Khmu Nation wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:42 am In the UK I would say it's more common the other way round. Children depending on thier folks. And when I say children I mean men and women born in the 70s and 80s!

Pretty much all the parents of the friends I grew up with are far wealthier than thier children.. And I mean both now and if they look back to where they were financially at the same age.

I would imagine the best time to be born ever, in all of human history, was sometime between 1950 and 1965. Those guys had it all.

Same in Australia but another factor is kids today want everything now what it took us years to save for.
Children looking after thier parents has been around for centuries all over the world it's only been last few decades in the western world things have turned

Yes times jobs have changed but if young people really want they can buy a house, yes not in the middle of the city but outermost suburb or smaller town, most want lifestyle over comments and then moan when they get older it's every one else's fault.
My kids good example, can afford buy one bed apartment but no they want a house in town, can't get deposit but got best furniture computer gamers $30 k new car,
Dad can you help us,
Maybe this is a whole new topic

Yes, it may have been so in those years, but for whom. My father a Journeyman had his own decorating business, but was working every hour, due to the new plan, moving to Australia (it was a very cheap move at that time).
My brother had already served his time as an aprentace, and was now a qualified coach builder/signwriter, my mother worked in the textile mills with many others, my sister was secretary in the mill’s office, work in this area was booming, so much so that in the 50s they took labour from India and Pakistan to fill the growing demand.
Myself, about to start school, a late addition to the family. Life was pretty good. How it changed so fast, father had a massive heart attack and died aged 42, the mill trade virtually stopped overnight when the work went overseas to India. Our family home was bought for a misally sum by compulsory order by that of the local council. My brother got married and moved far away, my sister’s husband left her and his son, and also the debt of their new house. I suppose there was a bit of light that the council offered my mum a council house, she then got work has a home help. I only went to school, but any work to be had, I took it, from potato picking at the age of seven. I was that of a council estate kid like my mates, yes, we had time to play when growing up, but we would work at any opportunity to help out in anyway with our family, you could say we were poor. I had other friends who’s perants had business and their own houses. I would work for them too. Paper-rounds were out of the question, after school and feeding the local farmers 2000 pigs paid more, and I had never been work shy. It was in later life, after we had small times of recession and unemployment, work was so important it left me being a single parent, but still fulltime work. Was it because I had known what it was like to be without, or my choice to provide if possible? Even with a social system life can be difficult for some. Its also what you belive in yourself and how you wish to address the situation that may come along unexpected. Here in this country I see that is the only way, that a person must work to provide. Is it any different from anywhere?

Thanks to everyone who commented, interesting discussion. It does seem true also in many developed countries that the older generation has more money and so is sometimes in a position to help out the younger generation.

It seems that some people are not getting my entire point though. Most people just took it as a discussion of young people taking care of older people in their family, in societies that don't have a pension system.

It seems normal and obvious that someone has to take care of people when they get really old, when there is no pension system.

My discussion is about parents who think that around age 50 they no longer need to work, even when they are actually capable of working, and the cultural attitudes that support them in thinking this way. The cultural attitudes even may influence their feelings, as they start to feel "tired", "old", etc.

And also keeping in mind that medical expenses are generally much more for older people (if they are actually properly cared for).

Generally I guess that this cultural trend could be a cause of low productivity in Cambodia.

I wasn't aware that this same system exists in Thailand and the Philippines- would be interesting to compare to see how similar or different it is.

Here's a theory
- Life expectancy probably plays a part in the Cambodian attitude that you need to retire in your fifties. According to this site https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/K ... expectancy, 20 years ago in 2000, (average) life expectancy was 58 years old in Cambodia. It is now close to 70. It seems possible ( to me) that whereas the life expectancy has improved enormously over 20 years, Cambodian society's view of old age may not have changed in such a short time.
For example, quite often on CEO, there are articles where the reporters refer to people aged 50 as 'old man' , 'old woman' or 'grandma'. I noticed this because some of the (older) posters here get a bit upset, lol.

I think Anchor Moy is correct. When life expectancy was 58, it made sense to retire in the 50s.

The problem is that expectations haven’t adjusted to the new reality of increasing life spans.

The part I don’t get is when the parent has remarried, and is still working, now for his new wife and family. And still expects increasing monetary support from the children.

Except now the ‘support’ given to him goes straight into his new wife’s pocket.

Khmer math.