What's wrong with "parasite singles"?

[Malcolm_McLean]

How can that happen when people are spending all their money on consumer goods? It seems that the spending of the parasite singles prevents that.

That’s an illusion. We think of manufactures when we think “materialism”, but they only account for a small proportion of expenditure. Most goes on things like housing, healthcare, education, transport, heating, insurance/pensions, food, holidays.

 

[ribozyme]

That’s an illusion. We think of manufactures when we think “materialism”, but they only account for a small proportion of expenditure. Most goes on things like housing, healthcare, education, transport, heating, insurance/pensions, food, holidays.

Did you read the article? That lady said she didn’t spend any of her money on those expenditures although a Pareto inefficient mechanism does take some of her money and divert it towards those resources.

Regarding potential single mothers, Japan has an environment that prevents that… From the wikipedia entry:

The primary reason for the parasite single phenomenon is not economic, as this phenomenon has always existed in Japan. However, the housing costs in Japan are notoriously high, especially in or near large cities. A parasite single who chose to live independently would on average lose 2/3 of his or her disposable income. Furthermore, they would also have to do the cleaning and cooking for themselves. Finally, establishing a household has a large up front cost for durable items as for example a refrigerator, furniture, washing machine, and other items. The security deposit, traditional monetary gift for the landlord (“key money”), and the housing agent fee can also easily reach six months’ rent; this is non-refundable and must be paid in advance. In summary, becoming independent involves large expenses, work, and a significant drop in living standard. Furthermore, as the vast majority of the Japanese population is concentrated in cities, all the employment and entertainment options desired are within reach from the parental home.

It prevents people from getting married. Also, I do not think that they want to take a quality of life hit from raising children.

 

[Canavan]

It prevents people from getting married. Also, I do not think that they want to take a quality of life hit from raising children.

This statement is very indicative of what is wrong with the concept of parasite singles. A luxurious and easy life deprives one of the deeper spiritual need for meaningful contribution and service. Materialism is a very short-term fix and often leaves one with a feeling of unfulfillment after the initial pleasure. People in this lifestyle simply assume that they will eventually be satisfied if they simply have more income, posessions, and vacations. It obscures any call God may give to someone searching for their place in life because they become attatched to self gratification.

To use children as an example, the most common view of sex among young people is one that tends to view pregnancy as a disease, or at minimum unfortunate. Yet almost all who become parents find that they would not trade their new role for their “wild” days even in strenuous moments of child raising, and that more real happiness emerges out of such discipline and sacrifice then they could have imagined.

 

[RC1960]

rpp,

Well, your not lving with your mom, your mom is living with you in your house! She’s got class and forethought; enough to have been able to accomodate the contingency of having expenses in her wanning years. Accept her rent not as payment but as a manifestation of her dignity.

rpp, you don’t fit the picture because you’re not parasitic.

I would also hesitate to even call such individuals “single” because they are not independent, they are, in fact, still children. They should know better (what have their parents not been teaching them) yet they are still not “paying their own way” in life. What they have isn’t theirs. Whatb they have is gained by a cheat. and the practise is culturally widespread enough to be in the conciousness of a society to have been made tolerable. Once that it achieved it can become the practise. As long as there is money to be made, this form of docile comsumerism (the easiest way to make a buck) then becomes perpetuated in the media which, by it’s nature, must cater to it’s sponsers. What follows is an exploitation of the docility of this type of consumer which then paves the way for forms of social engineering via media, though the preservation of “plausible deniability” will never allow this tie to be firmly made.

It’s a secular practise. I can’t see a mesage of hope in it at all. It doesn’t even acknowledge the exitence of “soul”. Could this be why “we” can see it, sense it, and be appalled be it, yet they cannot?

It’s not “Parasitic singles”, it’s still “Selfish childhood”.

As a side, note: that form of travel has no intention of broadening the mind. Too often, travel is used as a badge of “Look where I’ve been and you haven’t” rather than any form of personal or social enrichment.

 

[deb1]

Did you read the article? That lady said she didn’t spend any of her money on those expenditures although a Pareto inefficient mechanism does take some of her money and divert it towards those resources.

Regarding potential single mothers, Japan has an environment that prevents that… From the wikipedia entry:

It prevents people from getting married. Also, I do not think that they want to take a quality of life hit from raising children.

If a person remains under their parents’ roof past a certain age then that person should contribute financially to the household. That seems fair. It doesn’t appear that the singles in the article are doing this though.

 

[ribozyme]

I do not know how to accurately evaluate the parasite singles phenomenon in a social justice context. One can argue that the phenomenon of parasite singles is antithetical to the concept of social justice because they spend their income on frivolous goods when they could donate that money for foreign aid.

However, I think parasite singles are triumph of social justice within a nation (not between nations though.) It is a sign of a strong middle class and it perfectly solves the problem that AFDC had; it prevents people from having children that they cannot support thus increasing the burden of the state. The best part is that it doesn’t involve significant government intervention and it inhibits further free-riding effects. The “frivolous consumption” might benefit the economy of Japan too so it can support the parasite singles. Keynesianism says it is a good phenomenon as it is a demand side school.

I wonder if the United States can benefit from converting the rather feeble welfare state to an environment that supports the ubiquity of the parasite single phenomenon.

 

[goofyjim]

I guess we would also have something against a person who inherits a fortune when his parents die. Why are we so jealous of whether parents allow their children to live these lifestyles?

 

[ribozyme]

I guess we would also have something against a person who inherits a fortune when his parents die. Why are we so jealous of whether parents allow their children to live these lifestyles?

Why? Why? Why? Why do the people here always invoke class envy?

 

[rlg94086]

I guess we would also have something against a person who inherits a fortune when his parents die. Why are we so jealous of whether parents allow their children to live these lifestyles?

I haven’t read any jealousy on the thread. I think people are concerned about a couple of things.

1. Too many people choosing a single lifestyle means that the low birthcount problem in Japan may be exacerbated.
2. For those of us already concerned with consumerism in society, this is a trend that seems to reinforce it.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with desiring that people turn their efforts toward their spiritual nature rather than living a life which revolves around shopping and having fun. They will be ill-prepared for the struggles they are bound to have later in life.

 

[goofyjim]

I haven’t read any jealousy on the thread. I think people are concerned about a couple of things.

1. Too many people choosing a single lifestyle means that the low birthcount problem in Japan may be exacerbated.
2. For those of us already concerned with consumerism in society, this is a trend that seems to reinforce it.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with desiring that people turn their efforts toward their spiritual nature rather than living a life which revolves around shopping and having fun. They will be ill-prepared for the struggles they are bound to have later in life.

One can own possessions and still be spiritual in nature. I tithe but spend the rest of my income the way I please. I also choose to remain single so I can have the lifestyle I desire.

 

[rlg94086]

One can own possessions and still be spiritual in nature. I tithe but spend the rest of my income the way I please. I also choose to remain single so I can have the lifestyle I desire.

It’s not about you goofyjim. I own possessions too. It is about how one treats those possessions. If you read the article, it appears that their priorities are on possessions.
Matt 6:24:

24 15 "No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

 

[ribozyme]

One can own possessions and still be spiritual in nature. I tithe but spend the rest of my income the way I please. I also choose to remain single so I can have the lifestyle I desire.

Under Peter Singer’s ethical system, it is wrong to have that attitude as it conveys insouciance to the needs of the less fortunate. Singer argues that is tantamount to murder when you spend money on let’s say a BMW instead of donating it to MSF, UNICEF, or OXFAM. However one can justify your consumer spending if it significantly helps the economy as that should also be factored into the utilitarian calculus. Parasite singles is a good stimulus for the national economy, although hikikomori aren’t.

Is there a way that foreign aid can help a local economy? How can parasite singles spend their money so they can help people in Africa while stimulating the Japanese economy. I like the parasite single phenomenon and I think it will benefit the United States. I suppose some examples of consumerism isn’t that bad; for example, buying high-end graphics cards probably encourages technological innovation. I cannot say that about buying clothing from Gucci though.

I do not want people to live a luxurious lifestyle as with some parasite singles in Japan; I simply want people to live without financial insecurity as the parasite singles are free from that. I believe that goal is compatible with the aims of social justice.

 

[ribozyme]

“Parasite singles** are **a good stimulus for the national economy, although hikikomori aren’t.”

"
“I do not want people to live a luxurious lifestyle as with some parasite singles do in Japan”

My question: do you think it is a good idea to encourage the parasite single phenomenon in the United States?

When I read about the phenomenon in Wikipedia, I thought this was the perfect example of a non-governmental welfare state: no taxes required to support it and it prevents people from having children they do not have the means to support.

It is compatible with the negative utilitarian directive of reducing suffering.

 

[goofyjim]

Under Peter Singer’s ethical system, it is wrong to have that attitude as it conveys insouciance to the needs of the less fortunate. Singer argues that is tantamount to murder when you spend money on let’s say a BMW instead of donating it to MSF, UNICEF, or OXFAM. However one can justify your consumer spending if it significantly helps the economy as that should also be factored into the utilitarian calculus. Parasite singles is a good stimulus for the national economy, although hikikomori aren’t.

Is there a way that foreign aid can help a local economy? How can parasite singles spend their money so they can help people in Africa while stimulating the Japanese economy. I like the parasite single phenomenon and I think it will benefit the United States. I suppose some examples of consumerism isn’t that bad; for example, buying high-end graphics cards probably encourages technological innovation. I cannot say that about buying clothing from Gucci though.

I do not want people to live a luxurious lifestyle as with some parasite singles in Japan; I simply want people to live without financial insecurity as the parasite singles are free from that. I believe that goal is compatible with the aims of social justice.

I follow Christ. He asks that we give the top ten percent. If the remainder can buy the BMW then go for it.

 

[rlg94086]

I follow Christ. He asks that we give the top ten percent. If the remainder can buy the BMW then go for it.

I don’t begrudge someone who wants to buy a BMW (especially if they give 10% of their income ), but I wouldn’t say that is Christ’s message.
Luke 18:22-23:

22 5 When Jesus heard this he said to him, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 23 But when he heard this he became quite sad, for he was very rich.

That is not to say we all have to give everything away (although Jesus would be okay with that). Rather, it is about the attachment to wealth. If someone gives 10% out of obligation and is still materialistic in their attitude, they still are going to have the same problems the rich man in Luke 18 had.

 

[ribozyme]

I don’t begrudge someone who wants to buy a BMW (especially if they give 10% of their income ), but I wouldn’t say that is Christ’s message.

That is not to say we all have to give everything away (although Jesus would be okay with that). Rather, it is about the attachment to wealth. If someone gives 10% out of obligation and is still materialistic in their attitude, they still are going to have the same problems the rich man in Luke 18 had.

We have to be somewhat pragmatic; if everyone gave ALL their money to the poor and focused ALL their attention on that task, the world wouldn’t go anywhere. Who would focus their attention on technological innovation?

I am personally interested in the eradication of suffering in all sentient life, not luxurious lifestyles.

While Jim follows Jesus’ directives to get into heaven in the afterlife, motivated not by deontology, but simply to by a hypothetical imperative (e.g. if I give to the poor and oppose abortion, I can get into heaven), I fervently follow the negative utilitarian directives of eliminating suffering and its goal of CREATING heaven.

 

[rlg94086]

We have to be somewhat pragmatic; if everyone gave ALL their money to the poor and focused ALL their attention on that task, the world wouldn’t go anywhere. Who would focus their attention on technological innovation?

I am personally interested in the eradication of suffering in all sentient life, not luxurious lifestyles.

While Jim follows Jesus’ directives to get into heaven in the afterlife, motivated not by deontology, but simply to by a hypothetical imperative (e.g. if I give to the poor and oppose abortion, I can get into heaven), I fervently follow the negative utilitarian directives of eliminating suffering and its goal of CREATING heaven.

No offense my friend, but those efforts are destined to fail. Put your trust in God, not mankind.

Also, as Catholics we don’t follow a “hypothetical imperative.” If you merely “give to the poor and oppose abortion,” you are not following God’s plan. That was a big part of Jesus’ message when He was on earth.

 

[goofyjim]

No offense my friend, but those efforts are destined to fail. Put your trust in God, not mankind.

Also, as Catholics we don’t follow a “hypothetical imperative.” If you merely “give to the poor and oppose abortion,” you are not following God’s plan. That was a big part of Jesus’ message when He was on earth.

And again. Just because I buy alot of material goods doesn’t mean I am attached to them.

 

[rlg94086]

And again. Just because I buy alot of material goods doesn’t mean I am attached to them.

And again, it’s not about you Jim…I didn’t say you were attached to them. I just corrected you on your statement: “I follow Christ. He asks that we give the top ten percent.” He never said anything of the sort.

I’m glad you aren’t attached to material things.

 

[Mr.Bee]

And again. Just because I buy alot of material goods doesn’t mean I am attached to them.