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.
Nope. Because my husband has an excellent paying job with fantastic benefits and investments that allows me to be home full time for my family.
So HE should be looking for another job that boost your family income. Perhaps he could go to school part time and sharpen his skills? His mindset everyday should be "what can I do to better myself, move up, make more, work less and provide more for my family". Granted, this may not be possible if he has absolutely maxed out his abilities.
Quote:
My child either didn't exist at the time, and when he did, he was part of said vacations and the experiences he gained were absolutely beneficial to him.
That's great, but what puts you in a position to judge someone that doesn't bring their child along?
Quote:
You keep talking all over the board and from one extreme to another. As I have said before, I already posted addressing the lower to middle to upper, and have already said that no matter how much you make, you need to be mindful of your discretionary expenditure after your actual household and family expenditure has been accounted for to ensure a lifestyle that limits or eliminates financial stress in the home.
Ok, so I guess that brings us back to "if your child is cared for, spend your money how you see fit" - this is the description I gave in the OP.
If one lives a stress free life on $45k and their child's needs are met how they see fit (working class schools/child care, etc) - who cares if they take the $5k vacation? You can't legislate parenting skills above what is required by law to ensure a child's safety. Some parents will dedicate 100% of their waking life to their kids (I saw these parents when I was in school) and some will dedicate 80%. You can't legislate it.
I live in a very small town, about a mile and a half square, maybe 5K people. We have three upscale consignment shops, a more traditional thrift store and another consignment shop just for children. The thrift store is much more low end as all of the "good" items, end up in the consignment shops. I suspect the better the second hand market, the less quality items you have in Goodwill type thrift stores.
Yeah, around here, a lot of decent stuff ends up in consignment stores or on local swap/sale groups through FB etc.
You also get a lot more people these days who trawl through charity shops for name brand clothing, buy it up cheap then resell it for a profit on eBay.
It isn't nosey when YOU ASKED. You made this thread, if being content with scrimping on your kids so you can buy yourself a fancy car and vacation makes you a bad parent.
I asked and now I'm telling you that your "bad parent" opinion is nothing more than some arbitrary definition of good parenting that you concocted in your head.
Quote:
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make me nosey, it just makes you whiney.
And I believe this sums up the thread:
"In a nut shell - as long as parents are caring for their child (not breaking any laws), it's up to them to decide how the family's money is spent. Like just about everything in life, others will have opinions."
You are going in circles because you can't understand two step reasoning. Shame.
All been answered to death. You don't get it, clearly. Maybe your financial immorality is not the reason you shouldn't be a parent…..
Please don't attack me when I simply ask why shopping at Goodwill is wrong regardless of income level.
Heck, I could argue that shopping 2nd hand is the most virtuous way of providing for child because there's less impact on the planet (energy/resources that go into making new clothing).
Wait so you get to speak for "most" goodwill stores, but my experience with them is profoundly limited? Seems a bit hypocritical.
I've lived in many parts of the country and have shopped at plenty of thrift stores. Goodwill is just one chain. I think I can speak from experience. Most thrift stores have their clothing on racks, not in piles. I never said your experience was "profoundly limited". I specifically said that maybe things are different where you live. Mainly my point was not to be so judgmental about people who shop at thrift stores because your experience with them is not the same as everyone else's. You are twisting things. Why? I don't know.
Last edited by MissTerri; 08-17-2014 at 04:07 PM..
Another thread I made about how raising a child doesn't have to be terribly expensive drew a lot of criticism.
It seems that some people hold the opinion that being content with what you've provided your child (unless it's the best) is a disservice to that child. They feel that a parent should constantly strive to provide better, better, better for the child. This could be in the form of better schools, better neighborhoods, better city, a slew of extracurricular activities, the best ranked childcare providers, the best foods, clothing, medical care, etc, etc.
My question is - is it OK to be content with what you've provided for child? For example:
- child attends an average public in the state (a mix of poor, working class and middle class families)
- family lives in an average (or even below average) home in a working class/average neighborhood/city (not dangerous, but not the safest)
- child wears relatively modest clothing (perhaps even some hand-me-downs)
- child receives 2 or 3 star childcare instead of 5 star
- child doesn't have access to all extracurricular activities/tutoring and parents probably can't afford to pay for all college expenses
Is it somehow morally wrong for this parent to be satisfied with what they've provided (i.e. calling it good enough and enjoying life) or should they constantly strive/work hard/stress to provide their child with something better?
Where do you draw the line between fanatical and satisfied?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
I asked and now I'm telling you that your "bad parent" opinion is nothing more than some arbitrary definition of good parenting that you concocted in your head.
And I believe this sums up the thread:
"In a nut shell - as long as parents are caring for their child (not breaking any laws), it's up to them to decide how the family's money is spent. Like just about everything in life, others will have opinions."
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.
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 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.
You have painted everything in black and white with no shades of gray. Guess what. Life is shades of gray. If I wouldn't worry about the kid, I'd dare you to have one and try to live on the budget you suggested. You would quickly see how much of life is unpredictable, and how silly your entire argument has been.
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.
I asked and now I'm telling you that your "bad parent" opinion is nothing more than some arbitrary definition of good parenting that you concocted in your head.
And I believe this sums up the thread:
"In a nut shell - as long as parents are caring for their child (not breaking any laws), it's up to them to decide how the family's money is spent. Like just about everything in life, others will have opinions."
Then why did you ask if you are just to going dismiss opinions YOU solicited?
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.
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 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.
You have painted everything in black and white with no shades of gray. Guess what. Life is shades of gray. If I wouldn't worry about the kid, I'd dare you to have one and try to live on the budget you suggested. You would quickly see how much of life is unpredictable, and how silly your entire argument has been.
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.
Then why did you ask if you are just to going dismiss opinions YOU solicited?
When one repeatedly tries to correct my opinion by stating their opinion - I will point out that their opinion is an opinion.
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.
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.
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.
