Is caring for elderly parents detrimental to women’s mental health?

We will face this problem more and more. I have heard so much from so many people that boys are useless idiots as far as looking after the parental units are concerned. Its the daughters who help look after the old folks. But people don't think about the impact this has on the daughters. One way of seeing this is to see if this has any mental health issues. This obviously means that the health care and social care sectors of the country have to worry about it. Also for the old fogeys, please put aside sufficient money so that you have proper support in a care home or with nursing, or what have you. You have already managed to bugger it up with loading debt on them but one to think deeply..

2.        Is caring for elderly parents detrimental to women’s mental health? The influence of the European North-South gradient Date:        2013-11
By:        Elenka Brenna (Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore ) ; Cinzia Di Novi (Università Ca’ Foscari, Dipartimento di Economia, Venezia )
In the last decades, both the lengthening of life expectancy and an accentuated decline in birth rates have reduced the consistency of the younger generational cohorts. Due to an ageing population, the burden of care giving is expected to intensify in the next quarter of the century in Europe, especially for mature women. This paper investigates the impact of the provision of constant care for elderly parents on the mental health of adult daughters, between the ages of 50 and 65, living in different European countries. Data is collected from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Information on mental health status is provided by Euro-D depression scale, a standardized measure of depression employed across European countries. We focus on differences in the effects according to a North–South gradient: we test whether the relationship between informal caregiving and mental health differs across European macro- regions. Our results reveal the presence of a North-South gradient in the effect of caring on women’s mental health.
Keywords:        caregiver burden, depression, parent care, LTC systems, mature women
JEL:        I10 I12 D10
URL:        http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ctc:serie1:def004&r=age

Love, money, and old age support : does parental matchmaking matter ?

Abstract
Parental involvement in matchmaking may distort the choice of spouse because parents are willing to substitute love for market and household production, which are more sharable between parents and their children. This paper finds supportive evidence in a survey of Chinese couples. In both rural and urban areas, parent matchmaking is associated with less marital harmony between the couple, more submissive wives, and a stronger belief in old age support for the son. In contrast, its association with couple income differs by rural and urban regions, perhaps because of differences in earning opportunities and in the enforcement of the one-child policy. Moreover, parent matchmaking is associated with more children for the couple and lower schooling for wives only in rural areas. Thus, in places with a stronger need for old age support, parents tend to be involved in matchmaking and use it to select submissive daughters-in-law to ensure old age support. The results render support to Becker, Murphy and Spenckuch (2015), who imply that parents would meddle with children's preferences to ensure their commitment to providing old age support.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/02/23950160/null

whilst this was a Chinese study, based upon the little I know of many traditional societies in Asia, Africa and also Latin America, this definitely has legs to stand true. It makes perfect sense. I have heard so many times that people look at their kids as their pensions. That’s the inter-generational compact if you will. One more reason perhaps why some mother in law’s in India are terrible to their daughter in laws despite the fact that they were also subject to similar inhumane treatment when they were daughter in laws.

Costs of welfare

Here’s some interesting statistics by Angela Merkel.

“If Europe today accounts for just over 7 per cent of the world’s population, produces around 25 per cent of global GDP and has to finance 50 per cent of global social spending, then it’s obvious that it will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of life,” Ms Merkel said in the interview.
“All of us have to stop spending more than we earn every year.”

Pretty much obvious, but when you consider the levels of government spending across Europe, its shocking. For that matter across the board in the OECD countries, the level of spending is shocking. You know what pissed me off? is that we are spending and asking our kids to pick up the tab. That’s not being very good to our kids now, is it? bah

24 years of incompetence and stupidity

The department of Work and Pensions has, for the last 24 years, managed to bollox up the benefits system to such a large degree that last year, it managed to lose £3.2b and underpay £1.3b.

What is this? Is this what the taxpayer is working his nuts off for? that you cannot manage a benefits system? If the problem is complexity, then simplify it but then, these bloody governments cannot resist tinkering with the tax system. So the cost of a massively complex benefits and tax system, besides the usual economic costs, is this.

Unbelievable. This beast must be starved to death. More austerity and less taxes. Only then will this incompetent behemoth start looking at its own internal efficiencies.

Department for Work and Pensions accounts show £3.2bn lost in overpayments and £13bn underpaid

The Whitehall spending auditor has declined to sign off in full the accounts of the Department for Work and Pensions for the 24th year running, because of the extent of fraud and error in the benefits system.

Some £3.2bn is thought to have been lost through overpayments in 2011/12. Underpayments came to an estimated £1.3bn.

Auditor general Amyas Morse said fraud and error was "unacceptably high" and qualified his opinion of the DWP's accounts, the 24th year consecutive year this has been the case for the department and its benefits-handling predecessors.

Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who chairs the public accounts committee, said the DWP had failed to get a grip on fraud and error despite assurances that it would do so. "This department has the biggest budget in Whitehall and its inability, 24 years in a row, to administer its spending properly is just unacceptable," she said.

"With fraud and error of £4.5bn in 2011-12, roughly the same as in previous years, huge sums of money are being lost to the public purse that could have been spent on our schools and hospitals.

"Government spending is at its tightest for over 50 years and it simply can't afford to carry on like this."

She said the government was relying on the forthcoming introduction of the universal credit to "get its house in order" but that the transition to the new benefit was "full of risks" and potentially off-schedule.

"The department has got to get a grip on fraud and error now. Despite its assurances to my committee, it has not done so and it must do better," she said.

Morse said: "The level of fraud and error in the welfare system remains unacceptably high.

"I recognise, however, the difficulty of administering in a cost-effective way a benefits system of such complexity.

"The department should use the development of universal credit as an opportunity to enhance its processes to demonstrate what a modern, effective and joined-up benefits system will look like.

"In refreshing its approach to reducing fraud and error, the department needs to continue to improve its understanding of the root causes of fraud and error."

The auditor general's qualified opinion did not apply to the state pension, which has a much lower level of fraud and error, with £100m of overpayments and £150m of underpayments last year.

But he did also qualify his opinion of the separate social fund account – which includes cold weather payments, winter fuel payments, Sure Start maternity grants, crisis loans and community care grants – because of the extent of errors.

That account has now been qualified for nine years running.

Morse said the DWP had made "improvements" in some areas regarding the social fund but added that it "must build on these improvements if it is fully to resolve the regularity and debt issues".

Bishops show their usual perspicacity

So the bishops are upset, eh?

Eighteen Church of England bishops have signed an open letter, criticising the government's proposed welfare reforms. In the letter, in The Observer, the bishops express concerns about plans to limit the amount any household can claim in benefits to £500 a week. The bishops say the cap could be "profoundly unjust" to children in the poorest families and that they have a "moral obligation to speak up for those who have no voice".

It is estimated the cap, which would apply to the combined income from benefits such as jobseekers' allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit, could result in about 50,000 families being about £93 a week worse off. London is expected to be one of the worst affected areas, because of the high cost of renting in the capital. Earlier this week a study, on behalf of London Councils, said about 133,000 households in London would be unable to afford their rent if the proposed changes go ahead.

So let me see what’s the problem? Why is the government doing this? The government is saying (not that the BBC will report it) that its unfair that a household should get in benefits more than what an average family gets in wages. Now, that sounds fair to me, doesn't it? Nobody said that my taxes have to support you having to live in the middle of Chelsea or in London. Its not like you are working anyway, are you? So what’s the point? Or are you expecting me to pay my taxes so that you have a nice social life with your neighbours? Nice one.

Also notice that these blessed bishops didn't say anything about the millions of below average households who are going to have to pay more to keep these people at an income level higher than they themselves are in. Good for you, rob peter to pay Paul and then these bishops will be supporting Paul. Truly they are irrelevant in today’s life, no wonder nobody is going to church, specially with muppets like this. Bah. What happened to the Protestant work ethic? The fact that they have to go out and work? God Helps those who help themselves? And the proud tradition of working that made western Christendom proud? Unbelievable.

Proposed cap of £500 per week is critiqued

First the story.

The government's benefits cap could make more than 80,000 children homeless and push many thousands more into poverty, says the Children's Society. In a devastating critique of the plan to limit the amount even the largest families can claim in benefits, Bob Reitemeier, its chief executive, said there would be a huge "human and social cost" if the reforms went ahead.

The welfare reform bill, which proposes a £500 a week cap on the amount families can claim for housing, childcare and sustenance, is set to return to parliament in the House of Lords on Tuesday after making unsteady progress through the Commons earlier this year.

The society says 200,000 children will have their lives affected by the changes to the amount their parents can claim and 27,600 adults and 82,400 children could be made homeless.

While supporters of the benefits cap claim it would simply mean families would be forced to move into cheaper accommodation, government figures suggest 70% of those who will be hit are already living in social housing.

Reitemeier said changes to the proposed legislation were urgently needed. "The reason we are so concerned about children is that three in four of the people that are going to be affected by the benefits cap are children and I don't think that's publicly understood", he said. "There are some main concerns: one is that the children will be made homeless, possibly 80,000 children, which would be a significant change to their lives.

"Secondly, what we think could happen is that those children already in poverty, below 60% of the median income line, will fall into severe poverty, less than 40% of the median income. This has a very human and social impact on their lives."

The Children's Society also believes that children, who are nine times as likely as adults to be hit by the cap because of the prevalence of large families among those claiming benefits, will experience lower levels of wellbeing. It says it understands the element of unfairness in people who are on benefits having large families catered for, but that the government should ensure children do not suffer for their parents' decisions.

The £500 cap is based on the average annual household wage of £26,000. The charity proposes that instead the government should work out the level of the cap – the universal credit – by basing it on the average household income of working families with children, which would include in-work benefits.

So here’s the thing, the government thinks that that the average wage is a good level to compensate people who have fallen on bad times. But people want to raise it? In other words, when you have problems, the state will take money from people (at least 50% yes?) who earn (that’s right, they earn and work) less than what you will get as a household. Hmmm. That is fair? And why would they be made homeless? And why shouldn't they move into cheaper accommodation? I didn't realise that I was paying taxes to give to people who can live in more swanky accommodation? These people are frikking nuts.

Let me throw another statistic at you. Did you know that the number of households in which NO ADULT HAS EVER WORKED IS 370,000? that’s right, you read right, nobody has worked in these households, EVER. And they rely on benefits. Which are currently much more than the average tax payer and citizen. And these frikking muppets want them to have more? WTF?

STOP SPENDING MY MONEY, you morons!

Why blame the parents for fraud?

See this article. I quote:

Head teachers claim stimulants are being over-prescribed to young children, who they suspect are not sufferers of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). They say unscrupulous parents of troubled youngsters are pushing for an ADHD diagnosis to claim disability benefits.

"I think parents are very well aware of how the system works, in terms of obtaining the drugs for their children, and the monetary gains that they get through a diagnosis."

As an economist, this behaviour is perfectly logical. When given the choice of getting money for very little pain, who wouldnt say no? Morals aside, that’s perfectly incentivised. Lets say this, you get a chance of getting a steady stream of money in return for you having to lie a bit to your doctor, you dont even have to give your child the medicine and you get money. Hey, parents are experts in lying, specially when the child asks difficult questions, no?

Looking after children is not work

This was brilliant. If only for the serious wtf and irony. First the facts:

A stay-at-home parent’s activities are not classified as ‘work’, according to the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court. The Court refused to award a Malmö woman unemployment insurance benefits (a-kassa), after the Administrative Court of Appeal (Kammarrätten) had considered that she had no right to receive social benefits, according to the news agency Siren. Even if the children have special needs that prevent the parent from working outside of the home, the parent is still not entitled to receive unemployment benefits.

So its not work, eh? and the chutzpah was the woman asking for unemployment benefits. Having children is a benefit, its a choice, not a duty. This is why I find it bizarre when child benefit is given or extra special benefits are given to have kids. Hello, why? What for? you might as well as give benefits for breathing. And all this in Sweden. Heh.

Fit to work, but can’t work

Now this is interesting, just because you are disabled or sick doesnt mean you cannot work. The government is trying to get people off the sickness rolls and into work. I quote:

More than two-thirds of applicants for sickness benefits are being rejected under a new testing regime, casting doubt on the validity of 2.6m existing claimants deemed unfit for work. According to data seen by several welfare industry figures, up to 90 per cent of applicants are being judged able to work in some regions and placed on unemployment rolls rather than long-term ill-health benefits. Every person returning to work would reduce the £12.5bn total bill of incapacity benefit and start to pay some income tax and national insurance.

I realise this is at a bad time because the recession is there and not so many jobs around, but the principle is fine and dandy. No reason to stop looking for jobs. What we need to do is to put in a time limit on welfare assistance, say 5 years. Surely that’s enough, no? See here for a good paper.

 

And then again, you have people like this:

Debi Wendes, 52, has resorted to standing in pearls and a smart navy shift dress in the middle of a busy shopping precinct, holding a sign asking for work.

The former accounts manager from Chelmsford, Essex, decided to take action after learning the temporary work which has kept her going is due to run out on Friday. She has had a sign made up with a cartoon picture of herself on the front, listing her CV. It reads: "I'm looking for work! Sales support, executive assistant, customer service, call centre, salary exp. £17k

You cannot adopt, you are too fat

One of the things which I deeply regret in my life (and there aren't many of those, I promise), is the fact that I was not able to adopt here in the UK, and all because of those interfering busybodies in the social services. The range of exclusions and factors were very bizarre. You are a Hindu so you cannot adopt a Christian or Muslim baby! You already have a child so its not fair on others. You are of a brown race so you cannot adopt a white child or a black one and so on and so forth. Thank god they didn't say that I was too fat or too tall.

I can only tell you anecdotal evidence that the number of Asian foster and adoptive parents are significantly lower than white parents. While I can understand and know about cultural and religious factors (such as purity of bloodline, casteism, Islamic reasons and the lot), still, when one does want to adopt, they find it very difficult.

I am still furious about this situation. And that's something that really gets me going every time I read about this. These bloody awful social services people are simply too interfering. They actively force kids into fostering and force them into a horrible situation of not having loving parents. These people are seriously well meaning, but as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But hold on, the social services did say this to this couple.

The letter the couple were sent by Leeds City Council, signed by a team manager and seen by the BBC said: "I am writing to confirm that we are unable to progress an application from you at this time.

"This is due to the concerns that the medical advisers have expressed regarding Mr Hall's weight.

"I have discussed this with our medical adviser... who considers that it is important to alter lifestyle, diet and exercise in a sustainable way so that any weight reduction can be maintained in the long term.

It went on: "I understand that you would like to begin the assessment as soon as possible and while appreciating your reasons for this, I consider it would be more appropriate to begin the assessment once Mr Hall's BMI is below 40."

What on earth is this? This is bureaucracy gone mad. Who gives them the right to play god and prevent a child  from having a good family home? Where is it written that fat people are not good parents? Both my parents have had pot bellies and look what I turned out to be (perhaps this is not such a good example…), but all joking aside, this is ridiculous.

While they will take decisive action on stopping kids from being adopted, they dither such as in the case of Victoria Climbié or Baby P. Makes me want to weep for the missed opportunities for the poor babies. Also see this brilliant take on this story.

Then comes news of the fact that a foster parent has been struck off the rolls just because a girl in her care has converted to Christianity. What did the council say?

But council officials allegedly accused her of failing to ‘respect and preserve’ the child’s faith and tried to persuade the girl to reconsider her decision.

So these council officials can literally be prosecuted (and will be, as I understand) for violating the fundamental rights of both the mother and the child. More I read about this and the more upset I get.

They said that she should have undergone counselling to ensure that she understood the implications, especially as such conversions are dealt with harshly in some Muslim countries. In April, council officials told the girl that she should not attend any church activity for six months, so that she could reconsider the wisdom of becoming a Christian. The carer was also instructed to discourage the girl from participating in any Christian activities, even social events. The council then told the carer there had been a breakdown of trust and in November removed her from the register.

Just because some countries have medieval and frankly stupid views on conversion (like India and many Muslim countries) does not mean that I am happy to let the UK also be ruled (in howsoever small a way in a council) by those intellectually vapid theories. Makes one’s blood boil to read about the social service care.

Then you read this interview of Sharon Shoesmith trying to excuse herself. Yes, there was a witch-hunt, but no hint of an apology. This is fast becoming the face of officialdom. Nothing, nobody is to blame, but yet, a baby has been tortured to death, the mother/father/lodger in prison, some people have been fired, but what is happening? Then this woman has the effrontery to try to defend against what the inspectors said

The inspectors' report into her department criticised everything from insufficient supervision by senior management to poor record-keeping and a failure to identify children at immediate risk of harm.

I know they are doing a good job under trying circumstances, but by God, some of these lot are hideously incompetent and by and large, the entire social services department is full of some very strange principles.

And at end of the day, there is an orphaned baby and two loving adoptive/foster parents who are not together. A tiny tragedy in the great wash of humanity, frequently overlooked in the big news about Israel-Palestine wars or the great Credit Crunch issue.

Technorati Tags: Welfare,United Kingdom

Mother worse off after getting married

This is simply very stupid and also provides more evidence that the state discriminates against married couples and marriage. Time after time, we have proof that society is much better off with couples in marriage, the children are better behaved and educated, the crime levels are lower, tax takes are higher, educational levels are higher and and and. But simply because of the stupidity of the governments, it simply makes sense for you not to marry. Read and weep.

 

In a desperate bid to claw back the monetary help that was withdrawn when they married, mum-of-one Kayleigh Tidswell-Brown, 22, and her husband Leigh, 25, are considering separating. If they do then her council will once more pay to help to look after her baby as the young mum strives to become a teacher.

The grant used to pay for her 24-month-old son Taylor's day care and upkeep while she studied for her degree....However, she has now been told that following her wedding in August, she is no longer eligible for any funding.

Final year student Mrs Tidswell-Brown said: "We've talked through the options and the only realistic solution seems to be a divorce. We will stay together of course but if our marital status is the only reason we lost our grant then we have to seriously consider it."

She added: "Nothing financially has changed in terms of our income. It's like being discriminated against because we're married.

"Before we planned to get married we were told it wouldn't affect anything. On that knowledge we decided to get married. All of a sudden we're told it does. "It seems we can't afford to live together."

Technorati Tags: economics,welfare state,united kingdom

Classic example of Homo Econominius

Man is an economic animal, by and large, their behaviour is a matter of economic incentives. For example, a ton of french men and women have flooded into London to work because London offers them a better place to work, much more money, less taxes and more enjoyment. But now that they are getting made redundant, they are going back to Paris because the amount of redundancy money they get from the state is much better. See here. I quote:

As anyone who has lost their job and been forced to turn to the British government for help will know, you can’t buy much with £60.50 a week.

In France, however, the state is considerably more generous. It pays benefits equivalent to 57.4% of base pay, up to a maximum of €6,366 (£5,506) per month for nearly two years.

Given that some senior French traders, quants, structurers and salespeople who’ve lost their jobs in London were on salaries of £115k, they are now eligible for the maximum level of benefits in France.

According to French news sources, they are going back home to claim it. To be eligible, French bankers who’ve worked in the UK need to have toiled for between one day and four weeks in France, but many are said to be getting a ‘Mc Job’ for 24 hours to overcome this hurdle.

Do check out the comments, some of them are brilliant.

Less pensions, more children

My father's father ended up having 18 children, my father's mother belonged to a group of 12 siblings, my wife's grandpa punched out 14 odd kids and so on and so forth. At that time and age, children were considered to be god's gift, and a man's virility was considered to be measured by the number of children he had. Plus mix in the fact that there was no good birth control and no safety net, meant that there were tons of kids. But does this mean that this is the case this time and age?

Well, interestingly enough, there was this case in Italy where pensions were reformed. This reform meant that pension benefits were dramatically reduced. So if the theory holds right, then you will see a jump in the fertility of women and the number of children which are born will increase. And so this paper so determined. I quote:

simple comparison shows that unaffected individuals had on average 1.7 children, while affected individuals had on average 1.87 children. The magnitude of this difference is reduced once one controls for factors such as individuals’ age, but a difference of about 13% higher post-reform fertility remains. These empirical results are consistent with the “kids as investment good” rather than “consumption” motivation, even in modern societies. They are also consistent with the link between the expansion of pay-as-you-go pension systems and lower fertility – in this case the retrenchment of a pay-as-you-go pension system induces higher fertility.

Hmm, so when you reduce future benefits like pensions, you will see people punching out more kinds. Interesting or what? Perhaps I should try to float this idea to have more kids :).

Technorati Tags: pensions,economics,welfare state