In today's society, is raising children "preventing old age" or "gnawing at old age"?

I think whether to raise children to help them grow old or to protect them from old age is closely related to the historical background and social system. China has always said that raising children will prevent old age, that more children will bring blessings, and that more people will bring greater strength. But why did family planning be implemented in the 1980s? Then there were big slogans posted everywhere - Only one child is good! There is a fine for having two children. In fact, in the 10 years from the 1950s to the 1960s, some experts proposed birth control and controlled births. It was only after 1980 that it was truly promulgated and implemented and became popular. In 1980, China's total population was only 800 million, which is 600 million less than it is now. Why is it not encouraging more children, but instead planning the family? I won’t go into details. The main reason is that the agricultural industry was relatively backward at that time, and there were not many factories. Although the income was small, the prices were cheap. For those with urban household registration, wedding houses were allocated by the state, which was similar to North Korea today. Moreover, at that time, it mainly relied on agriculture. In 1983, land was contracted to each household. If the population was not controlled, there would be even less arable land per capita. The reason why we could afford to have six or seven children at that time was that, to put it bluntly, social welfare was relatively large, and food stamps were issued based on population. No matter how poor the country was, ordinary people could eat. In the long run, the burden on the country would have been too much. The larger the population, the heavier the burden. In addition, it is a large-scale collective business, with many people working hard and working hard, so the efficiency is low. Later, with the beginning of the work wave, migrant workers poured into the cities one after another. With the process of state-owned privatization, more and more factories were established in the cities, which were later called companies. Later, the policy of allocating houses by the state was abolished. What followed was the rise of the real estate industry and the construction industry. A small piece of land was so valuable, and then houses were built and sold. So the land and taxes alone were used for The country has brought great wealth and contributions. Moreover, the labor force is relatively cheap, and social welfare is relatively imperfect. Everyone silently contributes to the country, so the huge wealth and huge economic volume are supported by this large and unremunerated labor force. So I analyze that this is the reason for liberalizing the two-child policy. This is my personal understanding. If it is not recognized by everyone, it is my lack of understanding. But if the policy of liberalizing the second child is for the sake of retirement, or even treats having children as a business, then this will definitely be a loss-making business. Because having children is human nature and a natural law. It would be bad if the purpose is too strong. For example, the purpose of having children is to provide for the elderly. In order to reduce the pressure of the only child to provide for the elderly, I think it does not make sense and is very contradictory. . It is precisely because of the misconception of raising children to provide for old age that the phenomenon of favoring boys over girls is more serious, leading to an imbalance in the ratio of men to women. Besides, from ancient times to the present, parents with large children have lived very poor lives in their old age, and have even developed the habit of frugality. When the blessings come, they will not be able to enjoy them, and they always feel that they should be destined to suffer. . Moreover, having many children does not necessarily mean being filial. There are countless examples of this. Especially now that houses are so expensive, it is said that raising a son will cost less than 1 million, and some even say 2 million. So if you put it this way, do you still have to worry about supporting your retirement if you have one or two million? In other words, except for the rich, which child has spent more than 200,000 on his parents before their parents died? 100,000 is not much. Compared with the cost of a house, a car, and growing up, it is only 1/10. Coupled with the worries of children being laid off and unemployed, and worrying about growing old at home, who is going to relieve these worries? It's all up to you and you can only solve it yourself. Then again, assuming that the lives of ordinary people are difficult, no matter how huge the economy is, it seems that it is not proportional. Now there are 600 million people with a monthly salary of 1,000 yuan. They can’t even support their children. How can they afford to support their parents? Even for those who earn two to three thousand a month, the proportion is not small. In addition to daily expenses and mortgage payments, can they afford to support their parents? !

If your son is unwilling to guard against old age, I will nibble on him without any complaints

Xuci’s emotional answer

In today’s society, is raising a child “preventing old age” or “gnawing at old age”? old"?

There is no doubt that it is "gnawing at the old"!

Now, whether it is an urban or rural area, let’s not talk about how much it costs to raise a son. Let’s look at how much money a son will need after he gets married and married.

Nowadays, no matter in urban or rural areas, when a boy gets married, he first needs a house and a car. Where does this money come from? Of course it comes from my parents.

For a house, parents need to spend all their life savings, and some need to borrow money from here and there, and some need loans. The parents still pay the loan, and the children spend the money they earn. It’s what people say: His money is his, and his parents’ money is also his!

Most of my classmates have settled in the city, and most of the money for their marriages, houses and cars came from their parents. Take the classmate who settled in Wuhan for example. His parents worked in a small city. They sold their house and lent him some money to pay the down payment to buy a house in Wuhan. His parents lived far away from their workplace. Buy a small property house on the edge of the city and live there. Every month, when his parents get their salary, they leave enough money for him to pay off the mortgage, and he saves and spends the rest.

The mortgage will take decades to repay. When will my parents’ debts end? However, when they are so far away from their parents, how can their parents rely on them to "provide for their old age"?

The same is true in rural areas. Most young people ask their parents to buy a house for them in the city when they get married. The loan is provided by their parents and the house is in his and his wife's names. It is always the son who enjoys, and it is always the parents who suffer.

So, after buying a house for their son and paying off the loan, will the parents become successful and wait for their son to "retire"?

No, parents’ homework is far from done. They also need to take care of their children, cook and do housework. If you don't cook and do housework for your son, then your wife will say that you treat them poorly and feel sorry for them, and they will have an excuse not to support you.

What my daughter-in-law keeps saying is: If she doesn’t take care of my children, I won’t support her in her old age. He said: My mother-in-law has hurt me, so I should not support her. Even the mother-in-law herself thinks that it is natural for her daughter-in-law to take care of her children.

I have seen a father-in-law who is almost sixty years old. In order to pay off the mortgage for his son, his fingers are wrapped with bandages, and the shoes on his feet are leaking toes. Anyone who finds fault with him unfairly will say: If you treat me badly, I will not support you in your old age!

@Xu Ci Emotion said: Chinese people lack a sense of boundaries. Parents first treat their children as their own private property and love their children more than themselves. If you love your children so much that you dote on them, the children will feel that it is natural to accept what their parents do, and they will therefore lose their sense of responsibility and obligation. Therefore, children only ask for things, without self-discipline or responsibility. When their parents get old, they will not take the initiative to support them at all, and they only think that their parents are a burden.

To raise children to "prevent old age", you need to educate your son that raising children is to "prevent old age", and you need to have a sense of boundaries with your son. An adult son needs to work hard and struggle on his own in life, and parents must Let go!

As a son, you should also know how to feel sorry for your parents and not just ask for them. You should also know how to repay your kindness. When your parents are old, you should fulfill your obligations and support them well.

I think whether to raise children to prevent old age or to nibble on old age depends on whether they are in urban or rural areas, and also on age groups. Raising children to provide for old age was only an ideological concept of the older generation before the 1960s, but it has gradually faded away after the 1960s!

As far as rural areas are concerned, those born in the 1950s and 1960s are actually considered old, but they not only have to support the elderly of the previous generation, but also have to be "gnawed away" by the next generation. Because many parents in these two age groups are still alive, and their children have children. In order to reduce the burden on their children, they not only have to take care of their grandchildren, but also work hard to earn money to support them. At the same time, the obligation to support the elderly of the previous generation must also be fulfilled.

It’s different in the city. The elderly in the city have pensions, and many of them are very high. They can’t spend all their money, so of course they have to support their children. Therefore, when raising children in the city, there is no question of whether to care for the elderly or not. There is only the theory of nibbling on the elderly.

As for those born in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s getting married and having children, I am afraid that the purpose of raising children for old age is not at all. It’s impossible to say whether their descendants will nibble on old people or not, but one thing is certain, they are raising children just to carry on the family line. They themselves understand that it is difficult in today's society to expect their sons to provide for themselves in old age. Moreover, as time goes by, many young people have downplayed the importance of continuing the family line. It is common for urbanites to get married and not have children. Even having a child is just a psychological comfort, and there is no consideration for old age or family lineage issues.

Finally, I wish the Chinese people happiness from generation to generation and a happy old age! The old man has something to rely on!

After reading this question, answer whatever you think at first:

First of all, the questioner said: "In today's society, what is raising children? "Prevent old age" or "gnaw on old age"? ",

Let's talk about gnawing on old age first. No matter who feeds the children, they hope that their children will be successful when they grow up. No one wants to raise one. A useless snack that doesn't live up to expectations. No matter before, now or in the future, raising a child is never just for him to "gnaw on old age". There is no dispute about this.

Let’s talk about anti-aging. In the past, people used to say “raise children to prevent old age.” However, with the changes of the times, this idea has been broken by reality. The previous generation stopped talking about it. Because they all have several children, you can still label them with the words "Raise children to prepare for old age"; but for the next generation, I think the four words "Raise children to prepare for old age" will become less and less popular. After getting married and having children, there will no longer be the consciousness of "raising children to protect against old age". If you don’t believe it, just ask the people around you and see what they think.

Therefore, I think the question raised by the question is in an inherent pit. It is still asking whether raising children in today's society is to prevent old age or to nibble on old age. Normal thinking The answer is "None of them." Nowadays, raising a child is not to prevent old age, and certainly not to let him chew on old age. Isn't this kind of thinking sick?

I think "today's raising children" is a continuation of blood. To put it nicely, it can be called "the crystallization of love", "the bond of emotion", etc. . So what has become of the old “raising children for old age”? It has become a spiritual comfort today. When you are old, your children can be your spiritual comfort. If you have offspring, of course a good child will have time to take care of you when you are old, but don’t expect too much.

As for saying "raising children is like chewing up the old", no one with a normal mind would have such an idea. It is a child's behavior to chew or not chew, but it is definitely not what parents expect.

In today’s society, raising children is still a matter of old age. The reason is:

Raising children for old age care is not only financial support and assistance, but also includes daily care and spiritual comfort. This applies at all times. Even if they are children who are nibbling on old age, most of them can still do it at least in terms of care and spiritual comfort. After all, there is a blood relationship that is thicker than water. Except for individual unfilial children.

Although the elderly can take care of themselves, there are always some things in life that they cannot do in time and need help from others. At this time, only their children are the most considerate. They buy firewood, rice, oil, salt, soy and vinegar in time and keep them in stock. The seasons change. They will change clothes and quilts in time, add new ones and replace the old ones, so that the elderly can spend the summer and winter safely. When the old man is in an emergency, he can answer the call at a moment's notice, providing help in times of need. When you ask someone for help, you owe them a favor. When the elderly encounter critical problems such as medical treatment, they have to rely on their children to accompany them. I saw that some elderly people were accompanied by their children during physical examinations.

When the elderly become incapacitated, have dementia, become disabled, and cannot take care of themselves, they need their children to take care of them. Even if the children cannot take care of themselves, they still need to rely on their children to contact a nanny or a nursing home, and be prepared to hire a nanny or go to a nursing home for care. Communication, payment, visits and other related work. This is the obligation and responsibility of children, and only children care most about it. It is best for others not to be as meticulous as children.

When an old person dies and takes care of their funeral affairs, only their children can take care of it. This cannot be replaced by anyone. Unless the elderly with five guarantees are provided by the village collective or nursing home association.

Of course, in reality, there are also those who chew on the old. Some children have better economic conditions and need help from their parents. But most parents don’t have high pensions and don’t have much savings, so their children won’t let them live in old age. What's more, when their children are in trouble, parents are also caring and selfless. It's just that some children go too far, which is not advisable. Most children do it in a measured way. Generally speaking, the tradition of raising children to provide for old age remains unchanged in today's society.

There are those who care for the elderly, and there are those who care for the elderly. Comparatively speaking, there are many people who care about the elderly and few people who support them.

In the past, raising children was used to protect against old age. However, in today’s society, housing prices are extremely high. Of course, it is certain that there are only a few houses. It can also be said with certainty that most young people have lived in old age at one time or another.

Especially in first-tier cities, there is a saying of buying a house with six wallets, which refers to the husband’s parents, grandparents, grandparents, and the wife’s parents, grandparents, grandparents. Instead of just eating your parents, you cross the border and eat your grandparents, grandparents, and sacrifice the retirement savings of several generations for a house. Is this kind of raising a child still a way to protect yourself in old age?

I also heard that people in the 1950s and 1960s were the last generation to be most filial to their parents, and their children were also the least filial to them. Most people in the 1950s and 1960s were only children, and they The only child is now a second child. There is an older child and a younger child. House prices are extremely high and the pressure is huge. It is overwhelming to struggle for life without the help of parents. When parents are old, frail and sick, they have no way to do it. In this generation, raising children to provide for old age is difficult. The only child is a piece of empty talk, they are really a family that chews on the elderly.

I hope that the government will restrict the huge rise in housing prices, so that the thousands of years of raising children to provide for old age can be truly implemented, instead of buying a house for the elderly.

99.99% of parents are willing to be "gnawed into old age" by their children, and how many children are willing to "support" their parents in old age. This proportion will certainly not exceed 80%. Especially in families with many children, the children will shirk the responsibility of supporting each other and become unhappy. 1. "Nibbling on the old" is a bad habit, but it also has a positive side

First of all, let me express my attitude, "gnawing on the old" must be a bad habit. But isn’t there a positive meaning behind this bad habit? Let me give you a counterexample, the United States.

When children in the United States reach the age of 18, most families no longer care about their children. As a result, many graduates of prestigious universities are still paying tuition loans after working for decades. Obama’s tuition loan took 21 years to pay off at the age of 43.

This kind of family relationship can indeed make children more independent, but it also leads to a colder relationship between relatives.

In China, especially between close relatives, family affection is the mainstay. Parents are willing to risk their lives for their children. This is why blood in our country is thicker than water. 2. The "gnawing at the old" people have an extra companionship

There are ten thousand harmful effects of "gnawing at the old", so I won't give examples.

But at least there is one advantage. It is very close to my parents and I can see them every day. Promising children are often seen only a few times a year, and parents cannot complain too much. After all, it is a good thing to make money.

In terms of companionship, the "gnawing old" people have an advantage. They feed and clothe their parents, but by staying with their parents every day, their parents' emotional needs are met. We all know that the older we get, the more we want to have children and grandchildren around us all the time. 3. The unity of "gnawing at the old age" and "supporting the elderly"

If children give money instead of companionship, then "gnawing at the old age" is a disguised form of using companionship to give up making money. (Although this sounds politically incorrect, if you think about it carefully)

Due to work reasons, his children were not around, and the lonely old man died violently at home, only to be found out a few days later. , there are many cases. But with children by their side every day, the elderly can be taken care of whenever they have a headache or fever. Isn’t this anti-aging?

Is anti-aging necessarily the opposite of "gnawing at old age"? Not necessarily. If you think you are in conflict, you may have seen the money-consuming side of "cheating on old age".

And money is not as good as family love and companionship.

Note: I am just considering the other side of the problem, not to whitewash "gnawing at the old". If you don't like it, don't criticize it.