But I feel fairly confident saying the majority of people had nothing to fall back on, they took whatever income they had, and there was no retirement for greater than 90% of people, at least not as we view retirement today. If you were lucky to have children to support you
Keep coming . . . a little closer . . . a little closer . . . Cause you’re almost about to make my case for me.
(Just so there’s no confusion, don’t get the impression that I’m making the work situation during the years in and following the Industrial Revolution out to be some sort of ideal. That isn’t my point.)
The point is, that even though there was no pension plan, and no SS, people still survived- lived, even. And they did it by relying on their families, and properly viewed, relying on one’s family doesn’t make one a burden, it makes one family. (And how much easily and more comfortably could we adopt this practice today, when we also have the benefits of soft cushy jobs and material prosperity that was undreamed of in earlier years?)
I’m not against the practice of the family supporting its elderly members. I just don’t think it is as nearly fail-safe as many would like it to be. It’s definitely a tool, but we can’t reasonably expect all families to support their elderly. Nor reasonably expect (obviously) all elderly to have a family.
My main point is that prior to SS people were more likely to fall through the cracks. Nor do I blame SS for lack of familial support (I blame many other things), but do include American societies incorrect views on what SS constitutes (government retirement program).
Since I wasn’t totally disagreeing with you, I can’t totally make your point
My main point is that prior to SS people were more likely to fall through the cracks. Well, naturally, I don’t disagree with that. I didn’t mean to give the impression that I think SS should be abolished entirely in favor of family support. I’m only saying that if family support was once again the norm, the societal standard, the default position, SS would be a much easier and less burdensome system to maintain. It’s a relatively easy matter to provide for people who fall through the cracks, as compared to providing for everyone.
**Nor do I blame SS for lack of familial support (I blame many other things) **Same here.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not opposed to strengthening extended families, but how do you do it? People are very mobile these days. I live and work on the opposite side of the continent from my parents and other family members. Should there be regulations or tax incentives against this? I’m not saying that your idea is impossible or undesirable. I’m saying, “Terrific - how the f do you do it?” I agree that this is a somewhat depressing view of modern life. But I think it is very realistic.
Interesting- I live across the country from most of my family, too. That’s why Mrs. Vitus flew home with our boys Tuesday- to visit her parents and my parents, and the rest of both families. We make an effort to get the boys back in NJ at least twice a year. In the spring, she takes them while I stay here, and in the summer we all go. And we stay in contact with the East coast family members regularly throughout the year. You don’t need to always live in the next town to have strong family ties.
No, I don’t think there should be laws and tax incentives regulating this and penalizing you for living too far away from your family. (Here I am proposing an organic, human solution to a governmental problem, and here you are asking me if I want to achieve that solution with more government programs. You’re killing me, here, man.)
I agree that this is a somewhat depressing view of modern life. But I think it is very realistic.
Well, I don’t think so. I certainly agree that we don’t currently live in a culture with a strong extended family. But I think it’s definitely possible to change that- just like I think that just because society has grown less civil in recent decades, it doesn’t mean that incivility is an inevitability.
How do we get there? One family at a time, I’d say.
Your “solution” reminds me of the following old joke, which I’m sure you’ve heard:
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on a desert island. One day, a big crate filled with cans of chili washes ashore. The three of them are sitting on the beach trying to figure out how to open the cans.
The physicist proposes: we can determine the strength of the metal can and then calculate the force needed to break the can open without splattering all of the chili. I can then figure out exactly how high to throw the can so that it lands on a rock with the correct force.
The chemist counters: no, no, no, you’ll never be able to throw it to just the right height. If we leave it in the hot sun for exactly the right amount of time and then quickly dip it in the cold ocean, the can will crack right open.
The economist says: That’s all much too complicated. First, assume a can opener. . .
the following old joke, which I’m sure you’ve heard:
I haven’t actually heard that one. Pretty good.
But if you don’t like my idea of people-driven societal change, consider my earlier suggestion that extended families might actually wind up being strengthened as a matter of necessity, depending on what happens with SS.
**But if you don’t like my idea of people-driven societal change, consider my earlier suggestion that extended families might actually wind up being strengthened as a matter of necessity, depending on what happens with SS. **
I.e., If we ignore the problem, people will create a solution you like. The converse of that is the notion that SS has created a family problem by allowing people to ignore older family members.
I don’t know that this is the basis of sound public policy.
One thing you are overlooking is the modern lifestyle. It’s all about the newest, biggest, and most expensive. people are living most of their lives in debt. If we only consumed what we needed having mom and dad living with us wouldn’t be that hard. make your shower a little faster, don’t have that second helping at diner, no new bike this year and your even. What you’re talking about is possible but not going to happen. We wouldn’t need SS if people were better with their money(and yes i’m being very judgmental)
I.e., If we ignore the problem, people will create a solution you like.
That’s not what I’m saying. It isn’t like I have some nefarious and insidious plan to create stronger family bonds, and I’m willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it.
But it looks to me, basically, that Social Security as currently structured is just simply an untenable program. Eventually, it *is *going to give, and some other structure(s) is going to have to pick up the slack.
The converse of that is the notion that SS has created a family problem by allowing people to ignore older family members.
I’ve already said that I don’t think SS created the problem, though I think it’s fair enough to say that it contributed to it. (But again, I think you’re attributing a motive to me that I don’t have. I haven’t been sitting around scheming and waiting for some opportunity to restore intergenerational family bonds. I’m just saying that stronger family ties offer a pretty good solution, at least partially, to the actual problem.)
A possiblity in vitus’ plan is for someone in your family to move, either you or your folks. They come live with you, or you go live with them, but you support them.
If no moving is involved you send them money to either pay for their living expenses or healthcare etc, or you at least supplement their personal retirement income they amassed in their lives of working.
A very calluous (and economically driven view) would be “If you don’t want to support your own parents, why would I? What benefit do I get from it? Tough s___ for them.”
I personally think there’s some middle ground on this, which I think is what you are driving at.
I haven’t actually heard that one. Pretty good.