The traditional family

[Ken-1122]

It's expected.

Sure. But they're not available all the time. It's not at all the same as having a phone with you.

I think it's got to the point where to participate in society to the full it is, yes.

The reason it's expected to have all of those things is because everybody has them, even the poorest among us. The poor today has much more than they had 50 years ago. So even though the rich are getting richer, so are the poor.

 

[Paidiske]

The reason it's expected to have all of those things is because everybody has them, even the poorest among us. The poor today has much more than they had 50 years ago. So even though the rich are getting richer, so are the poor.

I think the poorest among us - those folks who are homeless, without means, without food to eat etc., - are not really richer than they were 50 years ago. They might have a mobile phone - which is not expensive to obtain - but if they're struggling to eat or get medical care or find a safe place to sleep, it's hard to see that they're "richer" in any significant sense.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think the poorest among us - those folks who are homeless, without means, without food to eat etc., - are not really richer than they were 50 years ago. They might have a mobile phone - which is not expensive to obtain - but if they're struggling to eat or get medical care or find a safe place to sleep, it's hard to see that they're "richer" in any significant sense.

Like I said; I can't speak for what goes on in Australia.

 

[jayem]

I don’t think Corporates are the only ones greedy here, I think families are as well. Today every family needs 2-3 cars each with full insurance, multiple cell phones each with monthly payments, multiple TV’s with 200 channels, computers, along with computer games and all of these things costs money on a monthly basis. 50 years ago the average family had 1 car, less clothes, a much smaller house, 1 TV, lucky to have 1 phone for the entire house, and once you bought these things you didn’t have to make monthly payments (except for the phone). It’s no wonder they used to be able to live off one income back then; compared to today they didn’t have anything.

And 50 years ago, you could fill your gas tank for about 35¢ a gallon. If a price war was on, I'd find it for 25¢. My first car was a '71 Plymouth Duster that cost me $2100 brand new. When I started college in 1968--at a private university--my tuition was $600 a quarter. It did go up every year, but when I finished undergrad and professional school 7 years later, it was $1,000/quarter. An incredible bargain relative to what higher education costs today. My 2 roommates and I shared a 3 BR, 1 1/2 bath apartment, in a nice area near the campus for less than $300/month. A 25'' color TV and a nice component stereo system were the highest-tech electronic luxuries you could have. Along with an 8-track or cassette tape player in your car.

Keep in mind, the economy of the 50s to the 70s was really an aberration. The US was the only first-world country who's industrial base wasn't wrecked in WW2. We could manufacture, sell, and buy anything we wanted, and what we were willing to pay set prices for rest of the world. The US was the global economy for a good 25 years or so. Also, this was when labor unions were at peak strength. A worker in a manufacturing job could earn enough to support a fairly comfortable lifestyle for his family. But none of this could last. The change started in the 70s when OPEC--which had been more or less a tool of international oil companies--began asserting the sovereignty of the member nations to set oil prices and production. When energy prices began rising, it signaled that the end of American economic hegemony was coming.

 

[stevevw]

Traditional to who? There are plenty of cultures where there is a huge extended family raising children that doesn't fall into what we would call a "traditional family."
Besides, corporate greed has pretty much made it impossible for a family to have two kids, stay-at-home mum and a working dad. A single income just isn't enough to support that.

It depends what you mean by extended family. But I agree there are cultures who are more collective as a society and place importance on family including the extended family where grandparents and other relatives are included. This happens especially with indigenous people and is also part of a collective community where people look after each other.This is a good thing and I think cultures that live this way have better outcomes in well-being.

This is opposed to individualistic cultures that place more importance on individuals than the family or group. These cultures usually in western nations prioritize economic status as success and this can lead to problems that undermine families and communities as often many are left behind who cannot afford good education, housing and health. At the same time it also creates a big working class of people who are always on edge trying to keep up with the Jones's which creates conflicts and anxiety.

This ideology seems uncaring and selfish and has been shown not to be a good model to base society or though some will argue that capitalism overall has made everyone a little more financially better off. But as Ken-1122 says it can be a never ending vicious circle of needing more money for more things and its never enough. Corporate greed fuels consumerism where they want everyone always buying and needing stuff, most of which we don't need. But we think that we have to have stuff to be happy.

Ken-1122 is right that we never use to have so much stuff and I think we were relatively more happy. It is ironic that in a time we have more things to make us happy people are even less happy. My point is that it is those traditional values of family and community that help families and individuals have better health and well-being. The research shows this and it is modern society that undermines this. I agree that corporations contribute to the problem but that does not change the facts.

It is a matter that we need to re-prioritize our values on what is important and not just for the families sake but across many areas of life like the environment and poverty where profits are put before the planet and people. In the meantime I agree that we need to support families no matter what form they come in but that seems hard when the overall system is working to undermine what is best for families.

 

[Ken-1122]

And 50 years ago, you could fill your gas tank for about 35¢ a gallon. If a price war was on, I'd find it for 25¢.

Let’s do some math. 50 years ago minimum wage was $1.00 per hr, today in my state it is $13.50.
History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 - 2009 | U.S. Department of Labor
If Gas was $.35 per gallon, $1.X$13.50=$4.75. Gas in my state is $3.00 per gallon so gas is a bit cheaper today.

My first car was a '71 Plymouth Duster that cost me $2100 brand new.

$2,100x13.5=$28,350 $28,000 for a new car is a pretty nice car you could definitely get one cheaper. Cars are the same price or perhaps a bit cheaper

When I started college in 1968--at a private university--my tuition was $600 a quarter. It did go up every year, but when I finished undergrad and professional school 7 years later, it was $1,000/quarter. An incredible bargain relative to what higher education costs today. My 2 roommates and I shared a 3 BR, 1 1/2 bath apartment, in a nice area near the campus for less than $300/month. A 25'' color TV and a nice component stereo system were the highest-tech electronic luxuries you could have. Along with an 8-track or cassette tape player in your car.

$300 x 13.5=$4,000 per month for a 3 bedroom apt. That would be a very nice apartment. Seems to me it kinda works out.

Keep in mind, the economy of the 50s to the 70s was really an aberration. The US was the only first-world country who's industrial base wasn't wrecked in WW2. We could manufacture, sell, and buy anything we wanted, and what we were willing to pay set prices for rest of the world. The US was the global economy for a good 25 years or so. Also, this was when labor unions were at peak strength. A worker in a manufacturing job could earn enough to support a fairly comfortable lifestyle for his family. But none of this could last. The change started in the 70s when OPEC--which had been more or less a tool of international oil companies--began asserting the sovereignty of the member nations to set oil prices and production. When energy prices began rising, it signaled that the end of American economic hegemony was coming.

After WW-2 Europe and Asia was destroyed; and the USA was the only major country open for business; not to mention all the money Europe was paying us back for all the weapons we provided them during the war. By the time the 1980’s rolled around, Europe and Asia had recovered and was back in business so we had to compete with them in a way we did not have to for the previous 40 years.

 

[Quartermaine]

I think the fact that the Government has taken away a lot of the rights of parents makes it more difficult to raise their children today than before. If the parent is responsible for what their child does, yet they are unable to discipline their child when he does wrong, that often puts the parent in a situation where they are unable to instill boundaries and discipline in their child.

First go check with your local child protective services. you are grossly misinformed on this topic.

Second if you have to use violence against a child to instill boundaries you are a really bad parent in the first place

 

[stevevw]

I think the fact that the Government has taken away a lot of the rights of parents makes it more difficult to raise their children today than before. If the parent is responsible for what their child does, yet they are unable to discipline their child when he does wrong, that often puts the parent in a situation where they are unable to instill boundaries and discipline in their child.

I agree and this is due to PC. Parents have lost rights while children have gained too many rights. It all sounds good to virtue signal about rights but it can also be divisive and create more injustice and problems when one persons/groups rights are over emphasized and then deny another persons/groups rights.

I guess it comes down to we value as a society although I think governments can be influenced by minority groups who have have their own agendas that force certain ideologies onto the rest of society. And that is often the problem where the concerns of most people are not represented and listened too. In the end it can undermine what is best for families and create new problems that were not there in the first place for a new bureaucracy to be created to try and fix things.

 

[Ken-1122]

First go check with your local child protective services. you are grossly misinformed on this topic.

I know people who are going through this.

Second if you have to use violence against a child to instill boundaries you are a really bad parent in the first place

How about if a cop use violence against your child to instill boundaries, does that make him a very bad cop?

 

[muichimotsu]

It depends what you mean by extended family. But I agree there are cultures who are more collective as a society and place importance on family including the extended family where grandparents and other relatives are included. This happens especially with indigenous people and is also part of a collective community where people look after each other.This is a good thing and I think cultures that live this way have better outcomes in well-being.

Outcomes in what sense? Japan has a good life expectancy, one of the best in the world, but its birth rate is severely declining, which isn't helped in part by an increased elderly population. And Japan does tend to still have some emphasis on a collective homogeneous society, so your observation seems to have an exception to it, if not more with further investigation (China comes to mind)

This is opposed to individualistic cultures that place more importance on individuals than the family or group. These cultures usually in western nations prioritize economic status as success and this can lead to problems that undermine families and communities as often many are left behind who cannot afford good education, housing and health. At the same time it also creates a big working class of people who are always on edge trying to keep up with the Jones's which creates conflicts and anxiety.

The ambition for advancement is not innately a bad thing when tempered by a basic respect of autonomy. Economic status can be a good thing, but doesn't have to be balanced purely by some notion of fitting into society's expectations, but charity as a benefit to others and yourself as well, almost a noblesse oblige

This ideology seems uncaring and selfish and has been shown not to be a good model to base society on though some will argue that capitalism overall has made everyone a little more financially better off. But as Ken-1122 says it can be a never ending vicious circle of needing more money for more things and its never enough. Corporate greed fuels consumerism where they want everyone always buying and needing stuff, most of which we don't need. But we think that we have to have stuff to be happy.

Corporatism and consumerism are not necessarily how capitalism ought to manifest and that's part of the issue is conflating the former 2 with the latter as a general method for approaching economic management.

Capitalism in terms of encouraging innovation is part of how life expectancy has gone up, arguably, it's not a bad thing in itself

 

[muichimotsu]

I agree and this is due to PC. Parents have lost rights while children have gained too many rights. It all sounds good to virtue signal about rights but it can also be divisive and create more injustice and problems when one persons/groups rights are over emphasized and then deny another persons/groups rights.

I guess it comes down to we value as a society although I think governments can be influenced by minority groups who have have their own agendas that force certain ideologies onto the rest of society. And that is often the problem where the concerns of most people are not represented and listened too. In the end it can undermine what is best for families and create new problems that were not there in the first place for a new bureaucracy to be created to try and fix things.

Part of the problem with the objection is misunderstanding rights as purely being positive rather than having a negative aspect in that the former are rights that we should have reasonable freedom in our ability to do them, while negative rights are based in preventing others from needlessly restraining actions. They play into each other, but one shouldn't be given priority in excess, because it would then violate the principles the other protects that enrich the former. One's freedom of action cannot be absolute when it would violate the privacy or security of another person in doing so.

Marginalization of the minority groups is something a majority group won't necessarily care about because they don't see the problems or even consider that they may be in a privileged status to begin with

"Most people" is not how we should determine most things in terms of rights, because that becomes a tyranny of the majority, if not outright ochlocracy. The principle of protecting the rights of people should not be about some majority decision apart from principles that protect the minority as well in rights we would guarantee to all. We don't just go based on common sense or it leads to common outcomes, which are not necessarily beneficial, but just maintaining a status quo

 

[Quartermaine]

I know people who are going through this.


How about if a cop use violence against your child to instill boundaries, does that make him a very bad cop?

yes

 

[pleinmont]

I am glad we live now live in the 21st century where the idea of the traditional family has flown out of the window, thank goodness. Both partners in a relationship usually go out to work, and are expected to care for the children.

 

[stevevw]

Outcomes in what sense? Japan has a good life expectancy, one of the best in the world, but its birth rate is severely declining, which isn't helped in part by an increased elderly population. And Japan does tend to still have some emphasis on a collective homogeneous society, so your observation seems to have an exception to it, if not more with further investigation (China comes to mind)

I am talking more about how collective cultures place importance on maintaining the family unit. The place value of including the extended family like looking after grandparents and grandparents involved in looking after children. Japan places importance on the family unit especially grandparents. It is more or less a duty. Collective societies place more importance on the group rather than individualistic cultures where the individual is more important. Individualistic cultures have a higher rate of family breakdown.

The ambition for advancement is not innately a bad thing when tempered by a basic respect of autonomy. Economic status can be a good thing, but doesn't have to be balanced purely by some notion of fitting into society's expectations, but charity as a benefit to others and yourself as well, almost a noblesse oblige

There is nothing wrong with advancement and it has brought many benefits. But it needs to be balanced and not come at the expense social welfare. It seems those cultures that embrace capitalist ideals are the ones with the highest rates of social problems like family breakdowns. What was suppose to be the promise of greater social and economic equality with ideals like neo-liberalism is actually creating a class society where there is a growing large poor class and a smaller rich class.

Under capitalism you cannot make social welfare including social support for families a priority (unless you privatize it) and promote economic independence at the same time. Social welfare requires the state to be more involved through using taxes and taking for the rich to help the poor. The biggest contribution to breakdowns in families lack of social support including family friendly policies. But you can't have family friendly policies and promote neo-liberalism at the same time.

Corporatism and consumerism are not necessarily how capitalism ought to manifest and that's part of the issue is conflating the former 2 with the latter as a general method for approaching economic management.

The problem is the nature of capitalism is through the privatization of trade and industry and for most that means privatizing health, welfare and education let alone the many specialist services like family therapy and psychotherapies which should be basic supports for families if we want to have family friendly policies.

Capitalism in terms of encouraging innovation is part of how life expectancy has gone up, arguably, it's not a bad thing in itself

I agree but how do we balance this out with the poor support many people end up getting in nations that support economic rationalization over social welfare.

 

[stevevw]

I am glad we live now live in the 21st century where the idea of the traditional family has flown out of the window, thank goodness. Both partners in a relationship usually go out to work, and are expected to care for the children.

But how do they care for their children if both are at work all the time. Isn't the child missing important bonding and time with parents if they are brought up by the state or some private child minding center.

 

[muichimotsu]

I am talking more about how collective cultures place importance on maintaining the family unit. The place value of including the extended family like looking after grandparents and grandparents involved in looking after children. Japan places importance on the family unit especially grandparents. It is more or less a duty. Collective societies place more importance on the group rather than individualistic cultures where the individual is more important. Individualistic cultures have a higher rate of family breakdown.

And Japan, a collectivist society by yours and my general agreement, also has one of the highest suicide rates in the world along with the "family breakdown" in regards to a declining birth rate. You're still making a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny

Never said Japan didn't place importance on the family unit, it was strongly implied by the collectivist and homogeneous comments. Heck, you don't have to know much about Japan to be aware of the Confucian values that underpin the cultural norms regarding filial piety, etc.

There is nothing wrong with advancement and it has brought many benefits. But it needs to be balanced and not come at the expense social welfare. It seems those cultures that embrace capitalist ideals are the ones with the highest rates of social problems like family breakdowns. What was suppose to be the promise of greater social and economic equality with ideals like neo-liberalism is actually creating a class society where there is a growing large poor class and a smaller rich class.

Don't think I ever claimed capitalism unfettered was the solution, it requires a balance. Income inequality is through consumerism and corporatism, not capitalism in any strict sense.

Under capitalism you cannot make social welfare including social support for families a priority (unless you privatize it) and promote economic independence at the same time. Social welfare requires the state to be more involved through using taxes and taking for the rich to help the poor. The biggest contribution to breakdowns in families lack of social support including family friendly policies. But you can't have family friendly policies and promote neo-liberalism at the same time.

Actually you can, there's nothing saying it cannot be so, because capitalism is not strictly about capital without the balance you and I both agree it requires. What you describe would be unfettered laissez faire capitalism like some libertarians might advocate.

Social welfare requires state involvement and that doesn't require it creates a dependency issue if properly applied.

You used the word neo liberalism, not me

The problem is the nature of capitalism is through the privatization of trade and industry and for most that means privatizing health, welfare and education let alone the many specialist services like family therapy and psychotherapies which should be basic supports for families if we want to have family friendly policies.

Healthcare shouldn't be privatized to the exclusion of those who can't pay for it based on standards that favor consumerism and such, healthcare isn't the same as welfare or education, though education and healthcare both have a particular issue that makes them difficult to privatize in the sense that it's a limited resource that requires investment of time and money to get the qualifications to be a doctor/nurse or teacher respectively.

Again, you're talking about capitalism without any social welfare as part of it, which isn't remotely how it is universally characterized and certainly isn't as polarizing as you seem to make it relative to social welfare

I agree but how do we balance this out with the poor support many people end up getting in nations that support economic rationalization over social welfare

Proper management of resources doesn't require a purely capitalist regard, but basic structural considerations that are more about social planning than economics in the broadest sense.

 

[muichimotsu]

But how do they care for their children if both are at work all the time. Isn't the child missing important bonding and time with parents if they are brought up by the state or some private child minding center.

My parents both worked, though my mother took some time off, but there are other people that can raise them, the parental bonding aspects have to adjust as the child grows up, it's not like the child needs their parents all the time as they become older in regards to particular things

Also, don't think anyone claimed the children were just left to some stranger, I was partly raised by my grandparents and cousins as my parents worked to provide for us when I was young.

 

[stevevw]

First go check with your local child protective services. you are grossly misinformed on this topic.

Second if you have to use violence against a child to instill boundaries you are a really bad parent in the first place

I don't think Ken-1122 was advocating violence when he mentioned disciplining a child. But some form of discipline has been shown to be important in child health and welfare. But disciplines like time out and denial of privileges are shown to not work either. Sometimes these forms of discipline are impractical. Besides there is also research that shows that disciplines like time out and denying kids things is damaging as well. That is why some still support controlled smacking as it gets the job done quickly and practically.
Discipline is not only good for children, but it is also necessary for their happiness and well-being. Discipline is as vital for healthy child development as nutritious food, physical and cognitive exercises, love, and other basic needs.
Surprising Reasons Why We Need to Discipline Children
3 Reasons Why Time-Outs May Be Damaging Your Child
3 Reasons Why Time-Outs May Be Damaging Your Child

The over use of corporal punishment is wrong and past generations went too far but I think we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater on this. We are now going to the opposite extreme and taking an overly softly softly approach and spoiling kids and now they know this and are exploiting the lack of discipline. This has seen a rise in assaults on parents and teachers and a disrespect for authority in many young people.

The Spoilt Generation: Parents who fail to exert authority breeding youngsters with no respect for anyone
The spoilt generation: Youngsters who lack all respect for authority are attacking their parents, the police and teachers | Daily Mail Online

 

[pleinmont]

But how do they care for their children if both are at work all the time. Isn't the child missing important bonding and time with parents if they are brought up by the state or some private child minding center.

My grandchildren went to a nursery when they were infants while their parents were at work, it never did them any harm at all.

 

[stevevw]

My parents both worked, though my mother took some time off, but there are other people that can raise them, the parental bonding aspects have to adjust as the child grows up, it's not like the child needs their parents all the time as they become older in regards to particular things

Also, don't think anyone claimed the children were just left to some stranger, I was partly raised by my grandparents and cousins as my parents worked to provide for us when I was young.

In today's generation many parents are using child minding services so they can both work. The problem is these services are mostly used through the early years say 2 to 5 or 6 years when a child mostly needs to bond with their parent especially the mother. So the continual attachment and breaking of the attachment where the caregiver leaving their child with others can be a problem. It makes sense that if the child caregiver (mother) bond is vital for a child's well-being then denying a child that bond will have a negative effect.

Research shows that this is the case. Children need that continual close bond with their caregiver so they can develop a secure attachment. Insecure attachments lead to maladjustment later in life.

The importance of early bonding on the long-term mental health and resilience of children
The importance of early bonding on the long-term mental health and resilience of children