What should the rural elderly do if they don't want to go to town to bring their grandchildren, but they have no money to subsidize their sons?

First of all, I want to say that it is understandable that rural elderly people do not want to go to the city to take care of their grandchildren. After all, it takes many years to get used to leaving your familiar place and going to a strange place. Some old people are still not used to city life even after a few years.

I asked my mother-in-law from the countryside to come to the city to help me with my children. Although my mother-in-law came, she always said that every day was too boring. It is a fixed way of life to turn like a machine every day. Then my mother-in-law took it for half a year. When the child was more than 8 months old, she said that she would take the baby back to her hometown for a few days. The last few days turned into two years. Because her mother-in-law is not coming, she said that she would take it in the countryside instead of going to the city.

So, I had no choice but to put my baby in the countryside and bring it to my mother-in-law until I was 3 years old. Fortunately, the countryside is close to my home and I will go back to play with my children on weekends. To tell the truth, children in rural areas are happier. They can see small animals every day and eat them everywhere, and my mother-in-law is much happier. In rural areas, you don't have to climb stairs, you can buy food at home, and you can chat at home after dinner.

Secondly, it is understandable that rural elderly people have no money to subsidize their sons. There is no stipulation that the elderly in rural areas must have money, nor does it stipulate that the elderly should subsidize their sons' families. If such a son really exists, it is gnawing at the old, and this son is not filial enough. Old people in rural areas originally had less living expenses, where did they get spare money? It's good that they can get enough food and clothing without asking their son for money. Are you still considering subsidizing your family?

What should the rural elderly do if they don't want to go to town to bring their grandchildren, but they have no money to subsidize their sons? The person who asks this question is probably a person with strong traditional ideas. He may think that his son should be taken care of by his grandparents after having a child, and then let his son and daughter-in-law go to work. But I don't want to go to the city, and I can't afford to subsidize my family. I think these are my failed parents. Actually, there is no need to worry so much. Nowadays, many young people belong to one family, and it is better for their children to be taken care of by their mothers than by their grandparents. Anyway, taking care of the elderly or taking care of the daughter-in-law requires so many people to eat. The more people there are, the greater the expenses, which is equivalent to the daughter-in-law going out to work and not saving money.

Tell me an example around you.

My friend's mother-in-law didn't help with her grandchildren, because her mother-in-law was in poor health and had a hard time walking, let alone helping with her children, and she was irresponsible to the elderly and children. In addition, the elderly are very frugal and can't cook ordinary dishes. It is estimated that taking care of children will lead to malnutrition. Therefore, my friend didn't ask her mother-in-law to take care of the children. She would rather not go to work than wronged the old man. It's just that if you can't work with your children for a few years, there will be no extra money. Let's live a frugal life.

In short:

As an old man, if you don't want to go to town to take care of your grandchildren, you should tell your son and daughter-in-law the specific situation. I think you will understand. Don't worry about having no money to subsidize your son's family. The children don't lack your money.