Should People Have Children If They Cant Afford Them

Mojisola

supermassive wrote: »

It's not snobbery to expect people who want to bring a life into the world to want to be able to provide the best they possibly can.

Wanting to bring a life into the world in order to provide bare minimum is not at all moral.

If you earn enough to be able to support a child through the first 18 years (or more) of their life, then yes, you should have a child.

If you do not, and expect the child to flourish through scraping by, then I'm sorry but that's wrong.

It can be compared (although you'll likely say the comparison is rude or something) with owning a dog. If you can't afford the vet bills, decent food, and to keep the dog in good health, as well as training it to be well behaved, then don't get one.

Think of it like a job. The best candidate gets the job. The best potential parents should get children.

If the world worked as you would like, would all the well-educated young adults from wealthy families have to draw straws to see who would get the 'good' jobs and who would work down the sewers and as care workers and on the tills at the supermarkets?

supermassive

Mojisola wrote: »

If the world worked as you would like, would all the well-educated young adults from wealthy families have to draw straws to see who would get the 'good' jobs and who would work down the sewers and as care workers and on the tills at the supermarkets?

Are you saying we need poor people to have children so we can have workers in remedial jobs? :eek:

lazer wrote: »

I'm saying they had enough money, I didn't need any further money invested in my upbringing, who knows what effect more money could have had, if it was at the expense of time with them, then, yes I could have been less likely to succeed, if however it didn't impact "quality" time, and didn't cause them any additional stress etc, then possibly more likey, however as both myself and my brother made it to uni and are now relatively successful, I think they made a very good job of our upbringing.


PS - success should not be measured in terms of money, if a child of mine was in a £100k a year job, and was unhappy in the job, didn't get to spend anytime with their family, was always stressed etc - I wouldn't count that as being a success, on the other had if my child had a mediocre job and was happy with their job, and with life in general - I would count that a success.


Success is being happy with your life choices and having enough money to get by.


My family are not an anomaly, there are many people from poorer working class families that have went on and made something from their life, most people want the best for their children - it is the exception that don't, yes there are some of the stereotype benefit families, but that is not the majority, you probably don't recognise many of the "poorer" families in your town, as they look like you, dress like you, talk like you etc, they don't stand out from the crowd the way some "chavs" do.

It's actually very clear who has some money and who doesn't. Nobody has any unless they live in one of the villages. :rotfl:

To be serious though, I come from one of the poorest upbringings in modern England. My mother never bothered to work, nor to pay her children any attention, my dad was always working trying to pick up her slack before they got divorced and I only ever saw him at weekends - at which point he had disposable income, and took us to all kinds of places - educational places... the amount of times I've seen the inside of a museum during the summer holidays, or asked him why other kids got to go overseas to a beach while we're hiking through the lake district or on a tour of some caves somewhere..

So I know both halves very well. If there was some way my dad could've had kids without my mother's involvement, I'd be all for it. He was a fantastic dad. He waited until we were all grown up and flown the nest before even bothering to think about his own life and get back on the relationship circuit.

I can only imagine how many needles would be hanging out of my arms if I'd been raised in my mother's family.

They grew up 2 streets from eachother. Her parents were - dad on a boat and away at sea, and mother gave her away as a live-in babysitter at the age of 14. They grew up very poor. Nobody drove, nobody had the money for a car. My dad's side, however, his dad worked at an oil refinery (conoco phillips it is now) and was on a comfortable enough wage (his pension still gives my grandmother 2K per month to live on :eek: ) They had cars, owned their house, and were encouraged to make something of themselves.

The only difference between the two halves was money and attitude to life because of money.

God only knows what they ever saw in eachother.:rotfl:

lazer

supermassive wrote: »

Are you saying we need poor people to have children so we can have workers in remedial jobs? :eek:



It's actually very clear who has some money and who doesn't. Nobody has any unless they live in one of the villages. :rotfl:

To be serious though, I come from one of the poorest upbringings in modern England. My mother never bothered to work, nor to pay her children any attention, my dad was always working trying to pick up her slack before they got divorced and I only ever saw him at weekends - at which point he had disposable income, and took us to all kinds of places - educational places... the amount of times I've seen the inside of a museum during the summer holidays, or asked him why other kids got to go overseas to a beach while we're hiking through the lake district or on a tour of some caves somewhere..

So I know both halves very well. If there was some way my dad could've had kids without my mother's involvement, I'd be all for it. He was a fantastic dad. He waited until we were all grown up and flown the nest before even bothering to think about his own life and get back on the relationship circuit.

I can only imagine how many needles would be hanging out of my arms if I'd been raised in my mother's family.

They grew up 2 streets from eachother. Her parents were - dad on a boat and away at sea, and mother gave her away as a live-in babysitter at the age of 14. They grew up very poor. Nobody drove, nobody had the money for a car. My dad's side, however, his dad worked at an oil refinery (conoco phillips it is now) and was on a comfortable enough wage (his pension still gives my grandmother 2K per month to live on :eek: ) They had cars, owned their house, and were encouraged to make something of themselves.

The only difference between the two halves was money and attitude to life because of money.

God only knows what they ever saw in eachother.:rotfl:

The real difference was attitude to life - how much of that was because of money, you can't actually know.


You are incorrectly equating having a good attitude to life with having money, as I have pointed out, my family and lots like them have a good attitude to life, without realms of money.

supermassive

lazer wrote: »

The real difference was attitude to life - how much of that was because of money, you can't actually know.


You are incorrectly equating having a good attitude to life with having money, as I have pointed out, my family and lots like them have a good attitude to life, without realms of money.

That's all well and good until your kid is missing out on school trips and things that cost a fair bit of cash that could be giving them a step up on the ladder, all because of lack of funds.

I stand by the point that if you can "only just" afford a child, it'd be cruel to the child (in this technological age of consumerism and social networking) to expect them to 'put up' with the life they'll have in comparison to their peers.

Why not make it as easy as possible for them to go on to achieve great things?

lazer

supermassive wrote: »

That's all well and good until your kid is missing out on school trips and things that cost a fair bit of cash that could be giving them a step up on the ladder, all because of lack of funds.

I stand by the point that if you can "only just" afford a child, it'd be cruel to the child (in this technological age of consumerism and social networking) to expect them to 'put up' with the life they'll have in comparison to their peers.

Why not make it as easy as possible for them to go on to achieve great things?

So if you late 30's early 40's, have got married, both working in low paid jobs, have a stable home (rented or owned), but don't have much spare income, however do have a longing for a child, have experience with neighbours children, have the patience and love to have a child and bring them up, and enough money to provide a decent standard of life of the child but without being able to provide stuff consumerism now demands, and no expensive school trips to France, or skiing trips etc, then you shouldn't have a child, its not a matter of waiting a few wears and moving up the ladder, and then being able to afford a child, its a now or never scenario, you would say never?

Mojisola

supermassive wrote: »

Are you saying we need poor people to have children so we can have workers in remedial jobs? :eek:

Every society needs people who are willing to work at vital but lower paid jobs.

It's no good being a lawyer or doctor or politician if there's no-one driving lorries or working in childcare or working in factories.

If only the wealthy are allowed to have children and those children expect to go into well-paid aspirational jobs, society will either collapse or a large percentage of those children will be forced to go into the general workforce.

bluelass

supermassive wrote: »

Too often I see this view, that "enough to scrape by is enough to have a child" it isn't. OK, so technically you can keep the child alive - well done. But in terms of quality of life - as you said, you had some teasing, lack of things like central heating etc.

It's not snobbery to expect people who want to bring a life into the world to want to be able to provide the best they possibly can.

Wanting to bring a life into the world in order to provide bare minimum is not at all moral. You put yourself through uni, good for you, but there are people out there in the exact same situation you were in as a child that don't go down that route, and it's all linked to finances.

If you earn enough to be able to support a child through the first 18 years (or more) of their life, then yes, you should have a child. If you do not, and expect the child to flourish through scraping by, then I'm sorry but that's wrong.

It can be compared (although you'll likely say the comparison is rude or something) with owning a dog. If you can't afford the vet bills, decent food, and to keep the dog in good health, as well as training it to be well behaved, then don't get one.

Think of it like a job. The best candidate gets the job. The best potential parents should get children. Those that are clearly unsuitable and will make a mess of things? They're the ones that mostly have children. Hundreds of the things. They don't grow up to put themselves through uni, they grow up burgling my house.

Supermassive good on you for being strong and coping with the teasing. Not all kids cope though these days your an outcast if you don't have an xbox the right training shoes etc:(.

[Deleted User]

I believe that 'instability breeds instability' - and I would hope that people realise that bringing up children in an unstable environment can have far reaching consequences on that childs development and future.

That instability might be through a lack of money, lack of relationship stability or a lack of parental emotional stability.

Sadly those that are unstable rarely stop to think before having kids

meer53

supermassive wrote: »

That's all well and good until your kid is missing out on school trips and things that cost a fair bit of cash that could be giving them a step up on the ladder, all because of lack of funds.

I stand by the point that if you can "only just" afford a child, it'd be cruel to the child (in this technological age of consumerism and social networking) to expect them to 'put up' with the life they'll have in comparison to their peers.

Why not make it as easy as possible for them to go on to achieve great things?

Wow :eek:

I can't believe someone actually thinks this. Do you have children ?

Achieving great things doesn't require pots of money.

Rebel_Cause

I mean, it is all well and good being in a well paid job now before having children, but there are so many people being made redundant and a lot of companies are going into administration.

I would hate to have children and then find that my job is on the line through no fault of my own. There are so many people competing for one job nowadays too.