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

[MermaidCheeks]

Who exactly do this lot think are going to be looking after them in hospitals and care homes when they're elderly and infirm?

If only those who could really afford to have kids had them - a decreasing well-off demographic -we'd be even more fucked than we already are.

Immigration is not a long-term solution when 80% of elderly are going to be spread across low and middle-affluent countries by 2050, either. Every country is going to need their own citizens.

Instead of resenting people who need their wages topped-up by the government in order to afford having a couple of kids - maybe embrace those who are making sacrifices to have kids at all, especially in the face of the overwhelming decrease in value that society and successive governments have placed on the role of raising children.

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.

Agreed @Believeitornot !

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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/#

@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

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?

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

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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…

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

@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?

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

Nope. Part of the answer is to pay people decent wages and then the amount of people who don’t have enough money will increase.

That sounds like a 10 year old's argument. So simplistic...
Who will fund these "decent" wages for all, regardless of field/trade?

Its a vicious cycle. Thick people who can't plan past the end this week think they'll have a baby without any thought for the financial commitment they are getting into.

They can't afford to feed them. They're usually not very good parents as they're thick so rely completely on the school for education. Those kids in turn grow up to be thick and the cycle repeats.

"Don't have kids if you can't afford them" may be somewhat useful for individuals, though I have some doubts around it in a society that teaches people that they have a right to have a sex life and that it's probably unhealthy not to - there will always be unexpected pregnancies.

But in any case, you can't run a society on that basis, as if children were really only something that impacts people's private personal family situations.

If you believe that there’s a finite amount of money in the system, then you can clearly see that there’s a massive problem with inequality in our society and economy.

There’s enough wealth, it requires redistributing.

I find it a bit rich (natch) that people berate “poor” people when a lot of people are working in decent professions which should be better paid. Keeping their wages down and then berating them for having low wages is just disgusting.