Nuclear families is a less evel than shoking disrespect and cruelty to the old we see here though
I'm not thinking of the generations being forced to live together, and both the young and old need special protection from the state, they both being especially vulnerable and dependent on others. (Plus I think the main problem is poverty and/or over-crowding - there's way too many people on this planet now.)
But I'm sure there's a middle ground, as the nuclear family scenario I outlined is (in my opinion) designed to accommodate the needs of a modern capitalist society and not people as such. (Or at least not most of them.) ie...
One person's high risk (to loan to, for instance), as their sudden loss of income (or death) requires the lender to get involved in sorting out the mess.
Two people are ideal, as it's many times rarer for them to both lose their incomes or die at once - there's usually the other to sort things out when shit happens.
While a functioning extended family may seldom if ever need to borrow from outside of itself, it having the possibility of being a self-sufficient economic unit, unlike just two people.
Therefore, there's been (in my opinion) a concerted effort to replace the extended family with the nuclear one, the result being that (in the West) debt is first build up by student loans, continued on with when that house in the suburb is bought, which is finally traded in for life in an old-persons' community of some kind, which possibly eats up any savings they may have made before they conveniently die.
That's a nice revenue stream for those receiving the interest, right? But what's everybody else working for? Just to survive with some sort of roof over their head?
no subject
Nuclear families is a less evel than shoking disrespect and cruelty to the old we see here though
I'm not thinking of the generations being forced to live together, and both the young and old need special protection from the state, they both being especially vulnerable and dependent on others. (Plus I think the main problem is poverty and/or over-crowding - there's way too many people on this planet now.)
But I'm sure there's a middle ground, as the nuclear family scenario I outlined is (in my opinion) designed to accommodate the needs of a modern capitalist society and not people as such. (Or at least not most of them.) ie...
One person's high risk (to loan to, for instance), as their sudden loss of income (or death) requires the lender to get involved in sorting out the mess.
Two people are ideal, as it's many times rarer for them to both lose their incomes or die at once - there's usually the other to sort things out when shit happens.
While a functioning extended family may seldom if ever need to borrow from outside of itself, it having the possibility of being a self-sufficient economic unit, unlike just two people.
Therefore, there's been (in my opinion) a concerted effort to replace the extended family with the nuclear one, the result being that (in the West) debt is first build up by student loans, continued on with when that house in the suburb is bought, which is finally traded in for life in an old-persons' community of some kind, which possibly eats up any savings they may have made before they conveniently die.
That's a nice revenue stream for those receiving the interest, right? But what's everybody else working for? Just to survive with some sort of roof over their head?