U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-17-2014, 05:18 PM
 
11,383 posts, read 6,428,699 times
Reputation: 6125

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat View Post
You have been completely disingenuous since the very first post on this thread. The entire premise is flawed because you used your own misinterpretation of the posts in the other thread as a basis for this one; and you have used extreme examples found on google to try to argue that kids aren't really that expensive.
The previous thread has nothing to do with this one unless you want it to. I gave examples of certain cost in another thread because I come from a family with 15+ cousins, I was a kid myself and I have friends with children - I have an idea of what child care cost. When others didn't believe me I provided links to childcare facilities that validated my estimates. What more can I do when people simply respond with "your wrong". I understand the nature and bravado of internet forums where people disagree and refuse to concede even the most simple points, but sheesh!

Quote:
You have ignored real life examples from real life parents about unexpected expenses, and costs in other regions. You even started off with a budget that assumed someone would be watching the child for free!
I have ignored nothing. I have given examples of what things cost where I live yet I have been fought tooth and nail every step of the way (by people that live 1000+ miles away no less). I do not support the idea that the only way to understand child care cost is to have a child.

Quote:
I don't think a single other poster ever said that everyone should be "constantly striving" to do better for their kids. You never, ever asked if it was anyone else's business how a family spends it's money and now you are twisting hundreds of answers into that one simple, convenient conclusion.
In the OP, my question was if parents should be satisfied with the life they're providing for their child or if they should be in a constant state of striving, doing without and trying to do better.

Quote:
A parent who is out working full time to earn money for their family is doing right by his family. A 20-something who doesn't work so that he can do what he wants all day, and forces his family to live on $20K/year is not doing right. That's the difference. In the later example, that parent is setting a poor example for the child and is putting his own wants ahead of his child's. That's the difference.
If you want to discuss me, please direct your attention to the appropriate thread (preferably the "retired at in 20s" thread.). Your questions and comments were addressed repeatedly there.

 
Old 08-17-2014, 06:05 PM
 
2,540 posts, read 3,302,757 times
Reputation: 5538
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell View Post

In the OP, my question was if parents should be satisfied with the life they're providing for their child or if they should be in a constant state of striving, doing without and trying to do better.
Yes, parents should be satisfied with what they're giving their kids, BUT, only provided that all the kids' needs and some wants are met, AND that they're met at least on the same level, if not above, the parents'. That means your kids should be entitled to the same standard of living as you are. If you're scraping by with hard work and the bare minimum, yes that's how your kids will be raised and maybe there's not much you can do to change the situation. BUT, if you're allowing yourself luxuries like vacations and expensive hobbies, then at the very least your kids need to have these things too - maybe a great family vacation of the same level for every one that you take without the kid; a hobby or activity that costs money for every one of yours; new nice clothes if that's what you buy for yourself. It's not rocket science. To most normal parents that's the only possible way to live - you give to your kids first, then you see what you can squeeze in for yourself, without being fanatical either way. Not the other way around though.

No, no one should constantly be striving for more and better because that's a stressful way to live, and you're never going to have everything you may want, and you need to find a balance between work and life, money and time. However, you should strive to give your kids what is reasonable and feasible for your family, and those are the decisions all parents make and prioritize some things over others. And you adjust as you go along. If you live in an area with bad schools and have the chance to move, you take it. If you don't earn enough for basic needs and are offered a better job, you take it. Sometimes it makes sense to sacrifice something to improve your lifestyle, and other times it isn't; each situation is different. We lived a perfectly reasonable middle-class lifestyle in a city we loved but things were tight and our budget had very very little wiggle room and was getting tighter. DH got an opportunity to move for a much better paying job, so we did it even though we really really didn't want to move - but we knew it would bring better opportunities for us and our kids. If it was just the two of us, maybe we wouldn't have, as we wouldn't have moved to the suburbs, bought a house and two cars, etc etc. But we had a kid and our priorities are very different now than before, and we need to put his needs first. Again, that is something that's normal for most parents, but for some reason you have trouble understanding it.
 
Old 08-17-2014, 06:28 PM
 
5,917 posts, read 4,058,733 times
Reputation: 16282
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell View Post

I'm of the opinion that parents have freedom to control their budgets as long as their child as cared for - if that means a $3k vacation or parts for dad's hot rod...I will be the last person to label them bad parents. Feel free to disagree.
Based on some of your other threads, it's fair to question why you don't think that "dad" should be content with a 15 year old econobox that doesn't require expensive parts, and that anyone can have a blast on far less than $3000, by borrowing DVDs at the library as a vacation etc. I mean you've written pages on this.

I mean what's good for the kids must be good for the parents in your world, no?

In my (real) world, I'd feel like a pretty big a-hole not sharing the fruits of my hard work with my family on a roughly equitable basis. Given the age difference between parents and children it's always going to be a little open to debate what equitable means, but I think real parents understand.

My wife loves to tell how her dad (my FIL) used to eat rib eyes when the kids got liver. He was so detached from parenting he thought he was entitled. Thankfully some therapy he did in midlife relieved him of that. He's now a very generous grandpa, to himself and his kids and grandkids.
 
Old 08-17-2014, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
84,970 posts, read 98,814,535 times
Reputation: 31381
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhelmete View Post
We have a winner!

Amazing that a topic posted by a non-parent who claims to be living small-ball got so much traction here. Eddie appears to have too much time on his hands (when he's not patting himself on the back) to construct these elaborate webs about how the whole world should work and, surprise, where somehow he always comes out as the logical one. Easy to do when it's 100% theory.
Exactly! I actually quit following this thread yesterday out of total frustration, just came back to it now, and I only read until this post.

The OP is not looking for information, nor is he interested in honest debate. He's simply going in circular arguments, trying to trap people, to wit:

You say you're happy with your income right now, he asks if you could do better. He then says you're not doing the best for your kids. Around and round and round it goes.
 
Old 08-17-2014, 07:13 PM
 
11,383 posts, read 6,428,699 times
Reputation: 6125
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilCookie View Post
Yes, parents should be satisfied with what they're giving their kids, BUT, only provided that all the kids' needs and some wants are met, AND that they're met at least on the same level, if not above, the parents'. That means your kids should be entitled to the same standard of living as you are. If you're scraping by with hard work and the bare minimum, yes that's how your kids will be raised and maybe there's not much you can do to change the situation. BUT, if you're allowing yourself luxuries like vacations and expensive hobbies, then at the very least your kids need to have these things too - maybe a great family vacation of the same level for every one that you take without the kid; a hobby or activity that costs money for every one of yours; new nice clothes if that's what you buy for yourself. It's not rocket science. To most normal parents that's the only possible way to live - you give to your kids first, then you see what you can squeeze in for yourself, without being fanatical either way. Not the other way around though.
I don't really understand the requirement of parent-to-child spending being in a 1:1 ratio. I don't think a parent should be living a lavish lifestyle that doesn't include the child, but I don't really think it matters if the parents went on a $3500 vacation and "all" the child got was a $400 laptop (plus all the other expenses that go into raising a child that much children don't appreciate).

I guess there is no settling that though because it's highly subjective. It like saying a parent should love their child "this much" but some parents love their children more or less than others.

Quote:
No, no one should constantly be striving for more and better because that's a stressful way to live, and you're never going to have everything you may want, and you need to find a balance between work and life, money and time. However, you should strive to give your kids what is reasonable and feasible for your family, and those are the decisions all parents make and prioritize some things over others. And you adjust as you go along. If you live in an area with bad schools and have the chance to move, you take it. If you don't earn enough for basic needs and are offered a better job, you take it. Sometimes it makes sense to sacrifice something to improve your lifestyle, and other times it isn't; each situation is different. We lived a perfectly reasonable middle-class lifestyle in a city we loved but things were tight and our budget had very very little wiggle room and was getting tighter. DH got an opportunity to move for a much better paying job, so we did it even though we really really didn't want to move - but we knew it would bring better opportunities for us and our kids. If it was just the two of us, maybe we wouldn't have, as we wouldn't have moved to the suburbs, bought a house and two cars, etc etc. But we had a kid and our priorities are very different now than before, and we need to put his needs first. Again, that is something that's normal for most parents, but for some reason you have trouble understanding it.
So this sounds like the parents that are working class and satisfied with what their child gets from that lifestyle don't need to worry about whether they have the potential to do better. Their child can go to a below average school (but work hard/be supported by parents) and they can live in working class area (not the safest, but not dangerous) without feeling like they're failing the child in some way.
 
Old 08-17-2014, 07:29 PM
 
Location: here
24,469 posts, read 28,737,691 times
Reputation: 31039
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell View Post
The previous thread has nothing to do with this one unless you want it to. I gave examples of certain cost in another thread because I come from a family with 15+ cousins, I was a kid myself and I have friends with children - I have an idea of what child care cost. When others didn't believe me I provided links to childcare facilities that validated my estimates. What more can I do when people simply respond with "your wrong". I understand the nature and bravado of internet forums where people disagree and refuse to concede even the most simple points, but sheesh!

I have ignored nothing. I have given examples of what things cost where I live yet I have been fought tooth and nail every step of the way (by people that live 1000+ miles away no less). I do not support the idea that the only way to understand child care cost is to have a child.

In the OP, my question was if parents should be satisfied with the life they're providing for their child or if they should be in a constant state of striving, doing without and trying to do better.

If you want to discuss me, please direct your attention to the appropriate thread (preferably the "retired at in 20s" thread.). Your questions and comments were addressed repeatedly there.
YOU brought the other thread into this on in your OP.

You have ignored plenty - illness, injury, regular old medical costs and copays, school expenses, just to name a few.

The answer to your question is "it depends."
 
Old 08-17-2014, 07:30 PM
 
11,383 posts, read 6,428,699 times
Reputation: 6125
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhelmete View Post
Based on some of your other threads, it's fair to question why you don't think that "dad" should be content with a 15 year old econobox that doesn't require expensive parts, and that anyone can have a blast on far less than $3000, by borrowing DVDs at the library as a vacation etc. I mean you've written pages on this.
I don't expect everyone to share my frugal views.

Quote:
In my (real) world, I'd feel like a pretty big a-hole not sharing the fruits of my hard work with my family on a roughly equitable basis. Given the age difference between parents and children it's always going to be a little open to debate what equitable means, but I think real parents understand.

My wife loves to tell how her dad (my FIL) used to eat rib eyes when the kids got liver. He was so detached from parenting he thought he was entitled. Thankfully some therapy he did in midlife relieved him of that. He's now a very generous grandpa, to himself and his kids and grandkids.
So if the kids would've also got rib eye he would've been a better parent? He did feed the kids right? Let them live in his house? Send them to school? Buy clothes? This reminds me of the other thread around here about the parent having to race his child to the recliner and if he lost he sits in the floor. I'm of the opinion that kids should appreciate what they do get and don't worry about what pappa and mamma do with the finances. If dad gets his $2500 hot rod part and little Jimmy only gets a $200 ipod - so be it. Little Jimmy can always get in the adoption line if he feels cheated.
 
Old 08-17-2014, 07:33 PM
 
11,383 posts, read 6,428,699 times
Reputation: 6125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat View Post
YOU brought the other thread into this on in your OP.

You have ignored plenty - illness, injury, regular old medical costs and copays, school expenses, just to name a few.

The answer to your question is "it depends."
The other thread was to talk dollar and cents (medical cost, copays, etc) - this thread is to talk about the philosphy/mentality that drives parent to spend what they spend or don't spend.
 
Old 08-17-2014, 07:44 PM
 
1,167 posts, read 1,039,614 times
Reputation: 2136
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell View Post
The previous thread has nothing to do with this one unless you want it to. I gave examples of certain cost in another thread because I come from a family with 15+ cousins, I was a kid myself and I have friends with children - I have an idea of what child care cost. When others didn't believe me I provided links to childcare facilities that validated my estimates. What more can I do when people simply respond with "your wrong". I understand the nature and bravado of internet forums where people disagree and refuse to concede even the most simple points, but sheesh!

I have ignored nothing. I have given examples of what things cost where I live yet I have been fought tooth and nail every step of the way (by people that live 1000+ miles away no less). I do not support the idea that the only way to understand child care cost is to have a child.

In the OP, my question was if parents should be satisfied with the life they're providing for their child or if they should be in a constant state of striving, doing without and trying to do better.

If you want to discuss me, please direct your attention to the appropriate thread (preferably the "retired at in 20s" thread.). Your questions and comments were addressed repeatedly there.
No, people have repeatedly told you that your numbers do not work for them and where they live and their circumstances and that while you may be able to have a family with those numbers and circumstances, they cannot.

Would you like a few more nails to go with that martyrism?
 
Old 08-17-2014, 08:03 PM
 
11,383 posts, read 6,428,699 times
Reputation: 6125
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozgal View Post
No, people have repeatedly told you that your numbers do not work for them and where they live and their circumstances and that while you may be able to have a family with those numbers and circumstances, they cannot.
I have never argued against this. Why is it repeated so much?

Quote:
Would you like a few more nails to go with that martyrism?
I will take on all comers. When I right, I'm right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top