Helping out the family...a recipe for poverty???

[Guest]

I think you'd better say that their standard of life improves rather than becoming richer. There's a difference.

 

Yep, of course. But both is true.

Or how do you define "rich"?

 

But from your other statement I conclude that you define "rich" as having more money than most other people.

 

You should have found out that I used the word in an absolute way. (But maybe you like to discuss definitions which of course never comes to an end because daily life words are never defined clearly. Which is good because otherwise they wouldn't be very useful...)

 

Best regards

[Guest]

The answer: The kids are the parent's social security. With all the disease and death, the parents need to ensure that at least a few kids survive in order to support them.

 

I am not so sure about this one. They had many kids even when the life expectancy was under 40 years. The parents don't think that they need many kids as a social security. They have many kids because the like sex and have no access to contraceptives (and because the women have nothing to say about how many kids they want.)

 

If contributions to parents can be budgeted in as a monthly expense, and young-uns still save, it would work. But how? They earn so little already.

 

It would help if they had less children, say 2 instead of 5.

 

 

From the economic point of view, it depends on several circumstances how many children you should have. As an example: If you can be sure that every child survives it makes sense to have less children and invest all your money in them. If the chance of survive are smaller, it makes more sense to distribute your investments among many children.

 

Best regards

[itsmedave]

Belgian Bay said <Your logic is flawed because you over-generalise too much.>

 

But, respectfully, since I am speaking about a cultural structures problem, you have to generalize. Obviousl;y, individual families can be found to disporve any statement, but by and large, it seems that many of the countries who have a backward looking approach as opposed to sending the money to future generations have a lower standard of income genrally, then this may be a factor.

 

Of course, there may also be many others, such as education, but even that may be part of forcing children to work instead of completeing a college education to help out the family. In contrast, many families in the States begin setting aside money for their childrens colllege fund when the children are still in diapers.

[Zaad]

Wow, what a contradiction in your own statement!!!

Why don't you clarify yourself when giving your opinion about my statements?

 

Aha, you mix relative and absolute poverty.

No, I don't.

I'm saying that there always will be poor families. Bear in mind that the definition of 'poor' in the past and in the future differs.

If you say that generations become richer, then one (I) would expect them to jump out of the 'poor familie' category at some point. Certainly true for some families, but not in general.

I simply say the standard of life improves compared to those living in the 19th. century, which means that the fact remains that it's a poor familie.

 

In some african countries the standard of life decreased during the last 40 years.

40 years!!!?

Naiv, that's not even 1 generation. A (civil) war might be the cause of that fact of yours. I'm talking about at least 4-5 generations (200-300 years).

[Zaad]

Or how do you define "rich"?

 

But from your other statement I conclude that you define "rich" as having more money than most other people.

 

You should have found out that I used the word in an absolute way.

I should have?

 

I don't need to define 'rich' as I don't use it in my statements, you do.

[lembeh]

 

The problem (to some extent) is that you are trying to compare and industrialized society to one that is still (by and large) an agrarian society (the supporting the partents thing is largely an "up country" phenomenon).

 

Families in industrial societies, with low infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy benefit better by small (1 to 2 kids) families, while those in agrarian societies with much higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy benefit better by large families to ensure that some one is able to take care of the land *and* the parents when they can no longer work.

 

It is also a good idea to try and get *some* idea of the relative living standards in the two societies. In my g/f time her and her sisters financial support has done things like...get electricity and running water into the house and upgraded the house from a wooden shack to a "proper" structure and esentially lifted them to a "debt free" situation, where the land and assets (buffalos!) are not being sold off for every small upset in daily living (very often sickness in the family).

 

Now compare this to the west, where the rates of ownership of goods like TV's, fridges, cars and other "luxury items" are considered comonplace.

 

In my g/f childhood, her family had *nothing*, and at best one meal a day (and often not that). Candy was unheard of, shoes were not something kids had and toys were of the kind that could be made by hand or found around the house. Do her and her sisters *now* live in that style? No of course not. They are immesurably "wealthier", and their kids will be more so (largely due to the farang influence of course!).

 

However, on this point, I would have to point out that (IMHO) refusing to help the family places *huge* strainis on a relationship with a Thai girl, and one that *can* (YMMV) lead to the break up of a relationship. I do *not* agree with endless handouts as well, but to ignore the situation completely is to leave it to fester away at your g/f, and *something* will give sooner or later.

 

My g/f's parents *do* work (and fairly hard at that) managing the farm. Even what I would say looks like quite a lot of rice fields really only puts them at the edge of subsistance..they can live daily, but something coming up will cause problems. My solution (which has solved a fair amount of problems all round!), is to give my g/f a monthly allowance. What she does with the money is up to her. If she keeps it, fine, blows it on whatever, fine...or send a portion of it back home...fine. Its her money. That way you do get a double benefit. You are being fair to her, and allowing her to keep up her family commitments..if she so desires.

-j-

[johnnyk]

Zaad said:

I simply say the standard of life improves compared to those 40 years!!!?

Naiv, that's not even 1 generation. A (civil) war might be the cause of that fact of yours. I'm talking about at least 4-5 generations (200-300 years).

How long do you think people live Zaad? A generation is the period of time it takes someone to reproduce him/herself. In much of the world its about 25 years. In much of Africa a generation nowadays is about 15 years.

"4-5 generations about 200-300 years", in other words people are not having children before they are 50-75 years old? WTF???

If you can't figure this out why should anyone pay attention to anything you post?

[Zaad]

"4-5 generations about 200-300 years", in other words people are not having children before they are 50-75 years old? WTF???

I calculated 'generations' as people who're born and live their life till the day they die. In this case 1 new generation is about 60-70 years further. Sorry if you misunderstood.

So I was refering to 200-300 years, ok that's 10+ generations then for you.

 

If you can't figure this out why should anyone pay attention to anything you post?

Are we having a bad day, Mr. Johhnyk?

Please let's not judge people (or their opinions) on 2 or 3 post only, shall we? Otherwise I recommend you to use this new feature we have here since a few weeks called "ignore user"

 

Cheers!

[think_too_mut]

johnnyk, zaad: back to the topic please.

 

TTM - moderator.

[Zaad]

Hi Itsmedave,

 

After another scirmish on the merits of sending money to my lady's deadbeat father (doesn't work, doesn't plan to) I came up with a larger sociological problem which I attempted to explain to my lovely. She, of course, said I just didn't understand but couldn't tell me why her way was better than mine...

 

Have you ever met your father-in-law?

I understand you'd feel uncomfortable (pissed) to send money to a 'stranger' every week / month. So I'm curious how your relationship is with him, if you don't mind me asking.

You might feel a lot better about sending the money after spending some time with her family and knowing him a little bit better etc. He might be a man who deserves the extra cash.

 

Just a thought.