Birth rates / Fertility

[hk blues]

11 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Out of interest can one of the posters going down the route of not being a burden explain how they hope to achieve this? Not suggesting it's not a noble aim, just wondering how it's done in practice.

[BFTD]

10 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Out of interest can one of the posters going down the route of not being a burden explain how they hope to achieve this? Not suggesting it's not a noble aim, just wondering how it's done in practice.

The answer will be, "be rich", with an edgelord slice of, "I'd rather top myself than be a burden".

Self-aggrandising fantasy bollocks, in other words.

[Thorongil]

30 minutes ago, DMCs said:

So you wouldn't be upset or sad if your children didn't visit you at all in your old age? If they didn't bring their own children over so you could meet your grandkids? 

If that were to come to pass I would need to consider my own role in creating such a scenario. 

I hope very much that I have good relationships with my adult children, but it should never be on account of obligation on their part. If they as adults like me and want to spend time with me, great, I’ll be delighted. 

If it doesn’t work out that way I certainly won’t be guilt tripping them into coming to see their “poor old Dad”. 

[vikingTON]

19 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Out of interest can one of the posters going down the route of not being a burden explain how they hope to achieve this? Not suggesting it's not a noble aim, just wondering how it's done in practice.

Seems as practical as you chaining up your sprogs in the basement every night so that they'll be around to clean your drool tbh. 

[Thorongil]

6 minutes ago, BFTD said:

The answer will be, "be rich", with an edgelord slice of, "I'd rather top myself than be a burden".

Self-aggrandising fantasy bollocks, in other words.

Well, I’d definitely rather be a burden than top myself personally, but to each his own. 
 

it’s not really an either/or though.

[Alert Mongoose]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

Seems as practical as you chaining up your sprogs in the basement every night so that they'll be around to clean your drool tbh. 

That's certainly cleared that question up.  

[coprolite]

5 minutes ago, BFTD said:

The answer will be, "be rich", with an edgelord slice of, "I'd rather top myself than be a burden".

Self-aggrandising fantasy bollocks, in other words.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the NHS 50 years hence takes that decision out of our hands. Once you've exhausted your assets you'll be released into the wild or offered a surfeit of diamorphine. 

[BFTD]

1 minute ago, coprolite said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if the NHS 50 years hence takes that decision out of our hands. Once you've exhausted your assets you'll be released into the wild or offered a surfeit of diamorphine. 

The way things are going, folk at the bottom of society will be asking for the sweet release of Futurama's suicide booths long before old age.

[Sergeant Wilson]

11 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Absolutely agree.

I've already told my kids that when my time comes, my time comes.

I couldn't live with myself knowing I was a burden on them and that they'd had to sacrifice their own adult lives to wipe my arse or feed me through a straw. That's all on me as far as I'm concerned.

They owe me nothing and I've made sure they understand that.

When they visit or keep in touch, they know I only want them to do so if they want to do it. Otherwise they are insulting me and wasting their own time. Of course it's always lovely to hear from them. If there's a void in my life since they left home, that's my problem and I have no business hassling them to keep me from feeling lost. BTW, it turned out to be a lot harder than I expected but it's not their problem to fix.

How does Thursday or Friday suit you?

[Sergeant Wilson]

42 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

If that were to come to pass I would need to consider my own role in creating such a scenario. 

I hope very much that I have good relationships with my adult children, but it should never be on account of obligation on their part. If they as adults like me and want to spend time with me, great, 

Really,what are the chances?

[Satoshi]

1 hour ago, badgerthewitness said:

Outstanding post until the Aldous Huxleyan penultimate paragraph. 

Edited for clarification: the inference of you offering the domestic something slightly better than abject poverty reeks of exploitation. Hardly progressive.

Its not slightly better, it's much better, and they can support extended families with their wages.

I don't have one (bit pointless in my current situation) but I have seen how it is economically beneficial to the individual involved.

I might have thought the same as you, until I saw plenty of first hand examples directly contradicting that perspective.

Do you think the moral choice would be not hiring a domestic worker?

[Monkey Tennis]

Some excellent drivel in evidence about family members owing each other absolutely nothing.

Even Thatcher acknowledged that such obligations exist.  It was just society that apparently didn't.

[vikingTON]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Some excellent drivel in evidence about family members owing each other absolutely nothing.

Even Thatcher acknowledged that such obligations exist.  It was just society that apparently didn't.

Of course Thatcher 'acknowledged' (read: peddled) this, because it fits entirely with the right-wing neoliberal vision of self-contained nuclear families looking out for themselves only and sod the community around them. 

It also abdicated the responsibility of the state to fund a social care service and so allowed for Thatcherite tax cuts for the rich. And so here we are. 

[hk blues]

16 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Its not slightly better, it's much better, and they can support extended families with their wages.

I don't have one (bit pointless in my current situation) but I have seen how it is economically beneficial to the individual involved.

I might have thought the same as you, until I saw plenty of first hand examples directly contradicting that perspective.

Do you think the moral choice would be not hiring a domestic worker?

My wife being one - she was not only willing but proud to be working abroad (Hong Kong) to sustain the family back home in the Philippines.  Unfortunately, it does create a culture "back home" where many, many families are reliant on handouts from OFWs and once this dries up as it inevitably does they are f****d. And, not to mention families that are split because the wife/husband is working abroad and there is simply no way they can afford to (or are willing to) give up the standard of living the family have become accustomed to. 

To put some perspective on the scale of the "problem" - in my street every single family bar maybe 2 (around 16 families) have OFWs.  

I could go on and on detailing the pros and cons of the OFWs but it is what it is.  

 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

13 minutes ago, virginton said:

Of course Thatcher 'acknowledged' (read: peddled) this, because it fits entirely with the right-wing neoliberal vision of self-contained nuclear families looking out for themselves only and sod the community around them. 

It also abdicated the responsibility of the state to fund a social care service and so allowed for Thatcherite tax cuts for the rich. And so here we are. 

Well yes, obviously.

Thanks for telling me though.

[Satoshi]

4 minutes ago, hk blues said:

My wife being one - she was not only willing but proud to be working abroad (Hong Kong) to sustain the family back home in the Philippines.  Unfortunately, it does create a culture "back home" where many, many families are reliant on handouts from OFWs and once this dries up as it inevitably does they are f****d. And, not to mention families that are split because the wife/husband is working abroad and there is simply no way they can afford to (or are willing to) give up the standard of living the family have become accustomed to. 

To put some perspective on the scale of the "problem" - in my street every single family bar maybe 2 (around 16 families) have OFWs.  

I could go on and on detailing the pros and cons of the OFWs but it is what it is.  

 

 

Agreed, it's hardly a panacea nor a desired end state.

The moral choice you face as an individual is hire or not, I didn't, but if I had a family I certainly would.

And then the second requirement is paying them a fair wage and treating them like a human being (again obvious but hardly universal).

Some people might be morally adverse to this and wouldn't hire a domestic helper, that's fine too but you can hardly vilify the first choice (provided the conditions mentioned above are in place).

[DiegoDiego]

I could go on and on detailing the pros and cons of the OFWs but it is what it is.

Bang average keeper if you ask me.

[badgerthewitness]

41 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Its not slightly better, it's much better, and they can support extended families with their wages.

I don't have one (bit pointless in my current situation) but I have seen how it is economically beneficial to the individual involved.

I might have thought the same as you, until I saw plenty of first hand examples directly contradicting that perspective.

Do you think the moral choice would be not hiring a domestic worker?

I think the moral choice would be providing the domestic worker with a living wage, time off, training opportunities, health care etc. I hope your upstairs-downstairs paradigm makes allowance for such basic human rights.

[hk blues]

Just now, Satoshi said:

Agreed, it's hardly a panacea nor a desired end state.

The moral choice you face as an individual is hire or not, I didn't, but if I had a family I certainly would.

And then the second requirement is paying them a fair wage and treating them like a human being (again obvious but hardly universal).

Some people might be morally adverse to this and wouldn't hire a domestic helper, that's fine too but you can hardly vilify the first choice (provided the conditions mentioned above are in place).

And therein lies the real problem - I assume you are well-versed in how badly a significant minority are treated by their employers and not only the local families? And how do you qualify a "fair wage" - based on local market rates, home country rates or something else?  

I have no moral issue with the system but there are some deep-rooted social issues surrounding it.  

[vikingTON]

17 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Well yes, obviously.

Thanks for telling me though.

No thanks for you regurgitating right-wing claptrap about the family as some sort of reasonable perspective though.