pull down to refresh

3 generations are in one household

This is how things used to be, and that made older folks more of an asset than a burden, they could spend time and teach things to grand/great-grand children. Help around the house and light tasks. This gave them a will to live. There were also more caregivers that didn't have to go out of their way and could share the burdensome parts so the aged didn't lose their will by feeling like a burden.

The rat race of modernity broke up the multi-generational household, dual income no kids or having kids later in life, leaving older folks no purpose, just to become a cost to the family in an assisted living facility.

The pharmaceutical complex made it even worse, treating acute symptoms while degrading overall wellness and independence.

she could have lasted another few years

The conditions above combine to take the will to live before the body is ready, a compounding spiral that makes the family miserable and thus the aged even more so.

I don't think that's a horrible outcome

There's worse outcomes sure, maybe, the sad part everything that lead up to her losing that will to live.

My grandmother just had her 100th Christmas, lives independently, but that will is fading fast... the woman has lost her husband, siblings, friends, and oldest son... there's not much the rest of us can do about that despite our efforts to make sure she knows well her great grandkids. She has a DNR, I know others who's grandparents have just asked doctors for a little extra morphine which seems to be fairly common in hospice settings.

84 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 2h
The rat race of modernity broke up the multi-generational household, dual income no kids or having kids later in life, leaving older folks no purpose, just to become a cost to the family in an assisted living facility.

We are hearing people bring this up more today than 10 years ago but it's still pretty rare. I think we have been conditioned to think modernity is always progress. I am convinced we are largely clueless about what we have lost. The tradeoffs. The balance of benefits and deficits.

I'm very individualistic but as I mature I am learning what we have lost due to our rejection of tradition and family. It feels like we are peaking in this with the political division you see I families. It's absurd to me, but I think it's becoming more common.

I beleive this destruction of the family and traditional social structure has driven people to embrace socialistic ideas. The state becomes you family. However those ties are weak and do not fill the gap.

reply

What you say is true but the nature of technology has resulted in humans needing to operate in larger and larger groups to optimise the potential wealth and security that can result from being in a group.
The family while still biologically and emotionally valid is no longer a potent economic unit.
It was when farming was done by a family and farming was the most common occupation.
That world no longer exists in the developed world.
The nation state, and its collective capacity to build security and economic scale, like it or hate it is more important to the wealth of people than ever before.
And most people want wealth . . . as much as they can get.

reply

McCarthy was right about everything.

reply
The rat race of modernity broke up the multi-generational household, dual income no kids or having kids later in life, leaving older folks no purpose, just to become a cost to the family in an assisted living facility.

this. 100%

reply
38 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 3h

Yep, also demographics are also a driver. In 1940 when you have 5 siblings, its not an overwhelming burden to collectively care for your aged mother.

In 2026 when there are just 2 kids who live in different cities (due to rat-race economic factors), its an overwhelming burden thus care homes are needed.

Added to that, Social Security also drove people to have less kids since "having 5 kids" was the original SS.

reply

Yea policy and culture effected demographics, self reinforcing doom loop... Losing multi generational housing makes kids more of a burden too without grandparents to help

reply
having kids later in life

This isn't discussed often enough. It has profound implications for family dynamics.

I often counsel people to start having kids sooner rather than later, in part because it means they'll become grandparents at a younger age but also because it allows their parents to become grandparents when they're younger.

Becoming a grandparent in your early 50's is very different than becoming a grandparent in your 70's.

reply

Yea we definitely fell into the waiting a trap for awhile, and would surely have more had we started a bit earlier. Fortunately our parents are still getting good times and we have a good chance to as well.

Much of that was always knowing we'd homeschool, which the system is absolutely designed to repress.

reply