[quote=“cameryxle, post:6, topic:37225”]
families took care of each other. Wasn’t uncommon for families to take care of retirees. and the family living together pulled there resources to survive together as a family. The children would care fore their elderly parents by having them move in with them.
[/quote]THAT’S the key.
Forget unions, pensions, blah, blah, blah.
It was the extended family, an institution that no longer exists (or is rarely found), for several reasons, not the least of which is the nanny state (one which quickly comes to mind, but there are a lot of other reasons too.) You don’t need an extended family any more . . . well, you may wish you had one if the government, and all of it’s “benefits”, goes belly up.
I remember when we used to visit my uncle’s farm in Bedford, PA. His big farmhouse was full of RELATIVES living there because they had no means of survival themselves, etc. They were clothed, and had a tight roof and three squares. My aunt’s table was always full of food (Churned butter, fresh baked bread, and all manner of pies and stuff that today would be outlawed by Bloomberg in NYC restaurants. The cholesterol conscious these days would have had a fit, but all seemed healthy to me . . . probably because they all worked physically hard in the fields. There was no such thing as a “lazy” person . . . you either worked your fair share or got thrown out!)
Those days are gone, mostly, and with today’s standards . . . non-nuclear families, smaller families, etc., I doubt we’ll ever get back to them. But if we could, I think that would be a much more preferable solution than all these government “nets” we have now.
Oh . . . one more thing. Those relatives that were provided for by my uncle had to work their fair share, only enjoyed what conveniences he had (very few, like NO TV), and their clothing was not fancy (not rags, but not the “latest” fashion either.) It always is rather ironic to me that when you see “poor” people today, they have brand new clothes on, are wayyyyyy overweight (suggesting they’re not starving), and own at least one color TV. Poor? Doesn’t look like it to me.
I have some old pictures of my extended family from the days of my uncles farm. Now THOSE were some poor people, but as I said, they had three squares and a tight roof. Today’s social nets provide apparently for much much more than that. Should they? When it’s my taxes that provide the designer clothes, the food stamps, and the color TV’s for the “poor”, I think not.
Nostalgia? Perhaps, but it worked. Can we enable that solution now? Probably take several generations to do it, and the inertia of being “spoiled” by BHO and his kind would probably prevail now.