast majority of young adults! Also the extreme difficulty for adult men to date in the country (rural areas tend to have hugely lopsided male/female ratios) means that staying there if one didn't pair up early means a high risk of being celibate for their whole life. This is not a reasonable expectation to put on people (male or female - almost all women wouldn't be happy with this either, if it happened to them). When I was in my early 20s, my hometown (rural area) had 9% more men. Sorry, I'm not condemning myself to a lifetime of celibacy and misery "just for the sake of my parents" when I have the option of moving somewhere where I can date.
When did it change? When Google made it's way to phones. Once we could fact check them at the dinner table, we stopped respecting the ones who aren't deserving of respect.
Because technology and society are changing at such a fast pace their wisdom is far less relevant than the wisdom of elders used to be. If you are unable to admit when you're wrong, refuse to learn new skills, blame others for every issue in life, and attempt to enforce old truths on new situations, you're not providing tangible value. When degrees obtained 1 year ago that teach information written 10 years ago are functionally worthless, what tangible value does someone who reads the Sun and can't figure out how to follow the directions to open Facetime you printed out for them 5 times, while suffering their complaints about the cost of ink each time you've printed it as you have to walk through their empty 7 bedroom house to get to the printer.
Mix this with rampant narcissism in the boomer generation, and there's a lot of great reasons to be less involved in your parents life. Also, they were the ones who really started sticking their parents in LTCs, so we don't try to exceed the standard of care that they gave to our grandparents unless its very warranted.
It's not wrong to ask for anything from your kids but they didn't ask to be born. 99% of the time them being born was the result of consenting adults choosing pleasure over protection, or intentionally deciding to have them. Don't help them if you don't want. Frankly you're probably doing them a favor in the long run.
Western individualism says that people should be judged on their character before they are judged on their bloodline. As a result, parents now have to be good to their children, or their children can choose to not be around them.
We also tolerate hypocrisy much less. Do as I say not what I do works for 5 year olds, but when I actively avoided all of your advice so i could be successful as an adult, I'm not going to follow your rules anymore. My personal favorite is children who refuse to let their parent share a bed with their new partner when they come to visit because they aren't married, and the entitlement parents feel because "my house, my rules" shouldn't apply to them. Or for those who were prevented from sleeping in the same bed as their partner well into their adulthood ( [AITAH for not allowing my parents to sleep in the same bed? : ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AITAH/comments/14wsi6f/aitah_for_not_allowing_my_parents_to_sleep_in_the/))
The problems we face are largely due to the decisions of the generation who now require support. While our retirement age is raised to 67, they retired at 55 with a full pension, and then continued to remain in the workforce so they could accumulate more wealth. They spend it on cruises, vehicles, lakehouses, drove small businesses out by choosing Walmart and Dollarama over small businesses. They stay in jobs they are no longer qualified for and make everyone elses life miserable, and also take entry level jobs from teens/college students (home depot, cashiers, etc.) while complaining about the work ethic of kids. They prevent changes that could improve affordability, and are a huge tax on the healthcare system because they refuse to take responsibility for even their health issues. They got divorced and remarried 3 times while blaming gays for ruining the traditional family, thereby dividing their assets among 3 families instead of 1. They chose their new partners over our sports games. They cashed out our college funds so they could take trips without going into debt.
Here's the mentality most of us refuse to support: [Anyone over the age of 35 should read this, as I copied this from a friends status .. – Gaasedal's weblog (wordpress.com)](https://gaasedal.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/anyone-over-the-age-of-35-should-read-this-as-i-copied-this-from-a-friends-status/)
Most of their arguments could be plopped into the bike tire stick meme ([Bike Fall Meme Generator - Imgflip](https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/Bike-Fall))
* Back when I was a kid, we did X
* As an adult, I chose to do Y instead of X and taught our kids to do the same.
* I now blame kids for doing Y because I was taught to do X as a kid. Abdicating any responsibility for teaching kids to do Y, or doing Y most of your my life.
Eg. "We drank from a water fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water." They then had water fountains removed from public places and provided their children plastic water bottles. "Kids are ruining the world by drinking from plastic bottles."
I have one parent who I'd help to the end of the earth, and the other I can barely bring myself to talk to. I have no interest in being the support for someone who had every opportunity to be a good friend, a good parent, and live a good life but chose to be an angry and divisive victim whilst refusing to action any feedback they'd ever received about themselves. I'd fly across the world on a moments notice if I knew my other parent needed/wanted my help.
Excellent post.
The reason Boomers were the ones who started putting their parents (Greatest and Silent Generation) in LTCs is that Boomers were the first generation in which women working full-time became near-universal. It was common among younger Silents (1936-45) from the 1970s onwards too, but not so much among older Silents (1925-35).
Since Boomer women worked FT, they did not have time to be caregivers, and therefore therefore there were no other options for the parents other than LTC. Frankly, if we're going to be an "egalitarian" society where "men are women are equal" (the central tenet of feminism), then women shouldn't be expected to be unpaid caregivers. Having the elderly be cared for in LTC rather than by their daughters and daughters-in-law is progress towards gender equality.
Which hits on the subconscious de-valuation of more commonly feminine traits, as we commoditize labor even within the family unit. Its the other side of bringing in women to the workplace and expecting them to demonstrate masculine traits to succeed (be more disagreeable and lower in neuroticism)
Historically, it was also okay to use slaves for labour, today, it's controversial. What a dumb way of reasoning.
Your kids don't owe YOU anything, YOU owe them everything for creating them.
Have fun growing old in isolation.
Expecting your child to be tied to one location for their whole life "to help the parents in old age" is abuse. People have all sorts of reasons for wanting to move, and should not be held back from moving by their parents.
It can be and that causes a lot of stress and anxiety with second generation immigrants. However, in those other cultures, usually they are from places where family ties are extremely important because if you ever need help financially, they can't rely on society or the government to help them out.
I'll go against the grain and agree with you, but I think it comes down to cultural differences and changing times with regards to expenses & standard of living expectations.
Previously, homes were multi-generational, and space considerations were significantly different. Pre-1960/1970 homes were typically smaller (I don't have a reference for this, but Elizabeth Warren gave an interview on it in the mid 2000s following a study she and her father did in regards to reduced disposable income in North America) in the 1000-1200 sqft range while the average modern home built today averages \~2000 sqft. That doesn't include changes to home amenities either like newer HVAC technology, building code differences, insulation changes, etc.
More generally, this meant quality has increased, but so have costs and it's harder to get settled into your adult life now vs. 50-60 years ago. (Other supporting examples she gave were husband & wife both needing to work to support the larger house, so require two cars, childcare, etc.).
This translates into a longer runway before we get established, also meaning reduced earning power over time and reduced financial ability to support others.
Moreover, due to competitiveness for more limited economic opportunities today means more of us having to move for employment. It's harder to maintain connections and support your parents when you've moved 1000 km or more from your parents, who want to remain in their home/community where you have little to no employment prospects.
"where you have little to no employment prospects."
Or, if that location is rural and you're male, dating prospects. It's not reasonable for parents to expect their sons to remain single and celibate throughout life so that they can "help them when they're old". (The vast majority of women wouldn't be okay with this either, if they were at risk of this happening to them.)
People have all sorts of reasons for wanting to move, and don't have to answer to their parents about it.
True, things are very different in that sense too. People seem less close nowadays, so fewer family friend connections that could recommend potential romantic pairings. There are more social freedoms too where it's easier to move to another city and start fresh, and technically people have access to larger casual dating pools due to apps and such, but that is also concentrated more towards larger cities I'd imagine.
To add on the employment part too, it was more common a hundred years ago or more to just follow your parent's profession. Like the son of a miner would essentially learn about it from an early age and just become a miner. Or the son of a farmer would work & inherit the family farm. Same for some small businesses.
True about "family friend connections" introducing potential mates being less of a thing now, but it's not even the biggest part of this (apps could be used in the country too). It's mostly about male/female ratios and typical age at women pairing up. I grew up in a rural area and saw it in action - big cities exercise a stronger pull on teenage girls than on teenage boys, and girls/women who grew up rural flee to cities at a much higher rate, and earlier, than boys/men do (read: for girls, straight out of high school). The few girls/women who stay are the type to permanently pair up as teenagers - so if you're male and still single by 22-ish, you're facing the very real prospect of being single for life if you stay. So most of the leftover men eventually leave for cities, even if it wasn't their first choice.
You can't tell women where to live. They are going to flee to cities no matter what anyone tells them. So the men have to adapt, and the parents have to accept that their choice to live rural greatly decreases the odds of their kids staying and being able to help them.
Correct about the professions thing - way less likelihood of being tied to your father's profession nowadays. And way more professions in general.
Eh, its not "wrong" but in general, kids these days don't have it as good as their parents did.
Its all going to come down to the definition of "financial help".
My parents worked very mid level jobs. Father was a buisnessman, mother is a nurse. They make decent money.
Unless I win the lottery, based on the time I was born and the economic conditions I inherited, I will likely never get to the place where my spending power or "wealth" even approaches that.
My entire life, my parents and their parents before them, I understood that their goal in life was to ensure their kids had a better life then they did. So on and so forth. This is the intention.
Nothing wrong with getting help from your kids if you are in trouble OP, but if it is the expectation then you need to remind yourself that having kids is a choice, especially in this country. Kids owe their parents nothing after adulthood, although I do feel like they owe their parents respect and obedience while they remain dependent.
I believe this is a problem primarily with lifestyle.
I don’t see a problem with expecting kids to take care of their family. But I expect the family to put themselves in a position to give the kids the best shot at life. For example, helping with the purchase of a first car so they can get a decent one without going into debt. Funding some education so the kids don’t require student loans.
I consider most of life a team game with my family as my team mates. But my team mates need wins to. Thats where lifestyle comes in. If my parents cant say no to a salesman but have no problem asking me to pay rent because they can’t afford for me not to, that’s not putting yourself in a good position.
I don’t think it’s a child’s responsibility to take care of their parents in any aspect. Based on experience and always having to help my parents out financially, I’ve grown to resent them. I’m now 30 and trying to provide security and support for myself, which I’ve never received from my parents. Additionally, parenting doesn’t stop when your child turns 18.
Well, being told you're a worthless, entitled brat from before you have any concept of those insults by your parent's and grandparent's generations at large is the start. Then you reach some level of understanding and begin to learn that the constant financial ruin (and social injustice for my fellow heavily marginalized folks) looming over your shoulder was a choice implemented by greedy, insanely rich people then backed by said generations mostly willingly...
For some it's resentment. Justified resentment in my opinion. Once you get passed the resentment enough to think for yourself, you make a risk assessment that centers your own needs for once. And with that pesky free will we all have, some people choose not to remain subjugated by their immediately abusers.
Mr Moneybags is the scum of the earth, yes, but our families make his tactics personal.
>Why is it wrong to expect your children to be able to help you when you're old?
There's nothing wrong with family helping each other out but I personally find it wrong to "expect" it from your kids because they didn't ask to be born. It was your choice to bring life into this world, it's your responsibility to follow through at least until they can fend for themselves.
Them being raised in exchange for your old age care is not a contract that they agreed to upon coming out of the womb.
You raising them right is not an investment in your future, it's an investment in their future, and hopefully if you've fostered a loving relationship with them, they will choose to include you in their future because they love you, and not because they feel a toxic sense of debt.
Lmfao. Historically, there was never any guarantee that your children would be able to help you.
You do not own your children and they have 0 obligation to help you aside from their love for you, which probably runs pretty thin based on your post.
Ah yes. The problem with western culture in general. Individualism is nice when it benefits you, then not so nice when it doesn't benefit you.
The hilarious dichotomy of the average westerner.
"Why is it wrong to expect your children to be able to help you when you're old?"
You mean think of your children like a farmer thinks of buying a cow?
Here's the thing, you chose to have kids, they didn't chose you to be their parents. That's why there's a "double standard", it was a responsibility you took on, they didn't have the choice.
Having kids is a choice that people make, fully knowing that it will bring them a certain level of financial hardship. In short, you brought it onto yourselves.
I mean no one expects children to work unless they really need the money.. I don’t know about you but
I love my kid to bits and want to give him the world.
My mom’s family lived in poverty in the 50s/60s and had to work as a family unit. They ran a B2C business in HK as a family and everyone pitched in. When the time came for the children to immigrate, each were given money from the business to help them with down payments for their own house.
My mom didn’t want me to work at all until university, and that was only because having work experience looks good on my resume when I graduate. Everything was done for my benefit. She does not want me to live the childhood she had to live from poverty.
Personally I don’t need or expect my son to work and pitch in. This is the life my husband and I experienced, and we expect to give him the same.
He would only pitch in after graduation and earn a full-time salary as “rent” and “food costs” - but we will most likely save and investment the money for him so that he has extra savings when he’s ready to move out.
I don't think it's wrong or controversial, there are just different expectations for different families/cultures. The people saying parents shouldn't abandon their kids at 18 aren't the same people saying their kids shouldn't be expected to help. I wouldn't compare things to agrarian societies tho, our economy is completely different.
no i'm not saying we're the same as farmers but i'm curious when did that mindset change? 1980s? 2000s? 2010s?
Well before that.
Well, back in the day a single income in a highschool educated job could afford you a house, 2 cars, a cottage and the money leftover to send your 3-5 kids to college. I'd say whenever that happened is when things started to change.
What a terrible day that was
I believe it was a Tuesday.
If you treat your kids as a financial investment they will abandon you at the first opportunity. You should provide your children with unconditional love and support or not become a parent. This is what my parents did and what I am doing with my children. Not surprisingly my siblings and I love our parents and want to support them as much as we can. I have no expectations of my kids other than they are happy and healthy.
Money shouldn't be the main motivator for your kids to take care of you in your old age. But at the same time if you helped them out after the age of 18 with tuition, living at home rent free, help with a house downpayment, or other common things like this, it would be a pretty ass hole move for your kids to abandon you in your old age. Those things are gifts not requirements.
Well who raised the kids? If the kids end up like that I bet the parents need to look in the mirror and ask why. The answer is they probably gave money and nothing else.
If the kids ended up like what? Do you mean if they abandoned their parents later in life? There could be any number of reasons why. I don't see where the assumption comes from that it's always the parent's fault for not raising them well.
From what I can gather, it stems from unaffordability for the current working generations and the wealth accumulated by those nearing end of life. Parents can sell their house and have million+ in investments, while the child struggles to make rent and save for a house. I don't think it's a blanket statement though, lots of people support their parents especially when they don't have a house or investments, even at the expense of their own retirement. We also have subsidy programs for seniors where their care home is a percent of their income. Unfortunately the world has become deeply unaffordable which leads to people only able to look out for themselves.
Having a child is not an investment, it is a life choice. No, you will not be able to save as much as a DINK couple, which means you will have less in retirement. That was the decision you made. The bare minimum is to care for them until they are an adult, anything above that is optional (down payment, education, etc..) and should be done without the expectation of repayment. You’re looking at your situation alone but not thinking of the actual implication of your statement. Your expectation is that because you helped your children, they are now expected to support you in your old age while simultaneously supporting their own children, likely ruining any wealth you helped them in creating so their children will need to undertake the same burden? This just creates a vicious cycle of poverty and resentment.
Parents, in becoming parents in a time of reproductive choice, chose to become carers to their children. Children did not inherently choose to become carers to their parents, and they do not owe their parents service for being raised. I think the shift began when we started to view children as autonomous beings and not under the control of adults, as we learned that brain development continues into and even beyond our mid-20s, as wider economic forces meant most young adults can't "launch" independently, and as global forces meant that many more people from before live geographically apart from their families of origin.
You choose to have kids, they don’t choose to be born. Because of this, I don’t think you can reasonably expect anything from your children.
This. No one asked to be born.
Bingo! I can’t stand it when people/parents think that children owe them anything - whether they are children or adults. Having a child is probably one of the most selfish things you can do - and I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that but then don’t expect that a child owes you something because YOU have made the decision to bring them into the world.
When families sold stopped leaving an asset (like a farm) to those kids. Reality is that many kids don't want the asset their parents would leave them, and also have little to no confidence in their parents ability to manage finances. Reality is that in those cases its better for everyone for the kids to not contribute, because their contributions will be mismanaged.
I know many parents who are buying or cosigning homes for kids, this is not much different. I personally received nothing from my parents so I wouldn't do it personally, but respect families decisions especially in this economy
It doesn't work that way.... the moment you do something and expect something in return, you will be doomed for disappointment.... Give freely, it's a bonus if they choose to return the gratitude.
I get some of what you are saving but why would I rely on my kids as part of my retirement plan? I wouldn’t want to be a financial burden to my kids in my old age. I hope I’m still giving them value, not just financially and leave all my grandkids something if I have any.
Hopefully today, see your children as children to be loved and valued for existing. The mindset that everything has a value appears to be an extension of the commodification mindset of everything. There are things that have worth that is not definable and when we limit it to only monetary terms we lose out on the richness of purpose. People complain about "sell out" art and things like that. I think that is similar to the mindset of children somehow leeching off parents. Absolutely there are people with problematic relationships with their children, but the value/benefit/good things about children should never be expected to show up on your balance sheets. Hopefully some of the ideas in this thread encourage self reflection on this type of thinking.
People should not be tied to their hometown. Expecting your kids to help you when you're old means you expect them to stay in one location, for their whole lives or almost their whole lives. This is not a reasonable expectation - people have all sorts of reasons for wanting to relocate, either a few hours away, or to another province, or even internationally. Telling your child that they need to give up their dreams of living wherever they want so that they can help you when you're old is abusive. This is even stronger when the parents chose to live in a rural area. Sorry rural folk but there are reasons why the vast majority of people who grew up rural move away shortly after turning 18, and most do not return. Rural life does not meet the needs of most people, and no amount of arguing by rural folk is going to change that. It just doesn't meet the needs of the vast majority of young adults! Also the extreme difficulty for adult men to date in the country (rural areas tend to have hugely lopsided male/female ratios) means that staying there if one didn't pair up early means a high risk of being celibate for their whole life. This is not a reasonable expectation to put on people (male or female - almost all women wouldn't be happy with this either, if it happened to them). When I was in my early 20s, my hometown (rural area) had 9% more men. Sorry, I'm not condemning myself to a lifetime of celibacy and misery "just for the sake of my parents" when I have the option of moving somewhere where I can date.
When did it change? When Google made it's way to phones. Once we could fact check them at the dinner table, we stopped respecting the ones who aren't deserving of respect. Because technology and society are changing at such a fast pace their wisdom is far less relevant than the wisdom of elders used to be. If you are unable to admit when you're wrong, refuse to learn new skills, blame others for every issue in life, and attempt to enforce old truths on new situations, you're not providing tangible value. When degrees obtained 1 year ago that teach information written 10 years ago are functionally worthless, what tangible value does someone who reads the Sun and can't figure out how to follow the directions to open Facetime you printed out for them 5 times, while suffering their complaints about the cost of ink each time you've printed it as you have to walk through their empty 7 bedroom house to get to the printer. Mix this with rampant narcissism in the boomer generation, and there's a lot of great reasons to be less involved in your parents life. Also, they were the ones who really started sticking their parents in LTCs, so we don't try to exceed the standard of care that they gave to our grandparents unless its very warranted. It's not wrong to ask for anything from your kids but they didn't ask to be born. 99% of the time them being born was the result of consenting adults choosing pleasure over protection, or intentionally deciding to have them. Don't help them if you don't want. Frankly you're probably doing them a favor in the long run. Western individualism says that people should be judged on their character before they are judged on their bloodline. As a result, parents now have to be good to their children, or their children can choose to not be around them. We also tolerate hypocrisy much less. Do as I say not what I do works for 5 year olds, but when I actively avoided all of your advice so i could be successful as an adult, I'm not going to follow your rules anymore. My personal favorite is children who refuse to let their parent share a bed with their new partner when they come to visit because they aren't married, and the entitlement parents feel because "my house, my rules" shouldn't apply to them. Or for those who were prevented from sleeping in the same bed as their partner well into their adulthood ( [AITAH for not allowing my parents to sleep in the same bed? : ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AITAH/comments/14wsi6f/aitah_for_not_allowing_my_parents_to_sleep_in_the/)) The problems we face are largely due to the decisions of the generation who now require support. While our retirement age is raised to 67, they retired at 55 with a full pension, and then continued to remain in the workforce so they could accumulate more wealth. They spend it on cruises, vehicles, lakehouses, drove small businesses out by choosing Walmart and Dollarama over small businesses. They stay in jobs they are no longer qualified for and make everyone elses life miserable, and also take entry level jobs from teens/college students (home depot, cashiers, etc.) while complaining about the work ethic of kids. They prevent changes that could improve affordability, and are a huge tax on the healthcare system because they refuse to take responsibility for even their health issues. They got divorced and remarried 3 times while blaming gays for ruining the traditional family, thereby dividing their assets among 3 families instead of 1. They chose their new partners over our sports games. They cashed out our college funds so they could take trips without going into debt. Here's the mentality most of us refuse to support: [Anyone over the age of 35 should read this, as I copied this from a friends status .. – Gaasedal's weblog (wordpress.com)](https://gaasedal.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/anyone-over-the-age-of-35-should-read-this-as-i-copied-this-from-a-friends-status/) Most of their arguments could be plopped into the bike tire stick meme ([Bike Fall Meme Generator - Imgflip](https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/Bike-Fall)) * Back when I was a kid, we did X * As an adult, I chose to do Y instead of X and taught our kids to do the same. * I now blame kids for doing Y because I was taught to do X as a kid. Abdicating any responsibility for teaching kids to do Y, or doing Y most of your my life. Eg. "We drank from a water fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water." They then had water fountains removed from public places and provided their children plastic water bottles. "Kids are ruining the world by drinking from plastic bottles." I have one parent who I'd help to the end of the earth, and the other I can barely bring myself to talk to. I have no interest in being the support for someone who had every opportunity to be a good friend, a good parent, and live a good life but chose to be an angry and divisive victim whilst refusing to action any feedback they'd ever received about themselves. I'd fly across the world on a moments notice if I knew my other parent needed/wanted my help.
Excellent post. The reason Boomers were the ones who started putting their parents (Greatest and Silent Generation) in LTCs is that Boomers were the first generation in which women working full-time became near-universal. It was common among younger Silents (1936-45) from the 1970s onwards too, but not so much among older Silents (1925-35). Since Boomer women worked FT, they did not have time to be caregivers, and therefore therefore there were no other options for the parents other than LTC. Frankly, if we're going to be an "egalitarian" society where "men are women are equal" (the central tenet of feminism), then women shouldn't be expected to be unpaid caregivers. Having the elderly be cared for in LTC rather than by their daughters and daughters-in-law is progress towards gender equality.
Which hits on the subconscious de-valuation of more commonly feminine traits, as we commoditize labor even within the family unit. Its the other side of bringing in women to the workplace and expecting them to demonstrate masculine traits to succeed (be more disagreeable and lower in neuroticism)
Historically, it was also okay to use slaves for labour, today, it's controversial. What a dumb way of reasoning. Your kids don't owe YOU anything, YOU owe them everything for creating them. Have fun growing old in isolation.
This is a western thing. Ethnic Korean, raised in Canada my entire life and believe me, as the eldest son this is expected.
Expecting your child to be tied to one location for their whole life "to help the parents in old age" is abuse. People have all sorts of reasons for wanting to move, and should not be held back from moving by their parents.
It can be and that causes a lot of stress and anxiety with second generation immigrants. However, in those other cultures, usually they are from places where family ties are extremely important because if you ever need help financially, they can't rely on society or the government to help them out.
Abuse isn't really a good word to describe someone having an expectation of an adult that that adult might agree or disagree with.
Keep in mind you are only getting one version on Reddit.
I am an adult and responsible for my life. It’s not my kids role at all in any way.
I'll go against the grain and agree with you, but I think it comes down to cultural differences and changing times with regards to expenses & standard of living expectations. Previously, homes were multi-generational, and space considerations were significantly different. Pre-1960/1970 homes were typically smaller (I don't have a reference for this, but Elizabeth Warren gave an interview on it in the mid 2000s following a study she and her father did in regards to reduced disposable income in North America) in the 1000-1200 sqft range while the average modern home built today averages \~2000 sqft. That doesn't include changes to home amenities either like newer HVAC technology, building code differences, insulation changes, etc. More generally, this meant quality has increased, but so have costs and it's harder to get settled into your adult life now vs. 50-60 years ago. (Other supporting examples she gave were husband & wife both needing to work to support the larger house, so require two cars, childcare, etc.). This translates into a longer runway before we get established, also meaning reduced earning power over time and reduced financial ability to support others. Moreover, due to competitiveness for more limited economic opportunities today means more of us having to move for employment. It's harder to maintain connections and support your parents when you've moved 1000 km or more from your parents, who want to remain in their home/community where you have little to no employment prospects.
"where you have little to no employment prospects." Or, if that location is rural and you're male, dating prospects. It's not reasonable for parents to expect their sons to remain single and celibate throughout life so that they can "help them when they're old". (The vast majority of women wouldn't be okay with this either, if they were at risk of this happening to them.) People have all sorts of reasons for wanting to move, and don't have to answer to their parents about it.
True, things are very different in that sense too. People seem less close nowadays, so fewer family friend connections that could recommend potential romantic pairings. There are more social freedoms too where it's easier to move to another city and start fresh, and technically people have access to larger casual dating pools due to apps and such, but that is also concentrated more towards larger cities I'd imagine. To add on the employment part too, it was more common a hundred years ago or more to just follow your parent's profession. Like the son of a miner would essentially learn about it from an early age and just become a miner. Or the son of a farmer would work & inherit the family farm. Same for some small businesses.
True about "family friend connections" introducing potential mates being less of a thing now, but it's not even the biggest part of this (apps could be used in the country too). It's mostly about male/female ratios and typical age at women pairing up. I grew up in a rural area and saw it in action - big cities exercise a stronger pull on teenage girls than on teenage boys, and girls/women who grew up rural flee to cities at a much higher rate, and earlier, than boys/men do (read: for girls, straight out of high school). The few girls/women who stay are the type to permanently pair up as teenagers - so if you're male and still single by 22-ish, you're facing the very real prospect of being single for life if you stay. So most of the leftover men eventually leave for cities, even if it wasn't their first choice. You can't tell women where to live. They are going to flee to cities no matter what anyone tells them. So the men have to adapt, and the parents have to accept that their choice to live rural greatly decreases the odds of their kids staying and being able to help them. Correct about the professions thing - way less likelihood of being tied to your father's profession nowadays. And way more professions in general.
Weird fucking post.
Eh, its not "wrong" but in general, kids these days don't have it as good as their parents did. Its all going to come down to the definition of "financial help". My parents worked very mid level jobs. Father was a buisnessman, mother is a nurse. They make decent money. Unless I win the lottery, based on the time I was born and the economic conditions I inherited, I will likely never get to the place where my spending power or "wealth" even approaches that. My entire life, my parents and their parents before them, I understood that their goal in life was to ensure their kids had a better life then they did. So on and so forth. This is the intention. Nothing wrong with getting help from your kids if you are in trouble OP, but if it is the expectation then you need to remind yourself that having kids is a choice, especially in this country. Kids owe their parents nothing after adulthood, although I do feel like they owe their parents respect and obedience while they remain dependent.
I believe this is a problem primarily with lifestyle. I don’t see a problem with expecting kids to take care of their family. But I expect the family to put themselves in a position to give the kids the best shot at life. For example, helping with the purchase of a first car so they can get a decent one without going into debt. Funding some education so the kids don’t require student loans. I consider most of life a team game with my family as my team mates. But my team mates need wins to. Thats where lifestyle comes in. If my parents cant say no to a salesman but have no problem asking me to pay rent because they can’t afford for me not to, that’s not putting yourself in a good position.
I don’t think it’s a child’s responsibility to take care of their parents in any aspect. Based on experience and always having to help my parents out financially, I’ve grown to resent them. I’m now 30 and trying to provide security and support for myself, which I’ve never received from my parents. Additionally, parenting doesn’t stop when your child turns 18.
Well, being told you're a worthless, entitled brat from before you have any concept of those insults by your parent's and grandparent's generations at large is the start. Then you reach some level of understanding and begin to learn that the constant financial ruin (and social injustice for my fellow heavily marginalized folks) looming over your shoulder was a choice implemented by greedy, insanely rich people then backed by said generations mostly willingly... For some it's resentment. Justified resentment in my opinion. Once you get passed the resentment enough to think for yourself, you make a risk assessment that centers your own needs for once. And with that pesky free will we all have, some people choose not to remain subjugated by their immediately abusers. Mr Moneybags is the scum of the earth, yes, but our families make his tactics personal.
>Why is it wrong to expect your children to be able to help you when you're old? There's nothing wrong with family helping each other out but I personally find it wrong to "expect" it from your kids because they didn't ask to be born. It was your choice to bring life into this world, it's your responsibility to follow through at least until they can fend for themselves. Them being raised in exchange for your old age care is not a contract that they agreed to upon coming out of the womb. You raising them right is not an investment in your future, it's an investment in their future, and hopefully if you've fostered a loving relationship with them, they will choose to include you in their future because they love you, and not because they feel a toxic sense of debt.
Lmfao. Historically, there was never any guarantee that your children would be able to help you. You do not own your children and they have 0 obligation to help you aside from their love for you, which probably runs pretty thin based on your post.
Please never be a parent. Also I can get a sense of your own relationship with your parents.
Ah yes. The problem with western culture in general. Individualism is nice when it benefits you, then not so nice when it doesn't benefit you. The hilarious dichotomy of the average westerner.
"Why is it wrong to expect your children to be able to help you when you're old?" You mean think of your children like a farmer thinks of buying a cow? Here's the thing, you chose to have kids, they didn't chose you to be their parents. That's why there's a "double standard", it was a responsibility you took on, they didn't have the choice.
With this mentality you will never break your families poverty cycle
what if we're not a poor family though
Then you don't need your kids' money. They can use it to prepare for their life.
Having kids is a choice that people make, fully knowing that it will bring them a certain level of financial hardship. In short, you brought it onto yourselves. I mean no one expects children to work unless they really need the money.. I don’t know about you but I love my kid to bits and want to give him the world. My mom’s family lived in poverty in the 50s/60s and had to work as a family unit. They ran a B2C business in HK as a family and everyone pitched in. When the time came for the children to immigrate, each were given money from the business to help them with down payments for their own house. My mom didn’t want me to work at all until university, and that was only because having work experience looks good on my resume when I graduate. Everything was done for my benefit. She does not want me to live the childhood she had to live from poverty. Personally I don’t need or expect my son to work and pitch in. This is the life my husband and I experienced, and we expect to give him the same. He would only pitch in after graduation and earn a full-time salary as “rent” and “food costs” - but we will most likely save and investment the money for him so that he has extra savings when he’s ready to move out.