If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

No, I don't think that. And if you read what I wrote, it isn't at all what I was saying.

As usual you didn't try to give any specifics, you just said that there would be an increased burden on families (no shit, my first sentence in a previous post said "let families shoulder that burden") and acted as if pointing that out disproves anything. The point is that more than half of our budget is spent on the elderly, a cost clearly not equivalent to that of letting families support their own elderly, yet in the past there was never this massive epidemic of old people just being kicked to the curb and starving to death.

 

[Dak]

SciFiers live in zeroscarcity environments.

 

[Einherjar86]

As usual you didn't try to give any specifics, you just said that there would be an increased burden on families (no shit, my first sentence in a previous post said "let families shoulder that burden") and acted as if pointing that out disproves anything. The point is that more than half of our budget is spent on the elderly, a cost clearly not equivalent to that of letting families support their own elderly, yet in the past there was never this massive epidemic of old people just being kicked to the curb and starving to death.

There was never a massive epidemic of old people because old people have only started living as old as they do very recently in the history of humanity. Families also used to tend to live together and structured their lives accordingly when the economy afforded them that opportunity. It's still the case that some families do this out in bumfuck nowhere, but it's not the case of most families living in urban areas. What you're asking for simply isn't plausible on any mass scale, and if you had your way there would be an increase in elder mortality.

As usual, you ignore a host of other conditions and circumstances and choose to focus solely on the ones you care about, with no regard for how the whole impacts the particulars.

SciFiers live in zeroscarcity environments.

You live in a libertarian fantasy land. It's not much better.

 

[Dak]

You live in a libertarian fantasy land. It's not much better.

I recognize that there's low political tolerability for real solutions not only in terms of economics, but for the behavioral and cognitive solutions for health problems faced across chronic health domains. It's endemic to both my professional and personal education. That real solutions aren't acceptable isn't fantasy. The fantasy is in thinking "middle way" options with anti-solutions help fix problems.

 

[Einherjar86]

Real solutions would be acceptable. The problem is that what you propose usually isn't realistic.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

There was never a massive epidemic of old people because old people have only started living as old as they do very recently in the history of humanity. Families also used to tend to live together and structured their lives accordingly when the economy afforded them that opportunity. It's still the case that some families do this out in bumfuck nowhere, but it's not the case of most families living in urban areas. What you're asking for simply isn't plausible on any mass scale, and if you had your way there would be an increase in elder mortality.

As usual, you ignore a host of other conditions and circumstances and choose to focus solely on the ones you care about, with no regard for how the whole impacts the particulars.

Define "very recently". The age at which old people die has not changed dramatically over the last 150+ years; you may be confused by average life expectancy statistics which are skewed by very high rates of child mortality pre-1900s.

(That data is the UK but I don't think it's particularly different for the USA)

The reason families don't live together anymore is significantly *because* of government assuming the role of caretaker. Are you suggesting that old people don't live in urban areas right now? Like, they retire and we ship them off to a nursing home in a cornfield in Kansas, because urban population density is too high? I'm sure you'll say that's not what you're arguing at all, but again you don't even attempt to provide data or reasoning for why this is such an insurmountable burden. The elderly, at least up to a certain point, are less dependent than children. My mom's paternal grandmother lived with my mom's family for most of her life, and she could cook, clean, shop, etc, something that children are less capable of providing, and unless I'm missing something, children still live with their caretakers. The only reason it sounds impossible is because of cultural bias inflicted upon us by the baby boomer generation.

 

[Dak]

Real solutions would be acceptable. The problem is that what you propose usually isn't realistic.

Well there are politically realistic proposals and actually functional proposals. I never suggested that there was an overlap.

 

[Einherjar86]

Define "very recently". The age at which old people die has not changed dramatically over the last 150+ years; you may be confused by average life expectancy statistics which are skewed by very high rates of child mortality pre-1900s.

What I mainly meant is that a higher percentage of people are living longer. This mainly has to do with advancements in modern medicine and elder care, which is basically what I assume you're saying we should stop wasting on the elderly (unless they or their families can pay for it) since they no longer contribute to society.

It's not that I don't see a problem with the situation economically speaking. I just find your perspective to be rather draconian. In short, I don't think it's realistic to ask families to shoulder the burden. If they're forced to, it will either likely affect the health and well-being of the younger members of the family; or they'll choose not to, in which case the elderly individual would most likely die. I simply don't see these as the only two options, and I do think there's a way to pay for elder care via proactive medicine and health planning, and by taxing more from the super-wealthy.

The reason families don't live together anymore is significantly *because* of government assuming the role of caretaker. Are you suggesting that old people don't live in urban areas right now? Like, they retire and we ship them off to a nursing home in a cornfield in Kansas, because urban population density is too high? I'm sure you'll say that's not what you're arguing at all, but again you don't even attempt to provide data or reasoning for why this is such an insurmountable burden.

I'm saying that it's easier for rural families to take care of extended family, including the elderly, than it is for urban families. I don't have statistics for this, but it makes perfect sense considering average cost of living in rural areas and the ability to afford more amenable housing for larger families.

Well there are politically realistic proposals and actually functional proposals. I never suggested that there was an overlap.

Dude, quit arguing. You're not winning your point with me with this semantic volleyball.

 

[Dak]

Dude, quit arguing. You're not winning your point with me with this semantic volleyball.

I'm sorry if everything feels like a semantic volleyball to you. It appears inevitable from your training.

 

[Einherjar86]

It appears inevitable from your training.

I think I know what you mean, and I think you do too; but your prose doesn't seem to. Rewrite.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What I mainly meant is that a higher percentage of people are living longer. This mainly has to do with advancements in modern medicine and elder care, which is basically what I assume you're saying we should stop wasting on the elderly (unless they or their families can pay for it) since they no longer contribute to society.

I don't see how that matters. It isn't more expensive for Family A to support Gramps A just because Families B through Z support their own respective elderly. If anything that demonstrates exactly why broad social engineering and welfare states lead to disproportionate costs per benefit.

It's not that I don't see a problem with the situation economically speaking. I just find your perspective to be rather draconian. In short, I don't think it's realistic to ask families to shoulder the burden. If they're forced to, it will either likely affect the health and well-being of the younger members of the family; or they'll choose not to, in which case the elderly individual would most likely die. I simply don't see these as the only two options, and I do think there's a way to pay for elder care via proactive medicine and health planning, and by taxing more from the super-wealthy.

Too bad there's little evidence of that since the lifespan of the elderly has only increased slightly over the last couple hundred years (and most of that is probably thanks to medicine/surgery). Maybe you should have picked a wife with nicer in-laws if you think that living with them will literally cause health problems for you.

I'm saying that it's easier for rural families to take care of extended family, including the elderly, than it is for urban families. I don't have statistics for this, but it makes perfect sense considering average cost of living in rural areas and the ability to afford more amenable housing for larger families.

On a very broad meaningless average, sure, maybe, although consumer goods are often more expensive in the boonies, and usually jobs pay less to cancel out the cheaper housing. Even if that's true, you're offering no evidence that it is enough of a factor to make or break the ability of a person to live in a city. In fact, the data show that whites are the least likely to have multi-generational families, despite us generally being both the wealthiest and most rural ethnic group. All you're doing is demonstrating your bourgeois entitlement.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're right, no evidence--because I'm not on a health board or publishing a paper in a medical policy journal. I'm arguing with a shitty human being on a metal forum. I cannot over-emphasize how little I care about your opinion.

 

[CiG]

> constantly having large debates with him
> "I cannot over-emphasize how little I care about your opinion"

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm just trying to end this. I don't know how he has the time to do "research" for a debate on a metal forum. I don't, and so I don't, which ends up with him lobbing personal jabs because I provide "no evidence."

I'm sorry @HamburgerBoy, but your perception about what I want from these exchanges is warped. If I'm not providing the evidence you want, then say you won't be convinced without evidence and bow out. You don't have to be a shithead (and yes, I mean that in the most racist way possible).

 

[CiG]

You don't have to be a shithead (and yes, I mean that in the most racist way possible).

 

[rms]

Maybe you should have picked a wife with nicer in-laws if you think that living with them will literally cause health problems for you.

this is the dumbest and most basement dwelling statement i've ever read

 

[viewerfromnihil]

HBB, your kissless virgin is showing

 

[Dak]

My in laws and parents have squandered their lives away and have little to nothing to show for it, and I'm somewhat unsympathetic at this point, as is my wife. Boomers have so structured society so as to put off responsibility and consequences as long as possible, and the rot is generationally and systemically deep at this point. Multigenerational households were the default for millennia, and it will take some time to revert, which includes the attitudes of Boomers dying out (and those attitudes are not* limited to Boomers themselves).

 

[rms]

for sure, but USA also decided it wasn't a personal responsibility to save for retirement so here we are. And even though it's a fucking money hole, I think it's the right decision.

 

[Dak]

for sure, but USA also decided it wasn't a personal responsibility to save for retirement so here we are. And even though it's a fucking money hole, I think it's the right decision.

Retirement is an unsustainable fantasy in a ponzi economy.