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.
You should discuss finances, but realize that finances are part of compromising. Virtually all parents do it. That's the point.
Yes, and? That is life and partnership. I'm not seeing what the point you're trying to make is.
Most every other post from other people here is saying exactly that. Most parents make compromises and find the medium that allows for the best situation they can manage for their family.
They do it every year. Small emergency fund. They're somewhat paycheck to paycheck - typical working class folks. Child's healthcare is taken care of.
Still depends. Not enough information for me to judge. And, orthodontia is rarely "covered." There is always an out of pocket cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
Ok, lets say they have the emergency fund. Emergency funds don't impact a child's life, but $2-3k could, right?
Um, they do if there is an emergency
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Of course it matters. A family making $20K spending $2500 of it on a vacation EVERY YEAR just for the parents is VERY different than a family making $100k (two median incomes) a year spending the same amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
I've been pondering this all day: if I was of very limited means but was gifted $5k to improve my kid's future prospects, what would I spend it on? I know what I'd do -- I'll share it later -- but what would you do?
I would probably save it for college. Or, if one of my kids showed great potential in some sport or musical instrument or something, maybe I'd pay for special training or something. Most likely college.
Seriously? Do you have any idea how basic logic works?
You are asking me to prove a negative. You prove positives not negative. Go ahead give it a shot. Prove there are no invisible pink unicorns flying around your head.
You expect me to prove that an arbitrary amount of money that's less than the amount needed to change social classes has a positive effect on a child's life? I believe you proved it for me. I don't think a child's life suddenly gets better once their family crosses the threshold of some arbitrary cutoff for the next social class - it's probably a gradual process, so yes, $2,000 for a middle class family COULD make some measurable difference in a child's life.
Quote:
Wait, let me get this straight, when you use social class it is relevant when anyone else does, it is not. Do you know what "hypocrite" means?
When I'm trying to describe a certain type of person and throw out the term "lower middle class" to describe them - you seeking to debate whether their income makes them lower middle class, middle middle class or upper middle class leads to an irrelevant discussion of social classes. It doesn't what social class this person is in as long as one can grasp the idea that I'm talking about people with professions similar to "teacher, nurse, plumber". This is what you have failed to grasp.
Quote:
Not what I said. You inability to comprehend is bordering on just outright fallacy at this point. What I said was it makes them a bad parent.
Who are you to label someone a bad parent? You can't just create arbitrary definitions of bad and expect anyone to agree.
Quote:
Are you going to sit there an bemoan the parents need for a hot rod, a vacation, and then begrudge a child new underwear?
You are creating straw man arguments at this point. Who said anything about denying a child new underwear? I'm not sure why you are so stuck on clothing as a defining point in the quality of a child's upbringing.
Quote:
If there is no harm from shopping at goodwill, there is no harm from skipping a fancy car, a fancy boat, a fancy vacation.
So you are admitting that those are personal decision?
Quote:
If it is about the bare minimum sufficing, why do the parents get the 5 day cruise?
Because new clothing has no inherent benefit to the family. Some kids don't care if their clothing comes from Goodwill. If the kid doesn't care, what benefit would the family gain by buying more expensive clothing? A vacation or tool or ring may add to parent's happiness. Happy parents potentially equal better marriage, better parents, healthier parents, refreshed parents.
Quote:
If it is really about what someone needs, and they "need" a vacation, than they can go camp in the woods and not spend a dime.
Shouldn't that be up to them?
Quote:
You have completely lost right here. Children don't need "new" clothing but parents "need" expensive vacations. fancy cars, fancy boats, etc.? You are done.
Clothing adds nothing to one's bank of life experiences. It is a material object that has no value unless someone assigns it value. What makes you think that new clothing vs used will enhance a child's life? What makes you think the child cares if their clothing is new? Ever seen a 3 year old worried if someone has worn their clothing before they did? I haven't.
Quote:
I don't.
You should've said that long ago.
Quote:
But if the money being spent on the parents wants lowers the socioeconomic status of the child, that is not in the child's best interest.
But on a case by case basis, you have no idea if sliding into the next social class will mean anything. Show me some statistics that compare families earning $50k vs families earning $47k. You can't argue that small amounts of money don't make a difference but at the same time barely being bumped up to the next social class make a huge difference in a child's life.
Quote:
And if you were a parent, you would know that the child's best interest matter more than a fancy car, cruise in the caribbean, etc.
Who said the child's best interest aren't being met?
pQUOTE]Happy well adjusted adults are raised by responsible parents. A parent who spend 50% of their 20K income on a vacation is not providing for their children and thus is a bad parent.[/quote]You are creating another straw man. Who said anything about 50% of a $20k income being spent on vacations?
Quote:
Yes you. You say parents need a 5 day cruise or caribbean vacation (and a fancy car, fancy boat, jewelry) so that they can adequately parent over a children having new clothing. If the child is expected to get by with the bare minimum, why aren't the parents? That is the definition of putting their wants/needs over their children.
Another strawman. Is this what we've come to? Straw man after straw man? Who said bare minimum? You know it is possible to save a little money without going bare minimum on everything, right?
Quote:
Spend your money on whatever you like. It just makes you a bad parent.
Thank you for your opinion.
Quote:
If I was trying to get control of how you spent your money, it would go something like this "You CAN'T spend money on X but HAVE TO spend it on Y". That doesn't happen. But what you want is to be selfish and get approval for it. You can't have it both ways.
Selfish is a rather arbitrary descriptor once a child's needs are being met. I could say everyone that isn't picking up a second job on the weekend is being rather selfish considering their child didn't ask to the born and could use the extra money to get ahead in life.
Quote:
Again, so when you give a definition (from wiki lol!) it is righteous, but when anyone else gives an actual number form the census it is "arbitrary". Hypocritical at best.
But again you are trying to argue some specific threshold for what defines certain classes. If that's what you want to do start another thread. Perhaps something like "What income level is considered middle class".
While we're on the topic, if you don't like Wiki (hey, don't expect solid references on some random point you want to debate), here is another source: What It Means to Be Middle Class Today - US News
Quote:
One helpful yardstick to judge whether you're middle class: Median household income was $51,017 in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. census data. Robert Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California-Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor, has suggested the middle class be defined as households making 50 percent higher and lower than the median, which would mean the average middle class annual income is $25,500 to $76,500.
If you're in the middle of the middle, however – not lower or upper-middle class – that would be an income range between $39,764 and $64,582, says Aaron Pacitti, an assistant professor of economics at Siena College in Loudonville, N.Y.
It's very much possible that the average 20-something year old teacher or nurse will fall outside of this "middle-middle" category or barely eclipse it.
Quote:
Seriously, do you not read carefully? I said the trappings of another lifestyle. Multiple times, btw.
Who cares if it has the "trappings" of another lifestyle?
Quote:
One of the hallmarks as you move up social classes is that there are likely to be nicer cars, more vacations, all of the things you think parents who make 20K a year are entitled to by scrimping on buying junior new underwear.
Why are you constantly talking about $20k/year income? Most people making $20k couldn't afford a vacation without a kid. We were discussing those that are lower middle class (or whatever class you want to put them in) like teachers, plumbers, nurses, etc. I beg you to keep up and lay off the straw man stuff.
Quote:
You want to take a parents only vacation that the AVERAGE american cannot afford (and buy a hot rod, and a boat, and a cruise, and jewelry, etc) while making a lower middle class income, and finance by not buying your child the best that you can afford. So yes, I still have the point, that you are living beyond your means, by stiffing your kid.
Who cares what the average American can afford? You are once again trying to tell someone that provides for the child that they should do XYZ with the money that's left over. If these parents shouldn't take their vacation than I would say parents who don't take vacations should pick up another job/work more overtime because by making less money than they're capable of, they are stiffing their kid.
I would probably save it for college. Or, if one of my kids showed great potential in some sport or musical instrument or something, maybe I'd pay for special training or something. Most likely college.
Why don't you pick up a second job right now and do just that? Why skimp on your child?
Why don't you pick up a second job right now and do just that? Why skimp on your child?
Because I think kids benefit from having a parent around every once in a while It isn't all about money, you know. I would expect an unemployed person to realize that. Most things in life are not black and white. I do currently save for college and pay for extrcirriculars. Based on your posts, I would think you'd find those a waste of money when I could be paying for vacations for myself.
Why don't you get A job before you ask me about getting a second one, ok?
My point is why have you chosen to compromise? Could you not do without more or work more or pick up an extra job to better provide for your child?
Why don't you do a nifty google search of after hours child care and tell us how much we should expect to spend so that we can go to our second job in the evening. You should also figure out how the kids will get to those music lessons and soccer practice while mom and dad are each working 2 jobs to avoid "skimping." Go ahead. We'll wait.
Because I think kids benefit from having a parent around every once in a while It isn't all about money, you know. I would expect an unemployed person to realize that. Most things in life are not black and white. I do currently save for college and pay for extrcirriculars. Based on your posts, I would think you'd find those a waste of money when I could be paying for vacations for myself.
Why don't you get A job before you ask me about getting a second one, ok?
Ahh yes. It's not all about the money. So you're saying a parent can raise a perfectly normal child with a working class lifestyle despite spending some of their money on personal enjoyment?
Why don't you do a nifty google search of after hours child care and tell us how much we should expect to spend so that we can go to our second job in the evening. You should also figure out how the kids will get to those music lessons and soccer practice while mom and dad are each working 2 jobs to avoid "skimping." Go ahead. We'll wait.
I assume at least one parent will be home before many 2nd jobs begin - 4-7pm. I didn't say both parents had to get a 2nd job. Perhaps they can take turns every few years.
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?
I think all of this is just fine except maybe the extracurricular and tutoring. Some things really do make a difference when they're learned in childhood vs. adulthood. For example learning to play a musical instrument as an adult and as a child are two very different experiences and the level of proficiency and especially developing one's ear maybe different if instruction is not started early. If your child has some sort of talent or passion, I do think it's important to make an effort to find ways to nurture that as early as possible if you can. If they need some help in school I think it could be important to find ways to get it. But expensive clothes, not having a fancy house, that kind of thing does not seem important in my opinion. All that said, it isn't the end of the world if a kid doesn't get all the extracurricular they would like. Love and safety is most important. Providing for their health, safety, basic education and character development and giving them a loving, secure home is crucial but I do think helping them to develop and nurture their strengths and passions is important too .
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.
It isn't all about money, you know. I would expect an unemployed person to realize that. Most things in life are not black and white. I do currently save for college and pay for extrcirriculars. Based on your posts, I would think you'd find those a waste of money when I could be paying for vacations for myself. 