David writes: >The short answer is that social security has had a deleterious effect on intra-family >obligations. To generalize, children do not feel obligated to care for their parents, >because it is the obligation of other people to take care of their parents. I do not think >that is a good thing.
This strikes me as odd, because "Shemano" isn't an Asian-sounding name. In a lot Chinese cultures, the obligation to the elderly is a familial one; people have children in order that they be provided for in their own age and, since this obligation falls on sons rather than daughters, it's been put forward as an explanation for sexually biased infanticide. But it's never really been a feature of Western cultures at all; although I made a big deal about "honour thy father and mother", Western and African societies have almost always regarded the support of the elderly as a social rather than filial obligation - for example, the "spinsters of the parish" in British history. Since there is, visibly, a whole generation growing up of childless (or to adopt the modish term, "child-free") adults, I'd be cautious about assuming that a family-based system of retirement provision will work. It's an issue of the kind of society we want; are we really only connected to each other either by immediately family relations or by the contractual relationships embodied in savings accounts? Or would we hope that our possibility of a comfortable old age is guaranteed by more than that? dd >The issue of whether we should permit the unproductive to starve is a different issue. >Social security is not a charity program -- isn't that the mantra we are all supposed to >repeat? I don't know about a mantra, but this is a good point and well done for picking me up on it. dd
