Your Kid(s) Are A Liability? (IRA, margin, costs, rich)

[Texas User]

Who agrees? Considering the time, effort and money that is spent on the child?

[pghquest]

They sure in the hell arent an "asset" if your speaking in terms of a balance sheet.

[Texas User]

Originally Posted by pghquest

They sure in the hell arent an "asset" if your speaking in terms of a balance sheet.

I agree. So why do people have kids and complain about being broke?

[chet everett]

I seem to recall that Jonathon Swift thought children held the key to the chronic problems of scarcity of food among the Irish...

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by Texas User

I agree. So why do people have kids and complain about being broke?

Because many people consider unlimited procreation a right. In their minds, they should be allowed to produce as many children as they want, and if it's more than they can support, others should kick in to help pay. After all, since the others have fewer or zero kids, they can afford it, right?

[Texas User]

Originally Posted by j_k_k

Because many people consider unlimited procreation a right. In their minds, they should be allowed to produce as many children as they want, and if it's more than they can support, others should kick in to help pay. After all, since the others have fewer or zero kids, they can afford it, right?

They are not thinking with thier brains? Nothing wrong with children but what if you can't afford it?

[Traderx]

Originally Posted by Texas User

They are not thinking with thier brains? Nothing wrong with children but what if you can't afford it?

If you can't afford kids then I think that pretty much sums up the answer doesn't it? You can't afford what you can't afford. Doh!

I have 2 but we waited until we were financially secure, no debts, mom not having to work, etc. Were all better off for that, especially the kids.

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by Texas User

They are not thinking with thier brains? Nothing wrong with children but what if you can't afford it?

This is humanity we are talking here. You expected common sense in any matter, much less sexual and reproductive matters?

[marcusj245]

Some semesters ago, one of our teachers showed us a study regarding the costs of children. From the time a kid is born to the time he/she reaches 18, the cost for raising a child will be approximately $240,000.

On a yearly basis, this means roughly $13,300 and on a monthly basis, $1100 (rounded for simplicity).

Having kids is necessary, as we need to keep our lineage continuing. However, we must also factor the costs involved with having children, for if this is not carefully done, the children and parents become a liability to each other.

[hindsight2020]

Let's play devil's advocate. While I agree with the fiscal perspective espoused here, what all of you are failing to consider is that there is a replacement value that has no set numerical value associated with it. That is to say, if only people who could afford to have kids had them, the rest of the population would wither. Maslow hierarchy of needs always trumps economics. People don't hole up in a corner and die because they can't afford to eat, they just take it, maybe even kill you for a bite of food. It's just the way our grey humanity is, economics plays no role.

Now in reality, what happens in capitalistic societies such as ours is that the rich usually get richer and the poor have kids. The problem is that, demographically, white european descendants in America comprise the majority of the "rich" category, while blacks and hispanics comprise the "rest". As such, the replacement value is being satisfied by these demographics while the rich are doing the narrow-sighted thing and not procreating even to replacement value.

The same phenomena is being witnessed in Europe, with middle eastern immigration comprising the majority of the procreating in Europe, at the marginalization expense of the non-reproducing native european population.

So, while it proves comfortable and economically advantageous to forego the expense of raising and maintaining children to the same standard of living you are accustomed to as a childless individual, that outcome as a long term solution is not going to fare well for your kind. The poor will always have children, economics be damned. They will carry through the replacement value of our society, even if you think that end is to the very detriment of said society. Their children will get a chance at taking a hack at the next agenda in human endeavors, yours will never exist to attempt the same. Again, that doesn't affect one iota what your 84.5 years in this world look like, but if you're poor anyways the "economics" of passing your DNA for another 80 years is a no-brainer. Good, bad or indifferent, there's your "logic" behind the rich get richer and the poor have kids.

We're a late 20s DINK couple, and we're still mauling over the idea of having children. We're not quite comfortable with the idea yet, but when and if we decide to pursue that end, we'll cap it at two (God willing) and do our best. Our future kids will certainly learn to do without many of the life expectations the baby boomers had, but hopefully by then our society would have morphed into a better and more sensible version of today. As it stands, we're headed down a devolutionary spiral,so we hope to help the cause by raising independent-thinking productive members of society. But asserting "ah screw child bearing" as a collective, particularly among the upper classes, is self-defeating.