Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To a pp, people usually die when the person there -- to hold their hand -- has stepped out of the room.
Yes, this happened with my sister, who had a developmental disability and was living in a group home. We arrived in the night. I spent a little time with her where a hospice music therapist was playing while she dozed (so beautiful), then went back to the hotel with the family. Got up the next morning and went over to sit with her. Then went back to get family to bring them over and while I had stepped out, she passed away.
And the staff person told me, “our residents often let go when family has reached them.”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Your in-laws aren't Boomers, they are Silent Generation.
Exactly what I was going to post.
The oldest boomers were born in '46 (I've even seen it specified as the second half of '46.) So the oldest boomers are currently 77 (or maybe just turned 78 in the last month, if you're not be so specific as to only count the second half of '46.)
NP here. This is what you’re focused on? Sweet Jesus. FFS.
A person focused on Boomer bashing with this manufactured generational angst isn't to be taken seriously. These are in-laws, not even her parents. Let the spouse deal.
And you just know OP would whine mercilessly if her ILs moved near her and her doctor husband. There is no pleasing her.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Your in-laws aren't Boomers, they are Silent Generation.
Exactly what I was going to post.
The oldest boomers were born in '46 (I've even seen it specified as the second half of '46.) So the oldest boomers are currently 77 (or maybe just turned 78 in the last month, if you're not be so specific as to only count the second half of '46.)
NP here. This is what you’re focused on? Sweet Jesus. FFS.
A person focused on Boomer bashing with this manufactured generational angst isn't to be taken seriously. These are in-laws, not even her parents. Let the spouse deal.
And you just know OP would whine mercilessly if her ILs moved near her and her doctor husband. There is no pleasing her.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Your in-laws aren't Boomers, they are Silent Generation.
Exactly what I was going to post.
The oldest boomers were born in '46 (I've even seen it specified as the second half of '46.) So the oldest boomers are currently 77 (or maybe just turned 78 in the last month, if you're not be so specific as to only count the second half of '46.)
NP here. This is what you’re focused on? Sweet Jesus. FFS.
A person focused on Boomer bashing with this manufactured generational angst isn't to be taken seriously. These are in-laws, not even her parents. Let the spouse deal.
Far away aging parents in need of care is a strain on a whole marriage, not just the spouse whose parents it is. It's money, it's time away, and it's worry weighing on your spouse.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My mother is now contending with widowhood, a move to assisted living in another state near family and the loss of a beloved pet who cannot be accommodated in assisted living. She keeps saying “it’s not fair! I am losing everything all at once - my husband, my home, etc” but here’s the thing. She is facing this massive upset because they did no planning. They should have moved near family 15 years ago. The dog should have been rehomed years ago since they couldn’t care for it properly. There should have been a conversation about her mild dementia and her husbands terminal diagnosis prior to his death. To me, it is beyond frustrating to see this type of magical thinking and failure to plan. My husband and I have vowed not to do this to our kids and have set up a pretty strict timeline regarding moving, downsizing etc.
You hit the nail on the head. This was my parents with a dependent sibling thrown in, who's now screaming "it's not fair" when sibling refused to do much to increase earnings in 20 years prior.
The question is not downsizing - the question is do you have the money to stay where you are and the ability/desire to hire in help if you don't downsize. For us to downsize, we will be spending MORE on smaller accommodations, when we can simply install an elevator for much less and plan to hire in help when needed, so our kids can be our kids and not our caretakers. I have a friend up the street living in only 1000 feet of her 5000 square foot home, which is very workable. What is NOT workable is that she refuses to hire in anyone to help her, even though she's disabled and depends on her one kid (who she's burning out) and friends and neighbors to do things for her, who are getting increasingly upset at her refusal to help herself. And it's not just 'can you grab me some bread at the grocery store since you are going'. There are very specific instructions and demands that go with each favor.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Your in-laws aren't Boomers, they are Silent Generation.
Exactly what I was going to post.
The oldest boomers were born in '46 (I've even seen it specified as the second half of '46.) So the oldest boomers are currently 77 (or maybe just turned 78 in the last month, if you're not be so specific as to only count the second half of '46.)
NP here. This is what you’re focused on? Sweet Jesus. FFS.
A person focused on Boomer bashing with this manufactured generational angst isn't to be taken seriously. These are in-laws, not even her parents. Let the spouse deal.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It is not selfish for you not to want to move.
It is also not selfish for them not to want to move.
Figure out what you can do/how you can help, given that you live in two different places, and then do that.
It's not that simple. How do you tell your parents, "sorry you're in the ER alone, I have to go to work and take care of my sick kid? I can't fly out there" You can have plans in place but the reality is that as the needs go up people need family. Hired caregivers flake, quit and can take advantage of things. Someone needs to be there regularly to check in and keep an eye on things.
Also - this age in place in a 4000sf house is just disgusting. All that space and the resources to maintain it being used (a/c, energy, etc) It's so American.
Anonymous wrote:It is not selfish for you not to want to move.
It is also not selfish for them not to want to move.
Figure out what you can do/how you can help, given that you live in two different places, and then do that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Your in-laws aren't Boomers, they are Silent Generation.
Exactly what I was going to post.
The oldest boomers were born in '46 (I've even seen it specified as the second half of '46.) So the oldest boomers are currently 77 (or maybe just turned 78 in the last month, if you're not be so specific as to only count the second half of '46.)
NP here. This is what you’re focused on? Sweet Jesus. FFS.
A person focused on Boomer bashing with this manufactured generational angst isn't to be taken seriously. These are in-laws, not even her parents. Let the spouse deal.
Anonymous wrote:To a pp, people usually die when the person there -- to hold their hand -- has stepped out of the room.