Do the elderly always end up alone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Without an actual wealth transfer early on, the old are "eating the young", which is exactly what is happening. The old in the US are the wealthiest part of the population, which has never been the case in history. So go ahead and age in place, having your childless kids run around you in circles. Only: no grandchildren for you. Nobody is going to give you grandkids when you finally die at 90+ with your own kids at 60+, who never had the means to buy a house or have a family.

Yikes to the anger in this post.

But, maybe the problem is not only wealth transfer but the systems in place -or lack thereof- to assist families in reasonably and humanely deal with aging family members. It's kind of a tragedy, imo. And I don't know why we accept it.

[Anonymous]

No anger here Traditional wealth transfer was the system in place (from father to son, including a profession and all skills from early on), which got dismantled due to changes in the society (industrial development, WW2, women entering workforce, technology) and resulting economic growth. It's over, but the old refuse to believe it, holding on to what's theirs and demanding more. How do you deal with aging family members when you live 1000s miles apart having built up your own life from scratch, which took decades, have a family and young kids? You have a mortgage, student loans, pay for daycare, schools, save for college? You don't, it's impossible. Realistically, the old will very likely overwhelm all systems: healthcare (hospitals and AL), financials (social security), housing market (staying in place), you name it. Add to this long life expectancy. We accept it, because we don't know what else to do, there has never been a society with so many old people holding so much wealth living so long. Most likely it'll indeed evolve into technology based care for us (robots) and we have to get used to it. Just like we got used to kids' daycares and all-day schools. We don't expect our kids to do brain operations on us, we also need to get used to the reality that lawyers, doctors, college professors or anyone else who spent years getting their life on track are not the people who are going to buy our groceries, clean our houses or change our diapers. I can guarantee you'll not be able to manipulate current young to the same degree as us middle-aged folk with your "moral obligation" talk. Because moral obligation also used to work both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nowadays, very likely, and one should plan accordingly. When the pension systems were implemented less than 100 years ago, nobody was expected to live over age of 65. Elderly lived in their own homes, in many cases farms, which the eldest son took over, thus being able to earn a living and obtain housing for his family. The elderly took care of the children in return. All this has changed. The elderly live until 90+ and our medical system is able to keep them living way past which was possible before. Just high blood pressure pills will probably add 2+ decades to your life. Expectation of your "kids" to abandon their families, earn no income and cater to you, while you've provided no childcare or no ways to earn income or provide housing (i.e. farm) is completely unrealistic. Elder care has historically always relied on mutual help between generations. But now it's another example of the wants of the me-generation, who had it easy when young, getting help from their parents, and now expect help from their children, providing nothing in return. It obviously isn't sustainable. So yes, expect to end up alone if you have not helped your adult kids with their childrearing , housing and income stream. The society will not survive by transferring everything to the old on the account of the young: just look at Western population pyramids.

In what universe has a parent “provided nothing” to the children they raised?

And your little transactional take on how families work makes no mention of love or responsibility.

What a sad, hallow human you must be.

[Anonymous]

Not my parents and ILs. They moved in with their offsprings. Contributed to the household financially to cover their part and also to ease the running of the household. They kept in touch with their siblings, nephews and nieces, ILs, through WhatsApp. They are valuable members of the family. My dad and FIL, died peacefully at home. They had medical attendants to look after them and their near and dear ones were with them. They were visited by their siblings and ILs. They kept in touch with their friends and family.

BUT, they are from a different culture where multigenerational living is the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
In what universe has a parent “provided nothing” to the children they raised?

And your little transactional take on how families work makes no mention of love or responsibility.

What a sad, hallow human you must be.

Oh, do I have bad news for you! Your whole life is a representation of transactions of one kind or the other. In fact elder care itself is based on a social contract between generations, where everybody contributes to raising the children and in return they get taken care of when old.

You don't seem to understand this. I'm not surprised, because you probably have no experience with a multigenerational household. The point is, taking care of minors is not the achievement you seem to think it is, especially the type of care now where kids go from daycares to all-day schools. You're literally obliged to provide this care. In a society where the young take care of the old, the old contribute to the ADULT children. It includes the transfer of (most) wealth before they die (yes, material as well as knowledge, remember when people considered the old wise?). It also includes the transfer of POWER. In a multigenerational household the head of household is the adult child, not the old. So this entitles considering your adult kids actual adults (not constant critique), getting along with your adult children (especially daughter-in-law, who in most cases does elder care), contributing ACTIVELY to childrearing (day-to-day when living in a multigenerational household and before that, remember when kids used to spend their summers at grandma's?), teaching the adult kids all necessary knowledge and provide finances to actually adult (no failure to launch, women knew how to cook and take care of the house, men knew household fixes, this IN ADDITION to providing knowledge/finances for jobs), and often, surprise-surprise -- arranged marriages, because a marriage of your son or daughter into another respectable family provided stable lifelong households. Are you perhaps surprised why family matriarch used to have such influence on their kids finding spouses? Does it make sense now?

In other words, elder care is not some kind of lotto win at the end of your life. It's a culmination of your contribution to your own family OVER your lifetime. So it's not that the young are not doing their part (why are my adult kids not taking care of meeeee, not moving in with meeeee, not doing what I want!), it's that the current old in most cases have dropped their rope. You must be one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many (not all) families didn't deal with this to the extent we are seeing now. People are living longer. My grandparents all died when I was in middle school. So people weren't giving it too much thought. Now, my parents' generation is living longer, but many don't have the means to pay for elder care. Or pay to move. Pay to downsize, since even a smaller place frequently more expensive than the old pile.

I am now in the process of dealing with my parents and siblings in-laws deal with elder issues. It is so sad to watch, both for them, and for the thought that thesis what is ahead.

I feel for you, OP. But the PP's advice of grieving, then get busy living and making these years the best they can be, resonated with me.

The oldest generation is now living so long that the "kids" who are expected to be able to take care of them are not spring chickens themselves. My brother is in his sixties and recently had some kind of back operation. Guess who can no longer help his 90 year old mother in and out of bed and into the car, up and down the stairs, etc. We can foresee a scenario in which our parents live to their late 90's and we are in our seventies, and instead of caring for ourselves we are caring for an even older generation. Newsflash: There are people in their seventies with significant health issues who probably shouldn't be driving, who suffer from cataracts, who struggle driving at night, etc. And yet we will be the caregivers for people in their nineties! When do WE get to be old and looked after?

Well if you are watching this happen to the generation before you, plan now.

Cancer caused by toxins in the environment, global climate change catastrophes, unchecked pandemics, unvaxxed children dying and human unrest will cull the herd.

[Anonymous]

I’ve had three friends in their early 60s die recently from aggressive cancers. All fit and looking forward to enjoying their retirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In what universe has a parent “provided nothing” to the children they raised?

And your little transactional take on how families work makes no mention of love or responsibility.

What a sad, hallow human you must be.

Oh, do I have bad news for you! Your whole life is a representation of transactions of one kind or the other. In fact elder care itself is based on a social contract between generations, where everybody contributes to raising the children and in return they get taken care of when old.

You don't seem to understand this. I'm not surprised, because you probably have no experience with a multigenerational household. The point is, taking care of minors is not the achievement you seem to think it is, especially the type of care now where kids go from daycares to all-day schools. You're literally obliged to provide this care. In a society where the young take care of the old, the old contribute to the ADULT children. It includes the transfer of (most) wealth before they die (yes, material as well as knowledge, remember when people considered the old wise?). It also includes the transfer of POWER. In a multigenerational household the head of household is the adult child, not the old. So this entitles considering your adult kids actual adults (not constant critique), getting along with your adult children (especially daughter-in-law, who in most cases does elder care), contributing ACTIVELY to childrearing (day-to-day when living in a multigenerational household and before that, remember when kids used to spend their summers at grandma's?), teaching the adult kids all necessary knowledge and provide finances to actually adult (no failure to launch, women knew how to cook and take care of the house, men knew household fixes, this IN ADDITION to providing knowledge/finances for jobs), and often, surprise-surprise -- arranged marriages, because a marriage of your son or daughter into another respectable family provided stable lifelong households. Are you perhaps surprised why family matriarch used to have such influence on their kids finding spouses? Does it make sense now?

In other words, elder care is not some kind of lotto win at the end of your life. It's a culmination of your contribution to your own family OVER your lifetime. So it's not that the young are not doing their part (why are my adult kids not taking care of meeeee, not moving in with meeeee, not doing what I want!), it's that the current old in most cases have dropped their rope. You must be one of them.

.

You are exhausting.