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.
Of course, all those kids is what made them wealthy. Living on an entertainment budget of $100 a month for 17 kids in a 2,000 square foot house doesn't sound like living to me. I'd rather have two kids (or none, but I know some people really want them) and not have to budget ad nauseum to get the food bill under $3000 a month.
Of course, all those kids is what made them wealthy. Living on an entertainment budget of $100 a month for 17 kids in a 2,000 square foot house doesn't sound like living to me. I'd rather have two kids (or none, but I know some people really want them) and not have to budget ad nauseum to get the food bill under $3000 a month.
Second this.
I read an endless number of posts where people flaunt the theory "look how frugal and responsible they are, they are not on welfare, we should all admire them!!".
Really? I mean, really REALLY??
First and foremost, not in a million years would I believe that just because someone can afford something, they should necessarily have it. There are other considerations above and beyond "if I can afford it, I should have it".
Second, imagine what results they would have if they applied all of their frugal knowledge and skills to only two kids.
Having 19 is beyond insanity - NO MATTER HOW YOU TWIST IT.
It is 100% unjustifiable, regardless of how frugal, how responsible and how much NOT on public assistance you are.
In fact, I'd rather deal with one person with one kid on public assistance (I'd be glad to contribute to their basic monthly expenses) than with the 21 Duggards on their own, consuming lots of resources even when they are at their MOST frugal.
It is sad that people still cannot see beyond the theory "if I can afford it, I can have it".
Imagine how many children Bill Gates could afford. Should he impregnate hundreds of women who would give birth to his children left and right simply because he could cover EVERYONE?
Why is HE not that insane if he can afford it?
Because he can - and those moms would surely not be on public assistance!!
The world is already overpopulated. Thank you Duggers for becoming a modern day version of Genghis Khan.
My fear is that when we keep saying "the world is overpopulated" and leave it at that without elaboration, people end up taking it as some kind of stupid cliche best left ignored. I have read so many times "oh, the overpopulation argument is getting so old".
Those of us who say that today and are still relatively young will most probably not be here to see the catastrophe that WILL eventually result from this type of thinking (so what's it to us?);
but our kids might be here and out grand-kids will almost surely be here.
The overpopulation argument is NOT getting old, in fact it is getting younger and younger, and more pressing, by the day.
The theory that "if you can afford it on your own, you can have whatever you want" is terrible because it is miopic, it is insanely selfish and it is short-term.
These people and others like them could have had just as wonderful, if not a whole lot more wonderful, lives with a small size family COUPLED with their frugal skills.
Teaching others that it is OK to breed ad nauseam as long as you have "frugal skills" is completely irresponsible. The very fact that they breathe in the United States makes them serious consumers of resources relative to people in most other regions of the world. I don't care how frugal they are - when there are 21 of you breathing in a western nation, you have taken up more than your share of breath on this Earth.
Well....I certainly couldn't handle 19 kids, I can appreciate anyone who does!
But I have been doing my genealogy, and find it wasn't that long ago large families were the norm. My grandfather came from a family of 14, not including his parents, and a grandparent or there as well. In going through old records, I find many families with 10+ children, many with 20+. Usually those were the result of two marriages, guess the first wife died from sheer exhaustion!
But my point is, not too long ago people had large families and managed quite well, without any welfare, foodstamps, etc. Everyone was expected to do his/her share, no tax writeoffs, etc.
Also, the Duggars get a lot of their income for their TV spots, etc. I wouldn't trade my privacy for any amount of money! I wonder how those kids will feel when they grow up? Then we can see all about the Duggars, a generation later!
But my point is, not too long ago people had large families and managed quite well, without any welfare, foodstamps, etc. Everyone was expected to do his/her share, no tax writeoffs, etc.
Right. And this is exactly the reason why things changed dramatically in a very short period of time.
No of people breathing on Earth beginning of 20th century: about 2.5 billion.
No of people breathing on Earth beginning of 21 century: 7 billion.
Consumption appetites of the 2.5 billion in the beginning of 20th century: very low.
Consumption appetites of the 7 billion in the beginning of 21 century: very high.
You might argue that the early 21st "centurers" could simply curb their appetites and try to consume less, just like the early 20th "centurers" were doing. Even if people would try to become as frugal as they can possibly be in the 21st century, modern life has evolved in such ways that much of this increased appetite cannot be undone.
Let me think how grandma was doing just fine without a computer and the accompanying expenses and why I cannot do the same thing. Hmmmm...
And this is just a tiny example.
You cannot return to life as it was happening in the beginning of the 20th century; but YOU can have much fewer children.
In the meantime, China, India, the rest of the world and their brother dream of American lifestyles and push for it.
Good luck to us doing the same thing people NOT TOO LONG AGO were doing while thinking this is perfectly OK. Then let the Heavens know how this is working for us in a century from now or so.
Our grand-kids will need LOTS of help from the Heavens ...especially when they will poke each other's eyes out for a drop of drinkable water!
.
MONTHLY GROCERIES COST 3000
DIVIDED BY 21 DIGGERS
ABOUT 143 DOLLARS PER DIGGER PER MONTH
DIVIDED BY 30 DAYS PER MONTHS
COMES TO AROUND $4.77 FOR EACH DIGGER PER DAY
They may be frugal, but they are making the majority of their money from reality shows.
What if there were no more Duggar shows? Wonder how they would manage then? I know they have family businesses, but those probably don't contribute anywhere near the income their reality shows do.
The Duggars get roughly $25,000-$40,000 per EPISODE from the TLC Show 19 and Counting. So to uphold them as a model of frugality is just a bit ridiculous to me.
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.
I wonder how those kids will feel when they grow up? Then we can see all about the Duggars, a generation later!
