Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 January 1

= January 1 =

Ne'r-do-well, layabouts and idlers
It is my observation that around till 50 years back, there were a few individuals in each Indian middle class family who were n'er-do-wells, layabouts and idlers, who would go about life doing nothing and being dependent on others. Of late, there seems to be a drastic decline in their numbers. I suppose this must be true of Western societies as well as I remember reading in the PG Wodehouse's books about young men who did nothing in particular but yet were comfortably placed in life. What is the reason behind their reduction in numbers? Does it have to anything to do with with the economy ?


 * Think this is a case of personal perception. You talk of 50 years back. Let me tell you a little story. Many, many decades ago, when family, relations and friends were asking “ well Aspro what are you going to do with your life?”  I was perplexed. I was still learning the three ``R”'s. I could not even transpose in   arithmetic. So I thought to myself “ I Know what it want to become. An old-age pensioner or uncle Harry.  After all, they all just potter around in the garden, mowing the lawn, dead heading roses etc.  and always have tasty treats when you visit .   Then in tanager years one discovers  that that view  was only one's immature impression.  Sometimes, one's life  may apparently go absolutely pairs-shaped - in a very serious way.  All of a sudden the police are searching your parents home, looking through draws and doing everything that law enforcement officers have to do in the performance of their duty. - one's facing clank until the end of time. Then one of the  “Ne'r-do-well, layabouts and idlers” as you call them -turns up. And as suddenly, as it suddenly started, every thing cools down. Only then  one discovers that their other job is being  guardians of the family. You may not see them today because time and technology moves on, yet they may still be there but are ahead of you. 50 years ago the only way they could be there, was by being there and visible . Today there is the internet and  other stuff that they use to watch over.  So they might not be so visible as you remember, all-those-many-years-ago, in an age that is long  past and gone. Disclaimer & COI: When I'm not up to my eyeballs in other peoples sh-one-t. I'm a confirmed “Ne'r-do-well, layabouts and idler”.  And if the wife can make my feel guilty enough -I might, even get the mowing machine out of the shed – if she can find were I've hidden the key.--Aspro (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Our Playboy (lifestyle) article has some details. In the UK, the first son of a wealthy aristocrat or gentleman would inherit his father's estate and/or business, while other sons would be expected to join the army, clergy or civil service to make a living. More indulgent (and wealthy) parents would simply give their sons "an allowance" so that they could amuse themselves without getting in the way; I suspect that some of Bertie Wooster's chums fall into that category, although Bertie himself inherited a fortune when his parents died. The First World War, besides killing off many aristocratic heirs, also prompted massive increases in Death duty which restricted the amount that parents could pass on to their children. I'm sure that there are still a few around though. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rentier class is the traditional Marxist term. See also landed gentry and plutocracy. Tevildo (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)