To think people on here expect only the rich to have children?

[Geraldinefox]

I've seen so many posts in which people say 'Oh 50k is certainly not enough to raise a child on.'

Or, 'you should only consider having a baby when you have at least a year's salary in savings.'

Many people have children with far less and the reality is they're absolutely fine.

Should care assistants, retail staff, nursery staff etc. Just never have a child then?

This may be true in many cases but I am grandmother to a child who was unplanned. Nevertheless we will rally round and support the parents. That's what families do.

Don't forget maternity pay. Lots of MNers who've "never claimed benefits" have been happy to take government handouts for months on end. Me for example.

This. I do remember an article about someone complaining about being given value beans at a good bank. Apparently the child wouldn't eat anything but heinz 😂

I think there's a big difference between those who have kids, and through bad fortune, become poor and struggle... and those who have them when they are already poor and struggling (USUALLY because they simply just want them, rather than because they're against abortion etc).

I think if you know you're going to struggle, and choose to have them anyway, maaaaaaybe you're not doing what's best for your kids, you're doing what's best for yourself.

I think everyone should be able to have children. I think the tax payer should help. Children aren't just for the super rich.

the super rich, of course not.

Not being able to afford your child means not being able to feed them properly
moaning about the cost of (cheap) uniforms
refusing to spend a penny to buy them a pen
not giving them after school opportunities, sports clubs, music, art
not being able to take them travelling
refusing to spend money on their birthday parties
keeping them stuck at home during the holidays in front of a screen
preventing them, or the whole class if too many parents are the same, from joining in school trips and activities

the list goes on

If you cannot afford a child, absolutely do not have one. Why would you? What life is anyone hoping to provide for their child if they can't afford what is really the minimum.

Having a child is not about "surviving". It's more than that, or it should be if you are not a selfish individual.

If we followed your criteria, most people in the world (and over history) would have never been born.

Additionally some things (e.g. 2 parents working full time to feed and clothe children) cause others (children staying at home during school holidays in front of a screen because mum and dad are both working).

You are talking about the rich.

Additionally, why do those activities make your list and not others? I might say you can't afford children if you need to rely on the state to educate them, or you need to rely on the state to pay for the birth of your child. After all, you're spending tax payer money to fund your lifestyle choice of having a child. Your categorization of who can vs can't afford kids sounds very convenient to your own personal situation.

I wasn't talking about other continents, I am talking about this country and similar.

State education? that's why we pay tax btw. Unless you privatise everything and we suggest we all pay for education/ police/ health/ infrastructure etc as we go?

These activities are a very small example of what's in the best interest of the child, can't you tell?

When parents are working, there are holiday clubs and activities meaning children do not need to be stuck in front of a screen for 6 weeks but instead they enjoy themselves with friends- back to have what you can afford...

You are not answering my question, why having a child if you can't afford to give them a minimum of a decent life? I know they can survive without hobbies, sports, holidays, parties - but what normal person want kids to just "survive" and believe it's enough?

No, you're working 20 hours for £120. That's how going out to work actually works.

You've EARNED £120 as opposed to being paid £100 but actually earned nothing. Rather those who go to work have paid your £100.

We shouldn't be raising children to clean toilets. As a society, we are innovating so that menial tasks can be automated. Every human deserves to maximise their potential - this may be raising said children, creating amenities and infrastructure that move us on as a society, creating art and music, curing disease etc. We need to raise our aspiration so every individual is able to live out their highest potential whatever that may be.

Wealthy people who have 5 kids do not raise even one of them to think they may clean toilets - why should any one else?

Employers should pay people a living wage so everyone can look after themselves for the most part - instead of depending on the state. Yes - we need state funded healthcare, education, transport, subsidised or even free childcare. But individuals should not need the state to feed their children as a matter of course.

There is dignity in labour, in using your intellect and insight to generate revenue that looks after yourself and family - those should be inalienable values we have as a country. In addition to a strong safety net and support for those who are unable to look after themselves. And non-resident parents don't get to opt out

This, 100pc. Amazed it even needs saying tbh.

Yes I think people definitely like to show they have money they don’t actually have. A lot of people I know have huge mortgages because they just ‘need’ to have a 4 bedroom house before even having their first child, they have a nice new car each, when they’re pregnant it’s a big baby shower, all new pram etc. Their baby has had 4 professional photo shoots in their first year life. Yet when I meet these friends for a catch up they moan about paying £7 to meet me and my DC at soft play because ‘they can’t afford to waste money like that’.

Having children on a a budget is totally doable, i know someone who had their first very happily in a 2 bed flat, bought nearly everything second hand, scrimped and saved through maternity leave returned to work and just before having their second they moved into a nice house. It can be done, just people don’t seem to want to do it that way, they want the perfect Instagram lifestyle and are very happy to get into crazy amounts of debt for it.

Yes i know I’ll probably get flamed as well, my weakness is definitely holidays, but I’m not in debt over it. My house is modest and my car is 6 years old. And the budget for my DCs whole first birthday party was just over the £240 my colleague spent on the balloon arch, and I do actually think even having a party for a one year old is extravagant in itself. I can definitely afford my child, I could probably afford another 4 if I really wanted to.

I'm in favour of employers paying a decent wage, (and I'm 100% in favour of non-resident parents being made to support their children or face prosecution for child neglect)

But I think it's unrealistic to expect a single full time minimum wage to support a family of 4 (or 5? Or 6?) comfortably just because a proportion of families will be in that position for a handful of years. I think that would be seriously overpaying singletons and DINKYs and lead to huge housing inflation and massive increases in care/nursery costs. Better that a single minimum wage pays for a single person to live pretty comfortably and the government picks up the slack for a few years for people with higher needs and additional dependents.

Oh, and fix the housing market.

@HonestMistake I agree. Should be temporary though! Minimum wage jobs simply aren't designed to support a family. Education system needs to be producing skilled workers so minimum wage jobs are done by young people/ migrants starting out/ people starting over/ people who actively want to do them & can afford to not make much £.

People being stuck in minimum wage jobs long term is bad for them (usually not the most fulfilling, but that's a generalisation), their families & economy.

If you can afford to raise children, then yes. If you require state handouts to raise them, then no.

It wouldn't be a single income. As if single, the non-resident parent should pay their fair share.

And a single minimum wage (or even 2 full time minimum wage) should not have to support 6 people - bar unplanned circumstances or very temporarily. In other words, you can't afford 4 children on 2 minimum wage incomes without spending time to save up for them - unless there are extenuating circumstances such as free housing from inheritance or previous employment or funds/solid family support to look after children.

If you can afford to raise children, then yes. If you require state handouts to raise them, then no.

So anyone who has a council house, on universal credit, needs pension credit in later life shouldn’t have or had had dc?

Thing is if minimum wage jobs are only for the young, the inexperienced and for an insignificant amount of people who can afford to not earn much, turnover is going to be high.

Not great for the levels of consistency expected from the industries that generally pay minimum or low wages, and especially not for things like childcare and social care.
.
Expectations from these jobs are higher than that, so either we accept as a society that these minimum wage jobs are temporary and that we won't get consistent service within them, and stop moaning about it, or we accept we have to support the people who provide the experience and learned skills needed for a better service because apparently it's not worth paying them a decent wage for and should be temporary anyway.

Sadly I do think this is also a big problem. My husband and I were brought up to live within our means, therefore drive cheap cars and live in a small house - do all the upkeep ourselves etc. no credit apart from our smaller than average mortgage.

I’ve always wondered why schools do not teach budgets and basic home economics as standard. It’s not a new problem, keeping up with next door was a thing when I grew up and I remember not understanding why all my friends at school had brand names items while I had supermarket specials. But it is escalated now with instagram (how much on that balloon arch from PP?!) and Facebook. Lifestyle creep is real.

They need to be paid a living wage and I agree they should be for a stage in life - not permanent unless desired.

I wouldn't include elder care or childcare - those should have career tracks and should be reformed to allow for progression and better pay. And they should be more subsidised by government - similar to health and education. This enables more people to work anyway, so it is a no-brainer

But the thing is elder and child care are included, yes they should have those things but they don't, and there's resentment towards them for the low wage they command and therefore need top ups, people saying they shouldn't have families, shouldn't expect to have families, shouldn't expect the tax payer to support their families, but don't want to pay more for the service, lose their inheritance to the service - so effectively expect the people working in those jobs to subsidise it with their work for low pay so the services are available to be used and make other people's lives easier and better, but have no choices themselves when it comes to their lives so basically existing to provide a service and nothing more.

That's why these services, and others are struggling to recruit and retain, why service levels are sliding - because society has spent a long time telling them how unimportant they are, how little value is placed on that work while at the same time relying on them and using those services and demanding only the best.

We can't have it all ways, we can't slate people on low wages, and place little importance in the work to the workers yet have high expectations of the service provided, because people don't simply exist to serve others, they deserve to be able to live a life outside of their job.

If it's an important enough job to expect it to happen and be good, then it's important enough to pay decently or provide top ups so people aren't on the bread line.

@Notfeelingtiptop finally some common sense.

“I want cheap care because I want my dc to inherit my house but you work for a crap wage & forego dc, because you need state help”

Ridiculous

Two things can be true. We need to pay for elder and childcare properly or look after our elders and children ourselves. Subsidising private owners of care homes and nurseries aint it. And top-ups dont allow people to maximise their potential. As an individual, I would not want to 'do society a favour' by looking after their elders and children at great cost to myself.

We need to be promoting personal responsibility in addition to societal collective action. Not either or.
The idea of being permanently reliant of top-ups should not sit well with any of us and we should be working towards a society where that is not the case - even if that means we pay more to make it so.

We need economic growth - that is how the UK stays wealthy and can then support good wages etc

In any case - saving ahead of having kids to ensure you have a safety net for them should be fundamental. And when living wages are calculated, that should be factored in.

We need economic growth - that is how the UK stays wealthy and can then support good wages etc

How do we get that growth against the backdrop of declining public services, an ageing population & a shrinking tax paying population?

Minimum wages used to be enough to support a family. It is the cost of living that has got out of control. And that is why we have benefits to top people up.

And you are just playing into some narrative that you have failed as person if you are working years in a minimum wage job. Not everyone is capable of any other that the most basic paid work... and those people deserve to have families and their basics met.