Maybe. The O.P. seems so sure in his conviction that "South Asia's" culture in this regard is superior without evidence, and yet his forebears felt compelled to emigrate from there. O.P.'s argument appears to be that inter-generational independence is hard therefore we should give up and not feel bad about it.
I'm breaking a rule of the internet here by attempting to clarify my comments:
> Maybe. The O.P. seems so sure in his conviction that "South Asia's" culture in this regard is superior without evidence.
It's not a conviction. I'm not wedded to any side (nor is this an issue with a side). I didn't say in my post that any one thing was better than others. I'm simply saying that there are other places on Earth where finances are more intertwined and people don't feel shame about that. We can learn from other people and cultures and maybe in the process lose what is not a particularly helpful narrative in our society.
Is any one culture perfect? No. South Asia has many problems. But one problem I see less of is this idea that taking money from your family is bad. In America we all get money from our relatives when they're dead, and we do so guilt free. Why do we fret about it just because they're alive and can see us actually enjoy it?
All the replies so far describe the downsides of poor interpersonal relationships and political hypotheticals.
I'm not sure I see even one argument against the safety net specifically. A semi-argument seems to be that a familial safety net will somehow reduce other safety nets, but that sounds like a false dichotomy at best.
Yet, if you don't take the time to think of the hypotheticals, you can't account for them, and the same goes for the interpersonal relationships. These are items which increase ignorance in localized populations and are easy to turn into movements against a larger idea. It's not reasonable to solve all of them, but it's good to at least acknowledge them.
Slightly off-topic, but in recent memory: The woman from Alabama who joined ISIS had experienced poor family relations and is now stuck in a refugee/detention camp in Syria. Because of the poor relationships, her ignorance in Islam and ISIS enabled them to turn her to support their cause, which she seems to now renounce.
Pretty much what the original article implies - it generates unfair playing field. Its great if you have a healthy and wealthy family, if you're a talented child in a poor or dysfunctional family you'll never get anywhere. By having independent nuclear families its less unfair.
It makes it harder for young people from escaping an abusive family. Sure, they "just" have to leave without a safety net, but when those are widespread, society adjusts to reduce other kinds.
