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.
No, you should not have children until you are financially secure enough to KNOW you can pay for them until they are on their own. You don't buy a house or a boat or a plane (at least a sensible person doesn't) until you not only have the current income, but also have the assurance that you'll be able to afford it until it is paid off. That includes good and stable job, spouse with good and stable job, savings and investments, a good track record in financial security.
Children are not "investments"--they are the most expensive luxury purchase a modern human being can make. We don't need more people, and we can't afford more in a system where government spends millions on each additional person with no thought to how it must be paid back. We can't even afford to add a fully-grown working adult to our population--we have jobs for only one out of 20 today, and that's not going to change. And a single child will cost the parents and society a fortune, just to get it to working age--when it joins the ranks of the unemployed.
40% of the kids in America are born to UNMARRIED women. That's nuts. We need to abandon the idiotic idea that everyone is justified in producing 2 or 3 (or more) kids, regardless of ability to pay for them, as a basic human right--and those who work will be forced to subsidize them. You do NOT have the right to produce children and expect the taxpayer to pay for them. It's ridiculous that we so massively subsidize children through the education and insurance systems--by totally divorcing those who impose massive costs on the system from paying those costs, we encourage large families that maximize costs for all of us. There is simply no reason to subsidize children in an economy when they are a luxury, when labor is never going to be in demand again.
I stopped reading at the first sentence. NO ONE knows the future. Such a statement is preposterous given today's economic circumstances. Hell, downsizing has been happening for years.
I am not rich...and neither is my SO...I am the only one who works right now and I have a diaper stack that goes all the way to the ceiling. I have about 9 boxes of Pampers diapers - about 1300 (they are worth about 230 after taxes) ...that cost me a little less than $100. Why? It is calling COUPONING, bargain hunting and stop spending money on cr ap you don't need!
I am not rich...and neither is my SO...I am the only one who works right now and I have a diaper stack that goes all the way to the ceiling. I have about 9 boxes of Pampers diapers - about 1300 (they are worth about 230 after taxes) ...that cost me a little less than $100. Why? It is calling COUPONING, bargain hunting and stop spending money on cr ap you don't need!
Yep. You can do it, anyone can!
How much is your rent? Car payment? Insurance? How much money does it take to get back and forth to work? Are you able to breast feed? If so, are you?
I stopped reading at the first sentence. NO ONE knows the future. Such a statement is preposterous given today's economic circumstances. Hell, downsizing has been happening for years.
I agree. I get disgusted when I see a "single mom" on TV with four kids from three different guys.
But we now have people in this country who have done everything the right way. They went to work, paid their bills, put money aside and then they get laid off.
You have in some cases where both parents lose their job.
When you have people out of work for a year or more, the savings get depleted, are they supposed to put their kids up for adoption?
The communist supporter Rosa DeLauro has got to go. Because getting $1200.00 per month per child from the state for daycare is not enough, she thinks we should purchase diapers for them too. Hell, why not.
I think children should be considered luxury items...a good deal of people truly cant afford to have them and treat them as well as they should be treated.
Exactly. Children ARE luxury items in modern society. They are also only luxury item that virtually EVERYONE else in society is taxed/overpriced so subsidize, no matter how wealthy the parents.
I stopped reading at the first sentence. NO ONE knows the future. Such a statement is preposterous given today's economic circumstances. Hell, downsizing has been happening for years.
I guess nobody wants to hear that that their irresponsible decisions are not the responsibility of the productive worker down the street who DIDN'T reduce himself to poverty with children. Doesn't change the facts, though.
Wages stagnated in the late 1970s. The economy has been crap for a very long time, and it won't be improving. I graduated college in 1983--the last time the unemployment rate had reached catastrophic levels and there were no jobs. We had to join the military, and we still didn't have kids 10 years later. Couldn't truly afford it, and be sure we wouldn't be forcing others to pay for our lack of personal responsibility. Actually, we NEVER got to the point where we could be sure of paying for both kids and our own retirement. So we didn't have them.
Today's economy doesn't change the fact that taxpayers (and insurance ratepayers, etc.) are NOT responsible for subsidizing children you CHOOSE to have.
I don't have the right to ask such subsidies for a luxury purchase from others, and they SHOULDN'T be allowed to deprive me of my hard-earned wages--which I really need to pay for my own retirement.
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.