This week's topic is social services. There are so many social services in our community, such as Red Cross, Goodwill Industries, and Salvation Army. We see all these social services bringing positive change in society. Social services is one of my most passionate field to work in because it outreaches to the elderly, poor, children, and the disabled. The nonprofit sector provide most of the social services in this country and I feel it makes the most difference in helping people. I find that the impact of social services are huge. They provide emergency relief, food and clothing during winter, housing units for homeless people, and rehab services. All these are good services and aid. The problem is with the social service sector is the idea of government paying and social services providing (O'Neill). The whole idea of welfare and social safety net is not working today. People are too depend on welfare to provide for them, where it should be instead providing "what is necessary" to society, not just getting money and providing. I agree that there are lots of people in need and should be help. The problem comes, where it become a band wagon and everyone thinks they need help even if its a small thing such as food stamp. I heard a story where people use food stamp to buy lobster (luxury food) instead of basic necessary food. This could be a extreme example but the idea is there is no check and balance for the welfare system.
A topic I would like to talk about within the social services is elderly care and the issue of putting grandparents in retirement homes. I come from a Chinese culture where it is the duty of children when they grow up to take care of their parents and we often live with our grandparents. In the Chinese Marriage Law Article 20 it states "...children shall have the duty to support and assist their parents...If children fail to perform their duty, parents who are unable to work or have difficulties in providing for themselves shall have the right to demand support payments from their children." The Chinese children have a cycle of responsibility and honor, where when they are young the parents take care of them and they take care of their parents when they are old. American don't see this as their responsibility and they live their own lives once they mature into adults. I often hear from Americans that they move out when they start their careers or when they are starting their own families. I am not saying Chinese people don't move out but that their parents often follow it them to where they go. The family structure is always there and we don't live separate lives. The issue is where Americans don't take care of their parents when they get old and sometimes send them off to retirements homes. The government and nonprofit sector provide so many elderly services, 6,740 firms (O'Neill), that could be cut back through the structure I talked about above. Grandparents should be living with their family instead of themselves and we wouldn't need so many retirement homes or elderly care. I do believe if the elderly are sick, can't take care of them, or has mental problem then they should be at a elderly facility. I know this is kind of controversy with what I am suggesting but its just a idea that could be use to save medical and welfare costs. Here is the pros and cons of grandparents living with your family:
Pros: Save money for the family but not going to retirement homes, someone to maintain the house, family unity and being close together, less sprawl (kids don't have to move out to buy new houses).
Cons: Often nobody is home to look after the grandparents, they could get hurt, loneliness.
So the question is whether this kind of responsibility is good for the American culture? I am not saying this should be a law by any circumstance but rather a new way of looking at family structural system and how we can help ourselves instead of government provide everything.
Here is the link for about the Chinese social system and the family structure. This will give you more background information and hopefully help you form your own opinions.
http://www.booksandideas.net/China-s-Social-Protection-System.html
Another issue that is related to the grandparents topic is child day-care services. Again the idea is to cut cost for families and provide for yourself. Me and my brother was raised by my grandma while both of my parents worked. I know that some families have stay home moms to raise children but those that don't could use this alternative. Since your grandparents live with you, they could take care of the children while you're at work. Obviously there are positive and negative aspect to this too.
What do you think? Does this idea work or can it work in some families? What are the social consequences of this?
I like the idea that children should take care of their parents and i feel that it could be a feasible model for America. The model would certainly be helpful for reducing our burgeoning budget deficit. However, there are certainly some structural constraints. Culturally the conception of "filial piety" as described in the article you provided (http://www.booksandideas.net/China-s-Social-Protection-System.html) is more attuned to Chinese culture and less a part of American culture. That is not to say that it couldn't work per se. It's just that Western liberalism and individualism is more culturally attuned with the social net that our country uses. There may also be flaws in adopting in America that China too also faces. There could be cases where the elderly didn't have children or, even worse, their children do not wish to support them. From a legal standpoint I'm sure it would be a thorny situation if a parent had to sue his or her child for ill support. This seems to be the case in China -- "even though abandonment is a private prosecution case of crime, the elderly rarely prosecute their children for such a crime” (http://www.booksandideas.net/China-s-Social-Protection-System.html).
ReplyDeleteHowever, if it was just morally binding and not legally binding I think it would be a great model that American's definitely should use. I think that all people have a responsibility to their parents, and should work in this way to reduce the deficit.
You pointed out that with grandparents living in a home not only provides childcare, but it also eliminates the need for the elderly to figure out how to live on their own. I never thought of parents living with their children as a way to lessen the financial burden placed on the government, but it makes a lot of sense. It is especially interesting that it states in Chinese law that parents have the legal right to demand support from their children. I wonder if by stating that in the Marriage Law the government realized the burden it would take off of them in providing for the elderly, or if it is simply there for cultural reasons.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the question of such a structure for American culture, I do not think it would ever work. Our culture is also unique in the fact that turning 18 usually means moving out to live on your own. I think we have such an ingrained sense of individualism that we see moving out and supporting ourselves for the rest of our lives as a rite of passage. Just as there are many children who would not want their parents to live with them, I am sure there are just as many parents who enjoy being "empty nesters". Many adults feel like once they have done their job by raising their children and sending them to college, they are then free to do as they please. I think the Chinese system is a great way to build a strong sense of family and community, but it may not be culturally appropriate for Americans. However, that does not mean that it American families do not have anything to gain from making it a responsibility and an honor to care for their parents in old age.
I agree with your stance that some "people are too dependent on welfare to provide for them, where it should be instead providing 'what is necessary' to society." I haven't heard of welfare money going to lobster before, but it's sad to say that I'm not really shocked. It reminds me of this episode on "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" where Dee and Dennis decide to make money by going on welfare. It's funny, and also reasonably accurate of the current system. You should look it up on Hulu if you haven't seen it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as taking care of the elderly, I have great respect for the Chinese in this regard. Children and grand-parents need to be nurtured and taken care of, but decreasing the numbers in nursing homes won't necessarily band-aid the welfare system. There will always be poorly made decisions and inefficiencies in any government related sector.
I thought it was interesting that you mentioned the cultural differences between the United States and China regarding how the elderly are treated. It seems that traditionally, families have lived closer together, and the young would provide for the elderly. Next, life expectancy has increased, this creating a greater burden on families as they must provide for more years of care. It seems that the United States is facing a number of problems as it continues to pay pensions and has an overwhelmed social security system. I like the idea of families taking care of their own. However, today it is not that simple as families are spread all around, and the burden would fall on just one party making it undesirable for many. However, there are issues with the current system such as a lack of funds for retirement. It seems that the federal government picks up the tab in many cases when retires cannot pay their own way.
ReplyDeleteNext, I liked your food stamps example, where someone was buying lobster with it. While there are a number of requirements surrounding the application process, a lot of people including college kids are using this program simply as supplementary income. I believe that one of the ways they decide how much you receive is by calculating your rent into the equation which doesn't seem like the best way. Personally, I feel like non-profits can better decide need, as they can use their discrepancy in many cases to create greater efficiency. They can deny someone that the government would give benefits and vice-versa.
One last thing to note on, it seems like most non-profits are aware of the role they play, and only on rare occasion do they choose to discriminate as a private organization. The red cross for example, states on their website that they offer help regardless to religion, gender, sexual preference, race, ect. It seems that in many cases, such as with churches, the provide universal help when serving the social services role.