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.

Yeah, I agree. It's not that we can't afford to support kids. It's that the UK failed to long term plan for the bulge in demand for social care for older people that's hitting us like a sledgehammer now. Which by the way economists were warning about back in the 1980s and 1990s. You know, the decades where we wasted our north sea oil revenue on tax breaks and opened up our property market to credit driven speculative investment diverting an ever higher proportion of household income into housing costs.

The fact that mum isn't at home with her kids is why discipline has gone to the dogs. Kids need their parents. They don't need fancy holidays and the latest designer gear. They don't need to be in childcare at 7am, school 9-3 and after school til 6. They need their mum and they need their home. Unpopular opinion but there it is. I've had plenty of fancy jobs in my time but nothing beats being a Mum and being there for my children, the children I chose to have.

I was trying to word something but this sums
up my opinion perfectly

Oh so just because a random poster on MN says we can afford it then it must be true.
The fact you say "Throwing up our current management of taxes etc isn't really relevant" shows how little you understand. What do you think funds the looking after of these DC if parents can't? Taxes! Our current economic situation has EVERYTHING to do with what we can/can't afford. Only a deluded muppet (or socialist) would think otherwise.

Where have I spouted eugenics? That's whay you want me to spout but I haven't. You've clearly got an agenda and are intent on twisting everything I say to make it fit that agenda. Talking about personal responsibility is not eugenics.

I've been extremely clear throughout and I'm sorry that you lack the comprehension to understand my posts but that's on you

Well I'm a normal empathetic human being so yeah flippantly talking about eugenics makes me grumpy

I'm sure you realise that "should" will be exactly opposite for e.g. religious people.

The world is an uncertain place. A family could be in the 100k club running a successful business but a crash can come along and wipe that out. Also, AI is about to take out many traditional industries in a similar way that Thatcher took out the miners.

The 100k family who loose it all in a crash or the working/lower middle class family whose offices jobs get automated end up on benefits and those who are in a better off position turn around and say. ‘Why do you have 3 children you can’t afford?’

People can’t live their lives based on the expectations and judgments of strangers they may never meet. Couples will still start families intentionally or accidentally regardless of if there is a welfare state. Just look back through history.

Society has evolved since the days of workhouses and slums. But the internet age has made in easier to get fomo and envy towards the perceived lifestyle of others. So just as there is a stark divide between the haves and have nots there is also a stark divide between those who believe life is about attaining money and influence and those who think life is about creating strong communities.

Err when you start talking about people having their fertility and reproduction restricted because of their economic circumstances you are absolutely going down a eugenics garden path. You don't want to elaborate on any of your "targeted support" to ensure these "mistakes" don't happen so it does sound pretty grim. I do actually hope you get to have your second child one day.

Ffs I have never flippantly talked about eugenics.
I think you have some serious comprehension issues. No point engaging any further as you are determined to twist me to your agenda.

At 47, no thanks!!!
I'm giving my DD a great life and could never afford to do that for a 2nd. Despite what you think, I'm not bitter, being an only isn't an issue as I was an only too, for the same reasons.

I think that if we stop lying to ourselves, then we can answer this question. There is no middle class - there is working class and non-working class, working class as the definition goes, are those who work for a living - a plumber, a bus driver, a brain surgeon - they are all working class - take their work away, they won't have income. And then there is a non-working class - those who employ other people and who live off others' labours. The former don't own the means of production, the latter do. Education plays no part, it boils down to the ownership of the means of production (Das Kapital). So, people who kid themselves they are 'middle class' are working class. The ones who are non-working class who own the means of production or equally other income-generating assets, do not post on this forum because they don't know about its existence?

But you keep asking uncomfortable questions! 😂

That's true. Sounds more like you're deadly serious. (And angry.)

This. Someone upthread reckoned people can budget for this, but I know of two families where one parent had a sudden and massive health decline and now can't work again and this has completely limited how much the other partner can work while caring for the children. These were both middle class well off families now living a completely different financial reality.

Sorry but this is nonsense.

economic downturn, disability, illness, divorce, death, job loss and other adversity happen in the course of MOST people’s lifetimes. It’s extremely disingenuous to say these situations can’t be anticipated and prepared for.

planning, saving, insurance, and - gasp! - maybe not indulging our own every whim, are a good start. Always plan for worst-case scenarios and have backup.

One problem with putting all children into childcare is that we are creating a very institutionalised generation.

Babies can be doing up to 50 hours a week in a nursery setting. Yes, good childcare isn’t necessarily a problem, they are looked after and they learn, but children are in a very regulated environment with their peers. They aren’t having contact with the adult world or having the freedom to be away from adult eyes. They are kept busy in group activities rather than having time to themselves and independent exploration.

Children in full time childcare from babies become very peer orientated. This can lead to them seeking more approval from them rather than the adults caring for and teaching them. In time this could have an impact on how they decide to care for older generations and learn work skills.

As a society I do think we need to be a little bit wary on the impact this will have in the long term. There are many mothers who would love to be able to stay home and raise their children, especially in the early years. Yes, we should also be able to work, but choices are being taken away from parents to do what is best for their family. Plenty of people aren’t in wonderful careers with high earning potential that they want to keep working for, many mothers are in jobs they hate taking barely anything home after the costs of being at work are taken away (transport, childcare etc).

It would be good if the child’s point of view was considered more. Plenty would rather be home with parents than following the rules and restrictions of group care.

I still think each family should be given a set amount of money per child each term/year which they can use to stay home or put towards childcare depending on what works better for them as a family. Between birth and five years.

God forbid not another example outside of someone's limited worldview! Presumably these women should shift their entire religious and philosophical beliefs less they be compared to a stray animals for falling pregnant.

</laughs in Global Pandemic>

I was trying to find the original quote but…

It depends on age of the child. Studies show that under 3’s gain no additional benefit from being in childcare but do benefit from being with their primary caregiver.

So even though the popular narrative these days is that SAHP are scroungers, it doesn’t make it true that children benefit from both parents being in full time work at any age.

I completely disagree. The very fact you don’t know what’s around the corner is why you should procreate cautiously. No one has the right to a baby, and when you have 1-2 children already to provide for you should think very carefully about all the things that could go wrong: death, disease, or most likely, divorce. The child itself could be heavily disabled. No one knows what’s around the corner, but we can all be sure it’ll be a damn sight harder with 4 kids than 2, and that the children will be much more impacted the more additional kids there are.

I really struggle with posts on MN that start with “I’m a single mother of 4 and I have x, y, z problem” as if becoming a single mother was statistically unlikely to happen.

So predictable. "Brown people with no rights will be happy to wipe my ass while I'll be preaching child free nonsense from my high moral ground".
🤦‍♀️

I knew enough to understand my fertility cycle and to use two methods of contraception.

a fucking trained chimp could do it. We aren’t asking teenagers to perform brain surgery blindfolded.

Sorry I scrolled back and see it was @No5ChalksRoad who said that, because obviously when she was 15/16 she knew everything about the world and anyone who didn’t know about taxes back when they were in secondary school she now dislikes

One concern is that some immigrant cultures look at child rearing as a duty to God and large family size is part of their culture.

We as a state shouldn't be deferred as saying this unreasonable as contraception is widely available and misogynist controlling culture should be condemned.

A lot of people in my local city view it's the states responsibility to support their God given family plans

So ignorant.