[paulsutter]

My parents would be fine without my support, but I'm supporting them anyway.

How does that signal anything negative at all?

ps. gfsn54nsf never said they needed his help, nor did he say that he's somehow forced to support them.

[jacquesm]

It's not a bad thing if you can afford it.

But if you can't then society should be right there and without such a catch-net people will have children to support them, not because they actually want children (they simply see them as an economic asset and a pension plan).

I strongly suspect that UBI will result in a net decrease in the birth rate wherever it is implemented.

For the record, I supported my mom for some years because (1) I could and (2) she needed it but if she could have kept herself afloat she would have definitely chosen that path instead (she got hit with a brain hemorrhage (sp?) and needed to go back to work long before she was physically able to).

[alextgordon]

When you're old, too old to work, someone will need to work to support you.

I'm sceptical that the anglophone world has it so figured out.

In Britain we have the pension system. In America the mechanism is rising asset prices.

In Britain the pension system is falling apart under the weight of demographic change -- pensions are by far the largest public expense, and the age to qualify is rising. I doubt I will ever get a pension.

In America, there is the opposite problem. People are supposed to put their money into the stock market (via a 401k). The idea is that equity prices go up over time at a rate exceeding inflation, so if you're old you can sell your assets to the people saving now -- for a profit.

The problem with this, is that it doesn't always work that way. The Nikkei hit its all-time high in 1989. The S&P sat in a two decade funk from 1970 to 1990.

So all we've done is add more layers of abstraction. Instead of your children supporting you, now everyone's children are supporting you, and instead of supporting you out of filial love, they hate your very existence.