Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Retirement Planning Thru Family Planning

I'd say this fellow gets it exactly correct (ht Captain Capitalism):
[I]n modern Western states, government responsibility for the aged replaced [the] social contract. Now, all children take care of all elderly collectively, via government programs financed by current tax contributions.* Fertility rates in these countries dropped dramatically, because people no longer “needed“ to have children for the “old age security motive”. (Why go through the effort and cost of raising children yourself, when the government will look after you in your old age anyway!). In addition, the heavy tax burden on workers (a feature of the socialized economy), made it difficult for mothers to stay at home and raise multiple children. Currently, the resultant smaller tax pool (few young workers) is supporting an inordinately large elderly population. This scenario is unsustainable. Hospitals in socialized countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Italy are “already overworked with the elderly (and) medical costs are bankrupting the government”. Shockingly, there is such a shortage of actual people to look after the elderly, that it has necessitated immigration programs, specifically to take care of the needs of the elderly. In the UK, live-in care workers are often young people from other countries who now take care of the elderly who have no, or too few children, to take care of them in old age, be it financially, physically or emotionally.

Another Western trend is the delay of childbearing, especially as women pursue higher education and careers. Just a few decades ago, women here started having babies in their early twenties, but now, with improved healthcare and nutrition, it has become common for women to have their first babies in their thirties. Delaying childbearing for “only” ten years, has vast consequences for family support structures. For example, a woman who started having children in her early twenties, will have (multiple) adult children and adult grandchildren (provided her daughters and daughters-in-law did the same) by the time she is 60 years old. In contrast, a woman who delayed childbearing until her thirties, and her daughter did the same, will have (one or two) adult children, who are still in the throes of rearing non-adult children. This has led to the “sandwich generation” phenomenon where women in their forties or fifties, face the the double burden of taking care of their own still growing offspring, as well as their aging parents.
Although the author of this passage is Muslim, and offers some selected quotes from the Koran in support of his post, I note here that the Bible has not a few verses exhorting children to care for their aging parents as part of the duty of a grown child to honor their parents, so that they may not be a burden upon others: Exodus 20:121 Timothy 5:4, 1 Timothy 5:8, and 1 Timothy 5:16.  All this is  pretty hard to do this if you failed to permit your life to be blessed with the "arrows" of your youth in the first place.

But it's not just elder care.  The shift away from families as the primary welfare institution--which Chruch as backstop--and toward the State is sapping the vitality of the whole of society. The sheer size of tax burden, and the loans (which transfer future consumption to the present) taken out to finance the massive welfare system, make it that much more difficult to save sufficiently for one's future. And this is before we consider the double-whammy effect of welfare, in that it not only subsidizes indolence but that person's labor does not add to the tax base from which these transfer payments are made.

In the end, the future belongs to those who show up for it.  Vigorous, self-sustaining, natalist creeds will inherit the Earth.  Those philosophies that do not, will not.

* I'll quibble with the author here, in that social welfare spending is financed by both current tax contributions and future taxes moved "left" on the timeline in the present.  In other words, present social spending is not only today's consumption, but tomorrow's consumption as well.  How insane is it to obligate the unborn grandchildren twenty years from now to pay for the high living of a Silent or Boomer retiree today?


newrebeluniv said...

The worst of the defrauders though are those who will collect all those benefits (everyone) without even contributing grandchildren to pay for it

newrebeluniv said...

The westerm family model is for parents to provide for the children and send them outinto the world. Parents continue to provide for themselves and build wealth until they die and pass wealth to their children.

The modern welfare state turns that on its head. Even the idea of planned retirement causes parenrs to expend their life's savings before they can pass it along.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"...without even contributing grandchildren to pay for it"

Agreed. It's a moral fail to enslave one's own children for your comfort; it's worse to obligate other people's grandchildren so one may hit the golf course every day.

I don't have an issue with planned retirement, as it is people enjoying the fruits of their labors. But I note the same folks that brought us planned retirement are the same ones that introduced the concept of warehousing their parents in old folks homes because they couldn't be inconvenienced to care for them.

ray said...

"The shift away from families as the primary welfare institution--which Chruch as backstop--and toward the State is sapping the vitality of the whole of society"

the "vitality" (i.e. masculinity)of US society long ago was sapped, very deliberately and knowingly

God gave amerika EVERYTHING (including His own people) and it all was squandered and stolen in a half-century -- a nation so blessed with riches it believed it could simply jettison fatherhood and masculinity, and glut herself endlessly

... utterly thoughtless of future generations, as temporally thoughtless as a skreeching spoiled brat

the male-headed family has been dead for decades, tho the horse is still being whipped -- and you are v right, that's a collective expression of extreme selfishness and solipsism, in which we simply ignore the future (and its beings) for temporary Empowerment and Fabulousness now

you want your wives to double-dip on salaries? your dotters to enjoy superior status over males across all cultural contexts?

okee you got it, the result = a future of misery and death

like yrself, the vast majority of amerikans want an "equal opportunity" society (which means de facto gynarchy, as equality, like liberty, comes from Hell) and reject any suggestion of a full-male employment society ... which is the ONLY way you and Corporal Capitalism are gonna get that stable future you desire, as it's the ONLY way to restore father-led families

"In the end, the future belongs to those who show up for it."

the future belong to whomever Christ (and/or his servants) say it belongs to

heaven is hierarchichal and does not operate according to Group Consensus . . . that'd be THIS place (satan's world)

"Vigorous, self-sustaining, natalist creeds will inherit the Earth. Those philosophies that do not, will not."

the meek will inherit the earth(with a fist behind them)

their humility before God is the sole sustainable "philosophy"

but yr general point about the non-sustainability of the amerikan gynogulag is well taken

vultureofcritique said...

"Vigorous, self-sustaining, natalist creeds will inherit the Earth. Those philosophies that do not, will not."

the meek will inherit the earth(with a fist behind them)

I believe the actual Greek word in the N.T. is "praus," which is not really "meek" so much as "trained" or "tamed."

A wolf is not "praus." A war dog or a hunting falcon is "praus."

So the Christians who inherit the earth might very well be disciplined and violent.

Carnivore said...

It takes more than having children. By my observation, I've seen Silent Generation members who did have more than two children yet still failed the retirement plan. It takes three things, actually:

1. Yes, children, of course.

2. Instruction, by example when the children are small, of elder care. That is, if the parents (of #1) don't bother with their own parents, the children won't automatically grow up understanding that they have a duty to take care of their parents.

3. The willingness to accept care and help and hand over control to the next generation.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Vulture,


@ Carnivore,

Great comment. I think you've described the mechanism that I've observed Silents parking their own parents in old folks homes, rather than take care of them themselves.

I know it's hard, taking care of an aging parent. But I can't imagine the helplessness feeling one would get when one can't really look after oneself as well as one needs, yet your own children refuse to to do the deed themselves and instead subcontract that job out to paid strangers. Who aren't likely to care about you as much as your own family would, which isn't saying much since your own family parked you in the rest home in the first place.

Srinivasan Natarajan said...

Once people trusts their old age with government instead of their own children, family system's collapse is initiated

I love your blogs. Thanks