Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adult Day Cares in the Rio Grande Valley

texasobserver.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: Adult Day Cares in the Rio Grande Valley

#31

Post by throwaway010718 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #28
msteffen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the wealth doesn’t exist to provide them white glove service until death. The solution is not startups, it’s community and family (along with having enough savings, FMLA, and vacation time). The linked article seems to suggest that adult day cares actually work best when resources are limited, because they allow older people to be independent for longer (which is good regardless of the resources available): > When…

As the article mentions, it works for Hispanic culture. TBD how the rest of aging America handles it.

Well if you casually observed the last two generations of my Hispanic family, you would say we made it work too. But that is because the culture pushes the youngest daughters to not get married and have no children. So now we have multiple women in our family who are bitter, boring, poor, and have destroyed their careers prospects because "it works" for the rest of the family.

Re: Adult Day Cares in the Rio Grande Valley

#32

Post by sien »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #16
jen_h wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope so. There's a huge need for a sea change in eldercare. My spouse and I have spent at least three months of this year helping older relatives, and I worry it'll consume a bigger chunk of next year. One interesting bright light is that a lot of the startups targeted towards younger people are actually godsends for senior independence -- grocery delivery, meal delivery, ridesharing. Not to mention how much…

I believe this is an unsolvable problem. The math just doesn't work anymore. Back when exponential population growth was more of an option you'd just have 6 kids to spread the cost of elder care across. It doesn't matter whether you care for your parents or hire someone to, the fact of the matter is there is increasingly just not enough young people to provide the elder care and also perform the other kinds of produc…

Elder day care can be reasonably cheap.

It's also worth noting that the elderly have a big chunk of wealth :

https://dqydj.com/the-net-worth-of-different-age-groups-in-a...

Re: Adult Day Cares in the Rio Grande Valley

#33

Post by toomuchtodo »

throwaway010718 wrote: post #31
toomuchtodo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article mentions, it works for Hispanic culture. TBD how the rest of aging America handles it.

Well if you casually observed the last two generations of my Hispanic family, you would say we made it work too. But that is because the culture pushes the youngest daughters to not get married and have no children. So now we have multiple women in our family who are bitter, boring, poor, and have destroyed their careers prospects because "it works" for the rest of the family.

Would those career prospects be substantially different if those women chose to have children? Or if they chose to postpone their careers to care for aging parents when the time came? Maybe their career goes well but to remain in it becomes a financial hardship so care can be paid for while they still work. Hard to say, lots of variables.

Re: Adult Day Cares in the Rio Grande Valley

#34

Post by DoreenMichele »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #33
throwaway010718 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you casually observed the last two generations of my Hispanic family, you would say we made it work too. But that is because the culture pushes the youngest daughters to not get married and have no children. So now we have multiple women in our family who are bitter, boring, poor, and have destroyed their careers prospects because "it works" for the rest of the family.

Would those career prospects be substantially different if those women chose to have children? Or if they chose to postpone their careers to care for aging parents when the time came? Maybe their career goes well but to remain in it becomes a financial hardship so care can be paid for while they still work. Hard to say, lots of variables.

That framing comes across like "Women are losers with no lives anyway, amirite?! So, fuck em!"

Ideally, a healthy social contract benefits all involved parties and doesn't sacrifice some particular subgroup so that everyone else can be happy, but they're screwed no matter what they do because all options open to them are horrible.

Re: Adult Day Cares in the Rio Grande Valley

#35

Post by toomuchtodo »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #34
toomuchtodo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would those career prospects be substantially different if those women chose to have children? Or if they chose to postpone their careers to care for aging parents when the time came? Maybe their career goes well but to remain in it becomes a financial hardship so care can be paid for while they still work. Hard to say, lots of variables.

That framing comes across like "Women are losers with no lives anyway, amirite?! So, fuck em!" Ideally, a healthy social contract benefits all involved parties and doesn't sacrifice some particular subgroup so that everyone else can be happy, but they're screwed no matter what they do because all options open to them are horrible.

We don’t have a healthy social contact. My impression was that’s what this thread was about, and what my comment you’re responding to observes (I don’t call women “losers”, nor do I believe that they are or that they have no lives).

Most options are poor options, through little fault of the individual. You’re doing the best you can with the hand you’ve been dealt.

Re: Adult Day Cares in the Rio Grande Valley

#36

Post by DoreenMichele »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #35
DoreenMichele wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That framing comes across like "Women are losers with no lives anyway, amirite?! So, fuck em!" Ideally, a healthy social contract benefits all involved parties and doesn't sacrifice some particular subgroup so that everyone else can be happy, but they're screwed no matter what they do because all options open to them are horrible.

We don’t have a healthy social contact. My impression was that’s what this thread was about, and what my comment you’re responding to observes (I don’t call women “losers”, nor do I believe that they are or that they have no lives). Most options are poor options, through little fault of the individual. You’re doing the best you can with the hand you’ve been dealt.

I was a homemaker for a lot of years. It's a thing I've thought a lot about.

When 1+1=3 and you divide the pie such that everyone gets more than they would have on their own, no, it's not all downside and it's not unhealthy.

It's all downside when 1+1=3, but one party consistently gets less than what they would have on their own. Then, why should they go along with this?

That's where you get bitter people.

Edit: For the record, you've done a lot of editing of both of your comments here, which potentially changes how my replies look. I did my best to not personally accuse you of anything and to only state that the way the comment was written was not coming across well.

Re: Adult Day Cares in the Rio Grande Valley

#37

Post by toomuchtodo »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #36
toomuchtodo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t have a healthy social contact. My impression was that’s what this thread was about, and what my comment you’re responding to observes (I don’t call women “losers”, nor do I believe that they are or that they have no lives). Most options are poor options, through little fault of the individual. You’re doing the best you can with the hand you’ve been dealt.

I was a homemaker for a lot of years. It's a thing I've thought a lot about. When 1+1=3 and you divide the pie such that everyone gets more than they would have on their own, no, it's not all downside and it's not unhealthy. It's all downside when 1+1=3, but one party consistently gets less than what they would have on their own. Then, why should they go along with this? That's where you get bitter people. Edit: For…

No worries, I wish HN tracked edits. I tried to keep my comments as non directed as possible to focus on ideas, not people.

Your comments stand on their own, and it has been pointed out I have made edits (which I’ve attempted to make in good faith).

Re: Adult Day Cares in the Rio Grande Valley

#38

Post by jen_h »

sien wrote: post #32
Consultant32452 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is an unsolvable problem. The math just doesn't work anymore. Back when exponential population growth was more of an option you'd just have 6 kids to spread the cost of elder care across. It doesn't matter whether you care for your parents or hire someone to, the fact of the matter is there is increasingly just not enough young people to provide the elder care and also perform the other kinds of produc…

Elder day care can be reasonably cheap. It's also worth noting that the elderly have a big chunk of wealth : https://dqydj.com/the-net-worth-of-different-age-groups-in-a...

Eldercare for more serious ailments is pretty pricey if you stay aboveboard, but healthcare benefits in the US for 65+ are pretty great. Combine Medicare with their private plans, and as a person under 65 watching the medical care my elders get: it's mind-blowing.

I have to believe that a good chunk of Medicare-for-All folks are middle-aged people who see how the over-65s don't worry a whit about how much anything costs, because it's all covered, while younger folks are setting their own broken bones or dying over insulin or going bankrupt due to bike accidents.

Anyway, lesson here is: The +65s vote reliably and politicians allocate benefits accordingly. Dear everyone who is not 65+: please vote.

Re: Adult Day Cares in the Rio Grande Valley

#39

Post by [deleted] »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #37
DoreenMichele wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a homemaker for a lot of years. It's a thing I've thought a lot about. When 1+1=3 and you divide the pie such that everyone gets more than they would have on their own, no, it's not all downside and it's not unhealthy. It's all downside when 1+1=3, but one party consistently gets less than what they would have on their own. Then, why should they go along with this? That's where you get bitter people. Edit: For…

No worries, I wish HN tracked edits. I tried to keep my comments as non directed as possible to focus on ideas, not people. Your comments stand on their own, and it has been pointed out I have made edits (which I’ve attempted to make in good faith).

[deleted]

Re: Adult Day Cares in the Rio Grande Valley

#40

Post by newyankee »

FreedomToCreate wrote: post #2

https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging%20and%20Disability... Over the next 20 years, the number of elderly over the age of 85 is projected to go from 6.4 to 14.6 million. 10% of the population is over 65. That's a lot of people who don't work and need care in the next 2 decades. We are probably going to see a big uptick in Y combinator graduating companies who focus on elderly care.

Possibly one big market for robotics cos as well
Post reply on HN