Don't have kids you can't afford!

[user793847984375948]

Hi all, this is meant to be an interesting discussion.

I keep seeing people say, “Don’t have kids if you can’t afford them.”

But in the UK, if someone works full-time on minimum wage, the state ends up paying thousands for childcare so that parent can work.
If that same parent stayed home, they would receive less support overall, yet they would be raising their own child hands-on. A single mum can work part-time and get rent and living costs for kids, around 500 a month in support if she works.

Nursery is about 1K a month usually. Then there's the wraparound care before and after school that could also be funded by UC.

So why is one scenario seen as responsible and the other as “sponging”?

Further, do people who say “don’t have kids you can’t afford” actually think only those earning £60k or more should have children, since that is roughly what it takes to cover childcare or a single income? That eradicates the above two scenarios and it's just those with independent wealth

If so, what would that mean for society long-term, both economically and socially? There would be fewer poor people over all and I think this would have an impact on our monetary system and menial jobs getting done.

And if you believe that only the wealthy should reproduce, you are effectively asking rich, white, powerful men to police women’s reproduction.
That is exactly what is happening in parts of America right now.

Genuinely curious how people justify this way of thinking.

I find it shockingly stupid that some do not understand enough to grasp the importance of reproductive rates (both biologically and economically) but think its utterly fine to live in a world where people should be banned or suffer because they 'can't afford' the very basic things all animals exist to do and that the species requires.

People say stupid thing like 'people shouldn't have children because we over populated' without understanding that over population in a bottle neck needs removal from the ELDER generation not ceasing of reproduction. Nature use to handle this but we have done insane things in the last 100 years to increase survival and life expectancy and divert mass 'natural correction' events (like for example a pandemic).

As a result we have a massive burden of care to an aging population with no real turnover rate to carry that. When people use to say 'have kids so theres someone to care for you when your old' and people got offended and fired back 'I wouldn't expect my kids to care for me, thats not a reason to have kids' they seemed to completely miss the point that its not personally about THEM its about the whole population. It doesn't need to be specifically YOUR child wiping your ass but SOMEONES child will need to. Its about an entire society of jobs filled by younger people.

Someones child will be the paramedic driving your ambulance to get you to someone elses child who is the nurse/dr at the hospital when you have a heart attack or stroke. Someones kid will be research dementia looking for things to improve your quality of life and dignity. Someones child will be the home care help or nursing home staff or end of life staff holding your hand through the end. Somebody's child will dress you and drive the car carrying you to you final goodbye.

Children are a necessity to the whole species, its bigger than you and without people having children everything stops working. Truth is its the 'poor' people that carry the majority of that burden while also dealing with being judged, if only the top % had children we would surpass an extinction level drop. Its in EVERYONE interest to support children because even if you don't have any of your own you will garanteed use the services of the younger generation (other peoples children) regardless of their income (and many of the most needed jobs in society are the most shittily paid) so don't judge them.

We had three kids and were definitely judged by some family members and friends who all thought two would suit our income better 😂 but we managed by having Aupairs rather than using nursery and I worked from home a bit / part time. Kids shared rooms until they were 8/9 we don’t go on holidays abroad… we have one car… and we live a very rich and happy life. We absolutely have paid a price around how much we have saved/ invested for retirement but only in early forties so that’s a focus now. Low / plummeting birth rate tells a story

Sorry - yes what? You're saying they should be forced to terminate against their will. Fuckin' hell.

Also are you really a woman? I can't believe any woman is actually so unaware that unintended pregnancies can happen on contraception..

Eh? One of those women is being funded by the tax and the other isn't.

Of course class and wealth are related. They don't perfectly align but it is utterly ludicrous to say they are not related.

Oh but it is the issue, people say paupers must not breed and MC are being turned into paupers at speed. Their children will go without and it's their parents' fault as they made wrong decisions based on wrong economic assumptions.

Well, a working person is paying taxes to help support society and keeping their skills and involvement as a productive part of the economy.

Also, there’s more to “affording” children than childcare costs.

As a woman who spent from age 17 to menopause making sure I didn’t accidentally “fall” pregnant, I have zero respect for those careless enough to produce children into disadvantaged circumstances. There’s no excuse.

What study? Do you have a link?

Don't have kids you can't afford? This sounds horrible. My granny was born in 1929. Abject poverty. She was one of 7, two of her siblings died in infancy. Abject poverty, overcrowding, sleeping in one room. All of them grew into amazing individuals, a secretary, a doctor, a teacher, a police officer, and a plumber. I say 'abject poverty', gran said 'normal childhood'.

Er, fuck off? I stay at home with my kid and that isn't what I do. And at least I don't rely on the underpaid labour of nursery staff to care for the children I birthed and am perfectly capable of raising myself. My husband is "utterly reliant" on me to care for our children and perfectly happy to be so, but at least I am not "utterly reliant" on paid labour to do my parenting for me all day so I can be a willing little cog in the earning machinery.

You are twisting my words to suit your narrative of eugenics.
I never said anyone should be forced to do anything. I clearly said there is contraception and morning after pill.
You said "should she..?" So I replied "yes she should if she couldn't afford the current DC". I did NOT say anyone should have forced her.

This goes down to personal responsibility or lack of it, not anyone forcing anyone else to do anything.

Yes, it means sterilisation based on economic criteria, plain and simple.

So how do so many 'middle class' people on this forum have so little disposable income? There are the very average middle.

As a result we have a massive burden of care to an aging population with no real turnover rate to carry that.

I get the whole bottleneck thing but the answer is surely to go through it, even if there's shit times along the way, not to perpetuate it with an endlessly massive burden of care with a consistently high population. How does that turn out well?

I asked if you've terminated a pregnancy you wanted to remain at one child because that's all you can afford and you said no you use contraception so I asked :
Ok but surely you know women who have had contraception fail? I mean, you're on MN, people regularly are in a situation of unintended pregnancy - what are your proposing they do if they fall pregnant with a child they can't afford?

So I'll ask a third time, what is a woman supposed to do with an unintended pregnancy she can't afford? Are you saying she should or has a duty to terminate ?

Poverty and neglect aren’t the same thing

Why would you take a morning-after pill if you were on contraception? You can't tell if it's failed (in many cases) until weeks or months later.

What are you suggesting would trigger use of the MAP?

People will do their best to say this without actually having to say it

I’ve had this judgement because I had a second child after my disabled child. I could afford the second child but then he’s not been provided a school place and no suitable childcare available. Necessitating my giving up work and plunging my family into poverty. I’ve had a few comments about why have another child when the older one stops me working. I never excepted my disabled child to be denied his access to education and deprived of a school place. I waited until he was school age before having another child then as soon as I got pregnant he was kicked out because they “couldn’t meet need”. Should I have aborted my much wanted and planned child because of disability discrimination? I know a few families with multiple children who on the face of it look like they had children they couldn’t afford but the reality is one of those kids has high needs that we’re not apparent when the younger children were conceived.
I agree with those saying make the father pay. So many of my friendship group are poor because men leave when there is a disabled child and life is hard. Then the mum gets judged for the life she now has for her kids and the dad gets praised for a few hours he does on the weekend which mum spends cleaning and catching up on sleep

I hate being judged for this.

Oh, give over.

this poor planet is dying under the weight of excess human beings. As are myriad other species.

there is no shortage of people, all we need is less restrictive migration laws around the globe. and if humanity has to suffer a bit in order to reduce our population to less direly destructive levels, so be it.

stop kidding yourselves that you are doing the world a favour by producing offspring.

Except I didn't say that. I said people should limit the number they have to what they can afford.

Let me turn it back to you. Are you saying that society can afford to just keep paying to fund the DC that parents who can't afford them continue to have? That working parents who choose to limit their DC due to affordability should continue to pay for parents who have never worked?

Exactly! Many people on contraception don't know they're pregnant for a while, I can't tell you how many threads I've seen of women in this situation. Plus MAP is pretty useless if you've already ovulated.

Which like I said previously, isn't the issue. The issue is when people who can't afford the DC they currently have, keep on having more.

Or it’s not that they are deciding they actually want more kids, they just will not take responsibility for not having them, and just expect the state to keep on paying out when they do.

What usually triggers it?

This was pre-welfare state. Are you advocating we go back to that? Is it the normal childhood you'd want for your kids? I'm sure lots of our grannies grew up in similar circumstances and their grannies grew up in worse ones, but not sure how relevant that is to the current situation or the answer would be to ditch all benefits and mod cons and just let the amazing individuals proliferate.