the "don't have kids if u can't afford them" mentality...

Ok so what are you advocating as you're coming out with a lot of 'stuff' and most of it is way out there.

@DottyPeacock

Serious question, but do you understand the difference between the USA and some of the best Scandinavian countries?

If you do (and you should) you'd realise that the mental well-being of the public can be altered for the better IN ADDITION TO parenting.

IMO it's a bit like a workplace where the company philosophy breeds supportive, collaborative employees who feel valued and want to contribute positively.

You mention parents but how do you think you can stop the cycle so that the children become better people when they become parents themselves?

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

I don’t know many families that are high income having more than three children, but I know many more low income families that have more…
We stopped at two, because we wanted to be able to give our DC’s more than we had (both coming from families that had more than three children and with low-incomes)
Our DC’s haven’t set the world alight (maybe if they’d had more deprivation they might have), but they appreciate the experiences they have enjoyed due to our forbearance(!)
If they ever have DC’s, I’m sure they will weigh up (as we did) whether to go for quantity of love or quality of experience/education and act accordingly - but I’m pretty sure that production of personal slaves/carers would not occur to them at all, just as it’s never occurred to us…

People are free to choose as they wish. But the outcomes are fairly predictable.

Yes, they're taken care of (to some degree) by the state.

You seem to be advocating for nothing at all or the bare minimum.

What kind of system do you think the government could introduce to give people morals? It’s not just a few people abusing the system, it’s many.

How much do you think it would cost the government to police every single benefit claimant, of which there are millions? How would we fund that? By taking more money out of the system? It’s society’s responsibility to do the right thing and only claim when they need to, not because they want to.

Surely it’s a parents job to develop rounded and productive people? A parent should give their child pride to want to look after themselves financially. I think society does try and provide for those from poorer backgrounds. Schools have funding for those who can’t afford trips, free school meals, university places for those from deprived areas, but a child’s attitude is very heavily influenced by their parents.

People are free to choose as they wish. But the outcomes are fairly predictable.

Where's the argument here for having children you can't afford?

For good or for bad, people should be free to choose as they wish. Anything else is bordering on eugenics. As a society we can manage this quite easily and I for one would rather people were free to choose than be forced into a life of birth control.

And yet the arguement continues that people should have as many children as they choose, regardless of affordability 🤷🏻‍♀️
Because the welfare system has evolved to pick up the slack...

It’s a silly premise in the first place because it ignores the structural problems with our economy which keep people poor.

Well, prejudice can't take your education away, if you've had one. Poor people can access education just the same as anyone else; that some people are failed by their families isn't down to outside prejudice.

Have you any idea of the disadvantages of being brought up in poverty? The issues that regularly come ALONGSIDE poverty? There are serious and intergenerational problems that affect people horrendously. Have you ever heard of ACES? Have you ever did any sort of reading or research into the subject? Just to clarify "poor people" cannot access education the same as anyone else. Growing up in poverty means going without many basic needs. Do you think a child is more or less likely to pass that history test if they are malnourished? Do you know how many children in your area area are living in poverty? Living with abuse? Living with addiction? Living in substandard homes? Do you understand what that means for them?

@Johnnysgirl The poster said ALSO driven by prejudice. They did not say it was the ONLY factor.

and are you seriously trying to suggest that children/adults from poorer backgrounds ARE NOT subject to prejudice?

FML

I'm not advocating that the welfare state should provide an optional alternative to working. You seem to have read that from nowhere.

Yes we do live in more enlightened times. The welfare state was introduced in the 1900's (or possibly before in some form). If you don't think we've learnt a thing or two since then I think you're the one who's ridiculous.

Perhaps read up or think about the initial ethos of welfare and then think about how well the objectives have been met. And maybe of how other countries have developed this concept far more effectively than we have. It should then make sense why our system needs reforming so that we can take better care of the poor in the UK.

And taking care of the poor isn't just about dishing out money. It's about opportunities, value, society and bringing everyone up a level. We'd all benefit from society where poor people live better lives.

A great and current example of this is our growing fuel poverty. You only need to look at how the government is managing it to see how completely stuffed poor people will be. A blog by the IMF highlights just how bad the UK is and it's shameful.

blogs.imf.org/2022/08/03/how-europe-can-protect-the-poor-from-surging-energy-prices/#

Where's the argument here for having children you can't afford?

Why? That poster was arguing that the poor outcomes of financially challenged children is driven by prejudice
It's a nonsensical statement. Prejudice from whom, exactly?

I strongly suggest you educate yourself. A very ignorant point of view. There’s plenty of research on this.

Many children in poverty cannot access a decent education actually. Outcomes are determined by your parents’ economic circumstances and the first 5 years are important.

Those who make it are few and far between. They’ll be held up as good examples simply because it is not the norm.

Poor people can access education just the same as anyone else

This has to be one of the most insular statements I've read on MN in all my years as a user.

Well, prejudice can't take your education away, if you've had one. Poor people can access education just the same as anyone else; that some people are failed by their families isn't down to outside prejudice.

Agreed @Believeitornot !

Ah but it’s part of a bigger picture in my view and that’s why I find it all a bit transactional. Just seeing people as chattel.

There are people who cannot contribute to society from an economic point of view and and that just be because of them being a certain age (eg children or elderly) or unable due to disabilities. Are these people of lesser worth?
This thread is specifically about having children when you know you can not adequately provide for them financially.
Not about elderly people, or those who are children themselves.

It’s also driven by prejudice. People have pre conceived ideas about those who are poor even though having less money in your pocket does not make you a lesser person.

There are people who cannot contribute to society from an economic point of view and and that just be because of them being a certain age (eg children or elderly) or unable due to disabilities. Are these people of lesser worth?

and people of working age may not be able to contribute at a particular moment. But that doesn’t automatically mean that they can’t or won’t at some point (or haven’t in the past).

What makes you think I don’t contribute to society? And do you think a contribution is only a financial one?

There'll always be someone who wants to defraud the system but the system has to enable it in the first place. There should be systems in place to track this and have solutions to remedy it. Not just financially but behaviourally.

You're saying that our system can't cope i.e. there isn't enough money. But the government is in control of it, not the public.

Regarding children, obviously there are no guarantees but you stand more of a chance of developing rounded and productive people, if they all have the same opportunities irrespective of their financial backgrounds. It's not rocket science and shouldn't be controversial. Make people feel valued and supported and you'll get people who want to contribute.

I think you live in a very blinkered bubble OP.

Children born into poverty quite often stay in poverty all of their lives. It's a self perpetuating cycle.

They don't have access to the same things other children have. No support network, often resulting in poor education results. Parents often can't afford things like bus fares for college so they drop out at 16 and either do NMW jobs or end up in the benefits system like their parents.

Children born into poverty are highly unlikely to be the doctors and lawyers of the future, ones caring for the elderly or contributing to society further down the line in the ways you are suggesting.