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

Most people aren’t completely reliant on the state, they just get a little help when the need it. We get a little bit of UC to help with nursery fees. As a family we earn about 1/3 of the income we did pre children. My husband left his highly paid job to join the army and I have taken an easier part time job whilst my children are young. In a few years my husband will be earning a lot more and I’ll be back on my pre children salary having kept working in the industry part time.

It would be incredibly short sighted to say that we shouldn’t have had children, having a few years of a little bit of UC compared to the years of being a net contributors we have had and will have in the future.

To add my local Council have just cancelled the building of a new primary school despite a whole new estate being built of that will house thousands of people. The birth rate (SW) has dropped here so significantly that the schools they already have are half empty.

I got a right telling off on FB for saying this. There was a woman on there saying how upsetet she was about being a single mother, having five kids and no spare money to even buy them a lollipop. I said maybe she shouldn't have five kids inthe first place

I’m not surprised, it’s a spectacularly unhelpful and cold comment. What do you think she could possibly do about it after the fact?

also ignores the fact that the reason we need immigrants for those jobs because we don’t want to do jobs we consider demeaning so even if we have many more children we will end up in a situation where we need more immigrants to do the increasing number of menial jobs that we think are beneath us

we do need immigration, largely because of the issues we have around social inequalities and population demographics but I think you’re wrong about people considering jobs ‘beneath’ them. What people have an issue with is jobs that don’t compensate adequately for commutes or rota’s that cost money to the employee. People literally can’t afford to work in lower paying roles that operate split shifts or unsociable hours because of transport limitations or caring responsibilities.

I’m reminded of the workers registers set up during covid. Literally thousands signed up and never heard a thing. Lots of people were perfectly prepared to do things like fruit picking or offering their services for community roles. They weren’t wanted.

Crop picking especially is an industry that doesn’t want British workers because they’re not prepared to live on site for a couple of quid an hour and have the rest of their wage garnished for ‘living’ expenses alongside the havoc it causes to their in-work benefits because it’s seasonal.

Missed the point quite spectacularly there, well done!

Do you have children? Or are you saying people are more evolved for not having them?

it’s the structure of society and the trickle up economy that is causing the problem. Not the people who want to do what every generation has done before them, their parents, grand parents etc and the very thing that is integral to keeping society functioning and progressing.

@Fluffyboo I agree that child free people shouldn’t be grateful to parents for having children and yes, they (the parents) are responsible for ensuring that their children are provided for. That’s why I personally think there’s a grain of truth in the “don’t have more kids than you can afford’ statement, because we all need to be realistic about family sizes- most of us can’t support large families.

Being child free is actually the norm in DH and my families, as we’re the only ones among our siblings who’ve chosen to have children. Five siblings are being “replaced” by two children.

And what about the children? Don’t they deserve to grow up without the stress and misery of poverty? It’s ‘privileged’ to think that the rights of a parent to procreate are more important than the rights of any children they may bear to a decent standard of living.

@Cornettoninja

I think that is what I meant though, (sorry I have brain fog today), the argument the people should be born to be carers for the elderly is not going to work as a stand alone argument because society is (and should be) so much more than just that. People aren't being born to assigned roles, but the speculation of the argument in the OP assumes that a percentage of the people being born will become carers. What is the danger to society that you speak of? There are a few that I can think of but I'm not sure what you mean.

Fuck the ones who do need care and we don't have enough then?

You know that’s not what I was saying at all.

Care is so understaffed currently when there are plenty of people between 18 and retirement age who could but don’t want to do it, having kids just to change that won’t actually change that at all. And why should it? Why should we bring children into the world that parents can’t properly afford to care for just so 18 years later they can care for the people who didn’t wanna care for the elderly when they were that age?!

I think choosing to have children because of the services they can provide when they’re adults is what’s selfish, not people choosing to not have them.

Absolutely agree @Cornettoninja

“shelter is now an investment not a basic need”. Exactly this and I’d add that we’ve turned caring into a profession, and not a respected one at that, rather than a fundamental human experience.

im not saying people are saints, having kids when existing near the poverty line, but we are pointing our fingers of blame at the wrong sinners for sure.

Love that film!

@ notOktoday

you state your view that your decision to have a large family is somehow less irresponsible than those frequently flying and driving .
But evidence doesn’t support this view. Here’s one article with statistics.

amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

I dont even get the 'if you cant afford them' thing... what does that mean?
If you cant afford to provide the bare nacessities like shelter, clothes and food?

Then thats a massive systematic issue in society that we should all be working to fix so that no one (child of not) is hungry and homeless as they should be the most basic things EVERYONE has access too.

If you dont believe its societies job then have a word with yourself because Hitler had similar view (Irradicated those deemed not suitible to contribute like the disabled, forcibly sterilising people deemed 'inadiquate to breed' and wacked all others in forced work camps until they starved to death... our grandparent risked or lost their lives fighting wars to banish that).

If it mean 'oh you cant afford and Ipad and to take them to Disneyworld' then serious people like that need to pull their head out of their privilage.

Nobody in this country needs more than two living children. Nobody. There is zero justification for having more than two children if you can’t afford to give them all a good quality of life. No that doesn’t mean expensive holidays and a huge house, but it means decent living accommodation, well fed, decent clothes, and time. If you can’t provide those things you should not make the choice to have another.

I realise that having a child sometimes isn’t a choice, and I do not intend to cover those situations in the above.

(And the issue with care in this country isn’t because of a population crisis, it’s that it pays like shit, is really hard work, isn’t respected and has terrible working conditions. We need to fix that, not have loads more kids in the belief that some of them will magically want to have a career in care!)

Totally agree Op

Thank you. And @MermaidCheeks also ignores the fact that the reason we need immigrants for those jobs because we don’t want to do jobs we consider demeaning so even if we have many more children we will end up in a situation where we need more immigrants to do the increasing number of menial jobs that we think are beneath us.

amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

Lol humans are the only animals that pathologise the biological urge to reproduce.

It’s not pathologising, humans have higher brain, we can (and really should) think and make choices.
It may be an ”urge”, but you can make a choice yourself.
Unless you consider yourself as an unevolved.

Personally I think that having too many kids is only going to contribute to accelerated over population, pressure on food and water resources etc.
No point being vegan, and all environmental and ecological if you have a large amount if kids, it's self defeating.
A relative of mine is one of 9 children who have produced 32 grandkids who now have over 30 great grand children so far..... Astonishing that two people have over 70 dependants already.

“Don’t have kids you can’t afford” is a hilariously ill-thought out comment. Especially with the cost of living and the state of the economy. Guess no one should be having any kids in the next few years.

And what does “affording” a kid mean? Don’t have kids unless you can afford to provide for them no matter your current circumstances? Kids are only for billionaires?

I could absolutely “afford” my son when he was born. Then my circumstances changed. What do these people want me to do, put him back? I agree that intentionally having more children when you’re already in a bad position isn’t the best idea, but “don’t have kids you can’t afford” is a massive oversimplification and really just sounds like people wanting to complain about the fucking Poor again.

😢