Why do people in financial need plan to have more children?

[Reya]

Always is not always true. I bet if you asked some of the women Mother Theresa helped (in the most horrible places of the world) if they'd be in favor of being in total control over their reproductive system, you'd have more than a few takers. Doesn't mean they don't want their kids, they just don't want more .

 

There is better access to modern reproductive technologies in India today than in the US in 1900-1920, and yet my great-grandmother, one of 12 herself, managed to have only one "oops" (and two on-purposes) in her 50+ years of marriage, after getting married at 16. She was plenty fertile, as the two she wanted were less than two years apart and occurred as soon as she wanted them.

 

Now, her family was loving, but she wasn't allowed to get more than a 3rd grade educations because she had to take care of her siblings (a number of whom got to get nursing and teaching degrees, themselves). She felt that it was unfair to put the costs of a the parents' reproductive choices on a child, so she strongly advocated birth control. All three of her children got degrees--not paid for by them, as they were frankly too poor, but they had the material support to graduate from high school and were encouraged to go to college.

 

(There were a number of forms of BC then, but reliable NFP wasn't publicized until 1920, so she could not have used that until her late 30s.)

 

Even people without the Pill can and do make reproductive choices.

[Susann]

And that's your story, and I'm glad (seriously, not being snarky) that you have been able to do that, and that you are happy. I really am.

But that's just not what everyone wants. It was more important to me to be done having kids by the time I was 30 so that I could still be young and enjoy them. And I'm not saying that to belittle anyone who chose differently - that was just what I chose. It was more important to me to keep the kids close in age - had I not been pregnant with Pink by February of 2009, I was going to send DH to get a vasectomy. We didn't want our last kid to be more than 4 years younger than the one before. (Astro would turn 4 in November of 2009). I would have forsaken having another child to keep my 'age guidelines' intact. (I was 6 months pregnant in February of 2009, so I obviously didn't have anything to worry about there...! lol)

Anyway, I know not everyone can understand my way of thinking, but they don't need to. I can't say I understand why some people would just start having kids now if they didn't have to. (As in, someone who just got married at 29- yeah, I can see why they would just be thinking about babies at 30-31. But for me? I've been married 11 years.)

Oddly enough, I don't take offense to people on here believing that waiting to have their kids was so much better. IRL I have a little bit of a harder time, but maybe it's their delivery of it (Oh, I was SO not ready to have kids before I was 30. I'm SO glad my husband and I were married 10 years before we even CONSIDERED a baby because then we REALLY knew each other... that's what people here say.) Idk, for some reason when it's phrased more as, 'this is what we did, and I'm happy' I'm just glad. I'm happy with what we did, too. :D

 

 

It works both ways. I was 34 & 35 when dds were born and got tired of hearing what I've underlined. DH and I considered ourselves young and definitely enjoyed the munchkins but were repeatedly given this message that we were too old and decrepit it have kiddos!

[Donna]

And people are confused as to why the "poor" stay "poor." Are they supposed to be financially suicidal?

 

I have known a huge number of families with parents, mostly single mothers, who would love to get a job and support their child/children. The problem is, if they do, they end up losing nearly all their government assistance but they are unable to begin by earning enough to add up to that assistance especially if they have a child with a disability and need specialized daycare or medical benefits. So, if they try to work, they end up worse off than if they just stay home and take help from the government.

 

It is a very sad situation in our country that keeps many people reliant on the government rather than helping them to get jobs and eventually get off assistance.

[lovinmomma]

 

 

It's free to YOU if you qualify financially.

 

Of course, someone is paying for it.

Not here. Its just reduced. There is no program that my Head Start has that is free. Head Start is privately owned, so maybe that changes from place to place.

[Murphy101]

Reya wrote:

"You assume that population is the reason for starvation in these areas."

 

No I don't. Never said that or implied that at all.

I know population is not the reason for starvation in those areas. Just like it isn't here. Have no idea why you think I did.

[I.Dup.]

 

I have a "genetically passed-on disability" and am very, very glad to be alive. Each of my children have a 50% chance of inheriting it, too, though if they get it, they actually only have a tiny chance of it being as severe as mine. I never for a second wished not to be born because of it. I'm glad DD and DS don't have it, but that doesn't mean that they'd be a mistake if they did.

 

You could say the same thing about really ugly parents with tremendously ugly families or stupid people whose kids are all dumb. Where do you drawn the line at being "too abnormal" to be valued? "Too abnormal" to be risked?

 

That was exactly my point. People with disabilities who choose to have many children don't deserve to be judged.

 

There is a lot more than just "deciding not to have more children." For many of us there is this tricky thing called religion, faith, and a marriage, where both spouses have to be on board with something for it to work. Basically, it's none of your business.

 

I'm glad you have your life and everyone else's all figured out, that must be great!

[I.Dup.]

 

If you don't want to put your kids in daycare, then don't have more than you can support on a single full-time and one part time job.

 

It's the decision that millions of people make every year.

 

 

 

Brilliant! Why hadn't we thought of that?? Well, since we have 7 children, if something happened to my husband to make him unable to work, Wal-Mart may be a real possibility.

 

Which of our children should be sent back? 7 is clearly too many.

 

My grandmother was #7 in a poor family with a sickly mother. My own mother judged her grandmother for having so many children in that situation, which is interesting since if she didn't have #7 none of us would be here.

[jennynd]

this is getting old

[Crimson Wife]

Yes, it's 99% about expectations. If you read a book about an average middle-class family in the early 50s and their lifestyle, it describes the choices and penny-pinching required today of people below the poverty line.

 

I'm not buying that. Regular middle-class folks back in the 50's like my grandparents had full-time housekeepers/maids. How many middle-class folks today can afford one of those?

 

Now I absolutely believe that the poor in the U.S. today have a significantly better lifestyle. Back then many poor families didn't even have running water or electricity in their homes. Today you'd have to go "off the grid" to find a home lacking those basics.

[justamouse]

 

I'm not buying that. Regular middle-class folks back in the 50's like my grandparents had full-time housekeepers/maids. How many middle-class folks today can afford one of those?

 

Now I absolutely believe that the poor in the U.S. today have a significantly better lifestyle. Back then many poor families didn't even have running water or electricity in their homes. Today you'd have to go "off the grid" to find a home lacking those basics.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

My grandparents, who were depression babies, had a small house, lived on one income, were frugal, and *regularly* went overseas on vacation and took a week vacation to Cape May *EVERY YEAR*.

 

Prices on everything were lower back then. Really, we're the frog in the boiling water concerning the economics of this country. 4 bucks for gas is just a normal thing, now...

[Jennifer3141]

My point is that different people prioritize different things. I prioritized travel and education in my twenties and postponed marriage and children for that. Others prioritize early marriage and parenthood and pursue that. Both are okay. What isn't okay is continually choosing to have children you are incapable of taking care of. I'm not talking about the family I know with soon to be thirteen kids who have little in the way of material comforts but have a roof over their head, heat in the house and enough food; I'm talking about people who are struggling just to have the basic necessities. And everyone has lean times and many people have surprise babies...it is the ones who PLAN to have more kids that they cannot or will not take care of. I work in a very poor city, I see a lot of this.

 

 

Different people absolutely prioritize different things. And that's ok.

 

Someone accused me of being a snob for wanting to go out to dinner after LLL meetings. Meh. I had a great time and those women are almost 10 years later, my dearest friends. I am grateful to my DH for working as much as he does so that I can continue to do stuff like that and my book clubs because that stuff makes me a better/happier person and thus a better/happier mom. If you all get your joy only from homecooking all your meals and you don't need or want adult interaction, great. I need more than that. I rocked my babies and I cloth diapered and tandem nursed them for 4 1/2 YEARS. We are still happily co-sleeping nine years later!!

 

I also rock a pair of high heels and/or a wine tasting class whenever I feel like. Waiting to have kids gave me that kind of freedom. I don't think I've also ever posted a, "Help me! I hate my life thread and surprise here's another baby!" thread. Because I flipping love my life and I flipping love that both my kids were utter surprises but were both deeply desired.

 

Is it more selfish than having babies when I'm 20 and trying to figure out how to pay for gas in my car and gas in my home? Maybe. But for me, I need to know that my children can have any book or any piece of organic fruit they desire. That feeds my mama soul. And DH and I waited until that would be possible.

 

I'm a flaming liberal in 90% of my thinking. But I run into parents who keep having babies and keep expecting everyone to be thrilled when the kids they already have are dirty, ill fed and ill educated. I think there needs to be a cutoff of some sort but I'm not comfortable deciding what that cutoff should be. i think it's something we need to figure out as a society because I'm really, really tired of hearing rural local moms on food stamps bemoaning those "urban" parents sucking on welfare in the big cities.

[Impish]

I think if it ever becomes 'up to society' to figure out, we're screwed.

[I.Dup.]

Different people absolutely prioritize different things. And that's ok.

 

Someone accused me of being a snob for wanting to go out to dinner after LLL meetings. Meh. I had a great time and those women are almost 10 years later, my dearest friends. I am grateful to my DH for working as much as he does so that I can continue to do stuff like that and my book clubs because that stuff makes me a better/happier person and thus a better/happier mom. If you all get your joy only from homecooking all your meals and you don't need or want adult interaction, great. I need more than that. I rocked my babies and I cloth diapered and tandem nursed them for 4 1/2 YEARS. We are still happily co-sleeping nine years later!!

 

I also rock a pair of high heels and/or a wine tasting class whenever I feel like. Waiting to have kids gave me that kind of freedom. I don't think I've also ever posted a, "Help me! I hate my life thread and surprise here's another baby!" thread. Because I flipping love my life and I flipping love that both my kids were utter surprises but were both deeply desired.

 

Is it more selfish than having babies when I'm 20 and trying to figure out how to pay for gas in my car and gas in my home? Maybe. But for me, I need to know that my children can have any book or any piece of organic fruit they desire. That feeds my mama soul. And DH and I waited until that would be possible.

 

I'm a flaming liberal in 90% of my thinking. But I run into parents who keep having babies and keep expecting everyone to be thrilled when the kids they already have are dirty, ill fed and ill educated. I think there needs to be a cutoff of some sort but I'm not comfortable deciding what that cutoff should be. i think it's something we need to figure out as a society because I'm really, really tired of hearing rural local moms on food stamps bemoaning those "urban" parents sucking on welfare in the big cities.

 

 

Wow! I sincerely hope you never come upon hard times in your life that make you question your solid sense of self entitlement and the justification you seem to have in feeling superior to others.

[Elinor Everywhere]

Wow! I sincerely hope you never come upon hard times in your life that make you question your solid sense of self entitlement and the justification you seem to have in feeling superior to others.

 

I honestly didn't get that from Jennifer's post. She is only sharing what SHE values, but because it is different than you, therefore she is a snob? This is what I meant in another post about wrapping oneself in a shroud of nobility because of financial stress.

 

Here's what I got from her post: she loves her kids, she values time spent with them, she's a bed-sharing, crunchier-side liberal, she prefers to keep the family smaller so as not to have the stress of financial worries, she likes to spend time outside of the house with other adults.

 

What's wrong with that?

[mommymilkies]

Just sayin'

[SKL]

Wow! I sincerely hope you never come upon hard times in your life that make you question your solid sense of self entitlement and the justification you seem to have in feeling superior to others.

 

 

Will someone define for me "sense of self entitlement"? Because what I saw was a person who feels justified in choosing how she wants to spend her time and the money she has worked for.

 

I know we could all fall on hard times. Many of us have had that experience. However, people who are well-adapted to be successful in good times tend to be adaptable to tough times as well. You know, the old "tighten your belt a notch" and keep on going. Even if you could lose everything in a heartbeat, it won't make any difference if you spent the previous 10 years enjoying life vs. fretting about the possibilities.

[milovany]

Here's what I got from her post: she loves her kids, she values time spent with them, she's a bed-sharing, crunchier-side liberal, she prefers to keep the family smaller so as not to have the stress of financial worries, she likes to spend time outside of the house with other adults.

 

What's wrong with that?

 

 

Agreeing that she has freedom to make the choices she's made, but I do also wonder what would happen if/when her family is ever financially strapped. Her scenario only works as long as the money's flowing strong and good. Maybe that will never happen, but it could. And it does happen to others and NOT solely because they made decisions about family size different from hers.

[LucyStoner]

 

I think there is much variation in the definition of poverty.

Does poor mean 'not middle-class' or 'having to rely on others' or honestly not knowing how you are going to feed your children their next meal?

.

Poverty in Africa is different to poverty in America.

 

It probably depends on what the average is in your area and how people see themselves. What is not comfortable to one person would probably be acceptable to another - depending on their perspective.

 

 

I was responding to the assertion that a family of 6 making 31k would be middle class. I don't think poor = not middle class but I seriously question the veracity of the stated claim that a family is middle class on such a low amount.

 

Also, I've worked with people who become crippled or have died due to hunger, lack of shelter and lack of healthcare. I'm tired of people hinting that poverty is always worse elsewhere than here. East St. Louis anyone? Dying of dental related heart disease? Getting beat to death by frat boys because you are sleeping under a bridge and are easy to kill and hard to be considered important or missing? Yes, bleak and SERIOUS poverty does exist in US.

[LucyStoner]

 

 

Again, God isn't planning anything awful to happen to innocent children. Broken people hurt innocent children. Broken societies hurt people.

 

I don't think you read Martha's post right, she, if anything, is remarking on how poor parents and society is a perversion.

 

Who is preaching this opening and closing of the womb stuff?

 

Um, that opening and closing of wombs stuff is on this thread and was what was being discussed by several people.

 

Would you care to argue that "it was God's plan/will, he only gives you what you can handle" type stuff is not off repeated? Very similar things are argued on this thread.

 

If a woman who has, say, previously abused her children and turned them out for drug money has a new baby with her pimp. I am merely asserting that it is HER actions and biology that created the baby headed for the same path, not God or God's plan. We can't credit God with all the good in life, like he has an active role in the choices we make and then blame any awful stuff only on the choices we make.

 

I UNDERSTAND Martha's post just fine. I just DISAGREE. That is ok.

[Hannah]

I was responding to the assertion that a family of 6 making 31k would be middle class. I don't think poor = not middle class but I seriously question the veracity of the stated claim that a family is middle class on such a low amount.

 

I'm not sure I understand.

Martha made the point that 'where you are' $31k would be a middle class income. I live in South Africa. R 240 000 pa (i.e. R 20 000 per month) would most definately put a family in a middle class income bracket. The 2011 census shows that average household income is R 103 000 per year. It is also the country with biggest income disparity in the world.

[justamouse]

Um, that opening and closing of wombs stuff

 

Would you care to argue that "it was God's plan/will, he only gives you what you can handle" type stuff is not off repeated? Very similar things are argued on this thread. If a woman who has, say, previously abused her children and turned them out for drug money has a new baby with her pimp. I am merely asserting that it is her actions and biology that created the baby headed for the same path, not any good and loving God.

 

I UNDERSTAND Martha's post just fine. I just DISAGREE.

 

Different churches believe different things. Don't plaster all churches with God doesn't give you any more than you can handle. And many of us don't believe that in the least. I'm sure the martyrs who died for their faith would be first on that list.

 

:chillpill:

[I.Dup.]

 

What's wrong with it is that she is pretty blatantly claiming that she's following the superior path (as evidenced by her previous post in which she was judging a relative for having kids in her 20s and hence not being able to afford cute cloth diapers) and she's suggesting that those who chose to have lots of kids and be materially not as well off should be regulated by society in how many children they should have (see her last post).

 

I have no problem with wealth, I'm glad for people who are wealthy. I have plenty of friends and relatives who are far better off than I am and I only feel joy for them. I enjoy high heels and wine tastings and a good restaurant meal as the next person, but very gladly gave all that up when I had my first child (though I wouldn't call us poor at all). I don't have a problem if somebody else chose not to give them up for whatever reason. I do have a problem with an attitude of "I just don't understand why anyone would give all these things up, blah blah blah." With all due respect, that perspective is myopic.

 

Right.

 

I have no problem with wealthy people. My Dad makes over 6 figures. We lived a wealthy lifestyle when I was growing up. All of my parent's friends and the families we hung out with when I was growing up were wealthy, I am fully aware of the wealthy lifestyle.

 

The attitude of thickened superiority that comes through in posts or just general attitude's like Jennifer's comparing her lifestyle (clearly superior) to those who chose differently is what bothers me. Saying that society should choose to limit "those families", etc, etc.

 

If it had been "I have no problem with how others live, but this is what I choose and I'm happy with it." that is totally different. There were a LOT of comparisons made and a lot of superiority and that is what bothered me.

[LucyStoner]

 

 

Martha made the point that 'where you are' $31k would be a middle class income. I live in South Africa. R 240 000 pa (i.e. R 20 000 per month) would most definately put a family in a middle class income bracket. The 2011 census shows that average household income is R 103 000 per year. It is also the country with biggest income disparity in the world.

 

But not in the USA, which is where that number is coming from. I never said it applies to India or South Africa or Belize. The numbers on poverty don't come out of someone's behind. It is generated from extensive cost of living analysis and the market price of goods and basic needs across the contiguous US. Someone making that here is NOT middle class by income (though class is not entirely income dependent.)

[LucyStoner]

 

 

Different churches believe different things. Don't plaster all churches with God doesn't give you any more than you can handle. And many of us don't believe that in the least. I'm sure the martyrs who died for their faith would be first on that list.

 

 

Who mentioned churches? I am talking about the general stuff stated on this thread. By people posting, not churches. My own church isn't run by people glib or naive enough to assert such nonsense. It's sorta silly to be told to :chill: when discussing children being born to be abused, starved and/or assaulted. I can't claim to be chill on the topic at all. Call me crazy. ;)

[Susann]

 

I think he is making total sense. Some here have gotten quite upset over this thread and said if they waited until their financial situation was perfect...etc. etc... That's not at all what I assumed we were talking about because I haven't met a single person in my life with a perfect financial situation.

:iagree:

Financially, is was tight when we had dds. But, we had them with no expectation of help from anyone. They were/are our responsibility.

[I.Dup.]

wrapping oneself in a shroud of nobility

 

No shroud of nobility here. Superiority and judgment is just a pet peeve of mine, to say the least. :) We are not poor. We have more than enough.

 

However, people who are well-adapted to be successful in good times tend to be adaptable to tough times as well. You know, the old "tighten your belt a notch" and keep on going. Even if you could lose everything in a heartbeat, it won't make any difference if you spent the previous 10 years enjoying life vs. fretting about the possibilities.

 

Let's hope so, for their sake!

[Impish]

Will someone define for me "sense of self entitlement"? Because what I saw was a person who feels justified in choosing how she wants to spend her time and the money she has worked for. I know we could all fall on hard times. Many of us have had that experience. However, people who are well-adapted to be successful in good times tend to be adaptable to tough times as well. You know, the old "tighten your belt a notch" and keep on going. Even if you could lose everything in a heartbeat, it won't make any difference if you spent the previous 10 years enjoying life vs. fretting about the possibilities.

I'm going to disagree.

 

I've witnessed folks who have had things pretty smooth completely fall apart when something went wrong. If you've never really experienced adversity, it's like you have no resistance to it, no 'immunities' built up if you will.

 

Those who have experienced challenges along the way seem to manage better.

 

Again, just ime.

[Hannah]

But not in the USA, which is where that number is coming from. I never said it applies to India or South Africa or Belize. The numbers on poverty don't come out of someone's behind. It is generated from extensive cost of living analysis and the market price of goods and basic needs across the contiguous US. Someone making that here is NOT middle class by income (though class is not entirely income dependent.)

 

And thus the definition of 'poor', or 'middle-class', depends totally on where one lives and the expectations of the community there.

[Jennifer3141]

And that's your story, and I'm glad (seriously, not being snarky) that you have been able to do that, and that you are happy. I really am.

But that's just not what everyone wants. It was more important to me to be done having kids by the time I was 30 so that I could still be young and enjoy them. And I'm not saying that to belittle anyone who chose differently - that was just what I chose. It was more important to me to keep the kids close in age - had I not been pregnant with Pink by February of 2009, I was going to send DH to get a vasectomy. We didn't want our last kid to be more than 4 years younger than the one before. (Astro would turn 4 in November of 2009). I would have forsaken having another child to keep my 'age guidelines' intact. (I was 6 months pregnant in February of 2009, so I obviously didn't have anything to worry about there...! lol)

Anyway, I know not everyone can understand my way of thinking, but they don't need to. I can't say I understand why some people would just start having kids now if they didn't have to. (As in, someone who just got married at 29- yeah, I can see why they would just be thinking about babies at 30-31. But for me? I've been married 11 years.)

Oddly enough, I don't take offense to people on here believing that waiting to have their kids was so much better. IRL I have a little bit of a harder time, but maybe it's their delivery of it (Oh, I was SO not ready to have kids before I was 30. I'm SO glad my husband and I were married 10 years before we even CONSIDERED a baby because then we REALLY knew each other... that's what people here say.) Idk, for some reason when it's phrased more as, 'this is what we did, and I'm happy' I'm just glad. I'm happy with what we did, too. :D

 

 

And honestly Kara, we thought long and hard and longer and harder about this. I am fully aware that I won't be around to see my grandchildren graduate from college. And that just stinks. We are fully cognizant of how dangerous our 40s are statistically and not a day goes by that I don't hope I don't get something so I can see my kids into adulthood. When you're a parent in your 20s, that is far, far less of a concern. My kids are old enough to remember me now if I died today but there are some character things I'd like to be there to help with that won't pop up into their lives until later. I want to be there to talk about that.

 

My point is, there are just as many people here who think having children younger and nobly suffering through government assisted poverty is some sort of badge of honor as there are confused "rich" people wondering why anyone would want to do that. People like Blessed LOVE to point out how selfish those of us who chose to wait are and how much better parents they clearly must be because they have a posse. I've seen some posses that freak me out. I've also met a mom of one who freaked me out. What I tend to be drawn to for friends are conscious parents who really deeply think about why and what they are doing.

 

Meh. I am a joyful parent and I'm not suffering through poverty under a delusion that it makes me a better parent because I have a lot of kids and no money in the bank.

 

And for the record, we financially support my brother and his wife and their son AND my parents because they are trapped by their houses, low employment, and cancer right now so YEP. We get that $%#@!%$# happens and our fortunes could be reversed at any time.

[Murphy101]

 

 

But not in the USA, which is where that number is coming from. I never said it applies to India or South Africa or Belize. The numbers on poverty don't come out of someone's behind. It is generated from extensive cost of living analysis and the market price of goods and basic needs across the contiguous US. Someone making that here is NOT middle class by income (though class is not entirely income dependent.)

 

 

Which has absolutely nothing to do with my post you quoted.

I never said $31k in America was middle class. In fact, I stated clearly that it wasn't.

And the person I was "discussing" it with seems to have understood me.

 

Not sure what you are referencing. But it isn't me.

[I.Dup.]

My point is, there are just as many people here who think having children younger and nobly suffering through government assisted poverty is some sort of badge of honor as there are confused "rich" people wondering why anyone would want to do that. People like Blessed LOVE to point out how selfish those of us who chose to wait are and how much better parents they clearly must be because they have a posse. I've seen some posses that freak me out. I've also met a mom of one who freaked me out. What I tend to be drawn to for friends are conscious parents who really deeply think about why and what they are doing.

 

Meh. I am a joyful parent and I'm not suffering through poverty under a delusion that it makes me a better parent because I have a lot of kids and no money in the bank.

 

 

 

Can anyone not see that the bolded could be offensive? Or am I in some kind of alternate universe?

 

I don't love to point out how selfish you are for choosing to wait. My mom waited until she was 37 before she had me. I have absolutely nothing against how anyone else chooses to raise their family. My problem is your attitude clearly attacking those of us who choose differently.

 

I do not think I am suffering through poverty at all, thank God. But I certainly feel for those who are.

[I.Dup.]

and FTR I do not think my life with many children is superior. Ha! I think those of you with less children have MANY advantages that those of us with bigger families will never have. They're just different lives and none of us deserves to be patronized, mocked, or attacked for our choice, IMO.

[Impish]

Ftr, I don't get how finances determine if you love your life or not.

 

I mean, I'm broke right now, and I love my life.

We were financially good 5 mths ago, and I loved my life then.

 

Money isn't the determining factor in if I love my life or not.

[SKL]

I'm going to disagree.

 

I've witnessed folks who have had things pretty smooth completely fall apart when something went wrong. If you've never really experienced adversity, it's like you have no resistance to it, no 'immunities' built up if you will.

 

Those who have experienced challenges along the way seem to manage better.

 

Again, just ime.

 

 

Yes, and someone who has worked all her life to achieve a good education and maintain a successful career HAS experienced and overcome plenty of challenges. Especially if she also has a successful marriage and twins under her belt. Just because she hasn't been physically hungry doesn't mean the path has been easy.

 

One measure of character is what one does when she encounters a big roadblock. Shy away? Cry and scream? Blame someone else? Or put on her big girl panties and climb over the dang thing? These are also the decision points that, over time, often determine one's financial health.

[Elinor Everywhere]

 

What's wrong with it is that she is pretty blatantly claiming that she's following the superior path (as evidenced by her previous post in which she was judging a relative for having kids in her 20s and hence not being able to afford cute cloth diapers) and she's suggesting that those who chose to have lots of kids and be materially not as well off should be regulated by society in how many children they should have (see her last post).

 

I have no problem with wealth, I'm glad for people who are wealthy. I have plenty of friends and relatives who are far better off than I am and I only feel joy for them. I enjoy high heels and wine tastings and a good restaurant meal as the next person, but very gladly gave all that up when I had my first child (though I wouldn't call us poor at all). I don't have a problem if somebody else chose not to give them up for whatever reason. I do have a problem with an attitude of "I just don't understand why anyone would give all these things up, blah blah blah." With all due respect, that perspective is myopic.

 

 

I completely agree, and I didn't see (or recall) previous posts.

 

Look, I feel that people are where they are, and are making the best of the situation and life they find themselves in. I would GLADLY trade some of our $$ for the ability to have had more than one biological child. I always wanted a family of 4 or 5 kids, but I was only able to conceive once. We adopted my son when both he and my dd were 6 years old.

 

Not the life I had envisioned (lots of kids romping about, large, noisy family dinners, doors opening and closing constantly, fun family games with lots of players, our own little music concerts, <insert fantasy here>), but I have instead the life that was given to me. My dh making what I consider to be a fair sum of money was not envisioned by either of us, but it's happened. I can sit around and bemoan my lack of bio kids (I did go through a bit of depression about it, but through natural drugs and pharma drugs I was pulled out of it), or I can live the life I have, but I do not have to apologize for it, one way or another. I don't want to be made to feel like a failure, a crappy unloving parent, a selfish, greedy person, all because I have two kids.

 

Just like those of you (lucky you!) who have a lot of kids should NEVER have to apologize for it, or be made to feel that you are failing your children because they don't have iPads or whatever, or that you are doing them a disservice because they don't have their own bedrooms, or sleep in a dresser drawer (:D), etc.

 

I just don't like any mentality of "us" against "them". We are ALL parents here on this board who are doing the best we can with the life we have. Can we give each other some grace?

[Elinor Everywhere]

and FTR I do not think my life with many children is superior. Ha! I think those of you with less children have MANY advantages that those of us with bigger families will never have. They're just different lives and none of us deserves to be patronized, mocked, or attacked for our choice, IMO.

 

 

Amen!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Wal-mart's going rate at my hometown is actually a bit more than $8/hr. Childcare is temporary, and if you do a halfway decent job, you'll be a head cashier or in management in a few years.

 

 

The bolded is simply not true. Also, store standards on FT employment vary greatly, so you cannot simply state that employees who aren't FT at WM either don't want FT work or don't work hard enough.

[Impish]

Yes, and someone who has worked all her life to achieve a good education and maintain a successful career HAS experienced and overcome plenty of challenges. Especially if she also has a successful marriage and twins under her belt. Just because she hasn't been physically hungry doesn't mean the path has been easy. One measure of character is what one does when she encounters a big roadblock. Shy away? Cry and scream? Blame someone else? Or put on her big girl panties and climb over the dang thing? These are also the decision points that, over time, often determine one's financial health.

Um, first off, I wasn't addressing anyone's specific situation, simply saying that ime, those who haven't dealt w/adversity and suddenly get hit don't deal as well as those who've had challenges in the past.

 

What that has to do w/someone having twins is beyond me.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Better results? Depends on what you mean. If you mean that the poorest 5% of the population there is better off than here materially, then yes. But if you mean that the 15th percentile is better off there--NO. Other countries count government support into "income." The US does NOT. If a family is making $20,000 a year and being given $20,000 in support in Sweden, they will go down as making $40,000 a year. If they are making $20k and being given $20k in the US, they go down as making $20k. The result is that our poor "look" far, far poorer than any family on assistance actually is. And then politicos complain that despite the fact that spend a trillion dollars on the poor, the poverty rate continues to rise--which is because the family that gets $20k in benefits when earning $20k gets $15k in benefits when earning $22k!

 

Do you have a source to back up your claim about how income is calculated. I googled for it but cannot find it.

 

I ran a ton of scenarios against Sweden, which is supposed to be a paradise for the poor and fortunately has a translation of all their tax laws in English. :) I determined that even accounting for government healthcare, only the poorest 5% of Swedes are better off than the same percentile of Americans, if benefits are taken into account, and the 15th %ile of American families had about as much real income as the 50th %ile of Swedish families. So, if a paradise is lowering the average American standard of living to the current poverty line in the name of equity is the goal, then yes, that would work quite well. If the goal is for the vast majority of people to have as nice as standard of living as they can earn, it wouldn't be. Comparing housing sizes, car ownership, land ownership, housing ownership rates, and even appliance ownership across Europe, we come again and again to the conclusion that the actual standard of living of the average of America's poor, in a material rather than cultural sense, is at the level of the average European's. Group-wise cultural differences between poor lifestyles and middle class ones remain, but you can't make that go away with money (or with taking money from the middle class!).

 

Would you mind showing some of your calculations? It is hard to judge the merit of a "just trust me" kind of statement.

 

Anyhow, I did a bunch of simulations of various family sizes last year and determined that a single mother of 3 preschoolers on benefits in a middle-income red state would LOSE money (net result of wage minus change in benefits) if she moved from an average McDonald's beginning wages to an average Wal-mart beginning wages. She's have to jump to nearly TRIPLE her McDonald's wages to not lose out financially. And people are confused as to why the "poor" stay "poor." Are they supposed to be financially suicidal?

 

Again, please show your work. I actually believe you are correct, but I believe we will come to different conclusions looking at the same numbers.

 

ETA: People in progressive countries define "better results" as less of a difference between the poorest people and the average people. And every. single. progressive "success story" radically limits immigration, especially of the uneducated.

 

 

Source?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You assume that population is the reason for starvation in these areas.

 

Kids = more labor = more potential income in most areas. Starvation happens when the value of the labor the workforce is able to produce is lower than the value of food. Fewer people don't solve it because fewer people shrink the labor force and so shrink the real money they have. The problem isn't the absolute amount of food but the amount of food able to be obtained per unit labor. Children aren't the problem. Children of certain ages are just the most vulnerable to starvation when only low-quality sources of food are available.

 

You are applying an extremely simplistic formula to a very complex problem. While what you said is technically correct, hunger/starvation is often related more closely to war, natural causes, lack of access to resources, lack of infrastructure, and over exploitation of the environment.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If you don't want to put your kids in daycare, then don't have more than you can support on a single full-time and one part time job.

 

And if a situation changes after the children are born...?

 

Wages probably ARE artificially depressed in the US, but they are depressed by the benefits system, which punishes people more often than rewarding them for raises and promotions. That's why if 2 families start out with the same income and one chooses benefits and the other doesn't, the other is typically far better off in 10 years. It's not JUST work ethic--it's seeing that getting raises advances your family rather than setting it back. With enough people avoiding raises for fear of losing benefits, the entire low-skill wage rate is depressed at a market level. The answer isn't raising minimum wage, because that causes unemployment--you can't fight a market force with a flat law, as the market MUST win.

 

Could you provide a source for the bolded please?

 

We do agree on one point - wages are being held artificially lower due to the benefits system. However, you are trying to place the blame solely on those trying to provide food and medical care for their children, yet ignoring that some companies are using the benefits system to allow them to pay lower wages and let the rest of us make up the gap.

[SKL]

Um, first off, I wasn't addressing anyone's specific situation, simply saying that ime, those who haven't dealt w/adversity and suddenly get hit don't deal as well as those who've had challenges in the past.

 

 

Your response was to my: "people who are well-adapted to be successful in good times tend to be adaptable to tough times as well."

 

When I said "well-adapted to be successful," I was talking about having the kind of mental make-up that gets people successfully through life's ups and downs. You seem to have thought I was talking about people whose life didn't have ups and downs. Big difference.

 

I was responding to the person who implied that a person who was happy with her life was probably going to be devastated if anything went wrong.

 

IME, that isn't how it works. It takes resilience to have a truly successful career, good long-term relationships, etc. That resilience doesn't get up and leave when sh!t happens.

[Crimson Wife]

Different people absolutely prioritize different things. And that's ok.

 

Someone accused me of being a snob for wanting to go out to dinner after LLL meetings. Meh. I had a great time and those women are almost 10 years later, my dearest friends. I am grateful to my DH for working as much as he does so that I can continue to do stuff like that and my book clubs because that stuff makes me a better/happier person and thus a better/happier mom. If you all get your joy only from homecooking all your meals and you don't need or want adult interaction, great. I need more than that. I rocked my babies and I cloth diapered and tandem nursed them for 4 1/2 YEARS. We are still happily co-sleeping nine years later!!

 

I also rock a pair of high heels and/or a wine tasting class whenever I feel like. Waiting to have kids gave me that kind of freedom. I don't think I've also ever posted a, "Help me! I hate my life thread and surprise here's another baby!" thread. Because I flipping love my life and I flipping love that both my kids were utter surprises but were both deeply desired.

 

Is it more selfish than having babies when I'm 20 and trying to figure out how to pay for gas in my car and gas in my home? Maybe. But for me, I need to know that my children can have any book or any piece of organic fruit they desire. That feeds my mama soul. And DH and I waited until that would be possible.

 

 

You rolled the dice in waiting to start a family, and came up a winner. Lucky for you.

 

However, there are MANY, MANY women who put off having kids and wind up struggling with infertility, miscarriages, and serious disabilities in their children. I'm in my mid-30's and I hear all the time from friends who wish desperately they HADN'T waited. One woman I know experienced 6 miscarriages before her only child was born and 6 miscarriages afterwards. You wouldn't feel so smug if you were in her shoes.

 

If I had to choose between wine tasting classes and having a healthy child, well au revoir to the Bordeaux.

[Murphy101]

Um, that opening and closing of wombs stuff is on this thread and was what was being discussed by several people.

Would you care to argue that "it was God's plan/will, he only gives you what you can handle" type stuff is not off repeated? Very similar things are argued on this thread.

 

Um. No there weren't. Not by anyone. In fact, the only people who brought that up by those who don't believe it.

 

If a woman who has, say, previously abused her children and turned them out for drug money has a new baby with her pimp. I am merely asserting that it is HER actions and biology that created the baby headed for the same path, not God or God's plan. We can't credit God with all the good in life, like he has an active role in the choices we make and then blame any awful stuff only on the choices we make.

I UNDERSTAND Martha's post just fine. I just DISAGREE. That is ok.

 

 

I would say she created a bad situation for herself and her baby.

I would say she should do everything she can to change that situation.

Because God gave her gift of her own life and the life of that baby and she should honor that gift by treating it with as much care as she can.

 

And yes, yes I absolutely can credit God with good and the bad on human choice. Why not?

 

Do you also think that good parents never have wayward kids? Because of course the actions of children are always mom and dad's fault? I should hope not. Because great loving parent who do great good for their kids can still end up with kids who make awful choices.

 

I figure our father in heaven is the same. He strives to give us blessings. And I imagine it gives him great sorrow when we pervert those gifts in awful ways.

 

I'm going to disagree.

I've witnessed folks who have had things pretty smooth completely fall apart when something went wrong. If you've never really experienced adversity, it's like you have no resistance to it, no 'immunities' built up if you will.

Those who have experienced challenges along the way seem to manage better.

Again, just ime.

 

 

I think people of strong character and determination handle what they must regardless. I think those people can be found in many demographics.

 

If anything I think we confuse learning curve with falling apart. There is a lot about being rich I don't know and I'm pretty sure I'd look like an bumbling idiot on how to get about in that environment. I bet the wealthy turned poor feel the same way. There are many social and economic differences is how those disparate demographics live their daily life that would feel over whleming to anyone thrust into a different class.

[Slartibartfast]

*stabs thread repeatedly*

 

"DIE THREAD!!! DIE!!!"

[Murphy101]

Maybe use a wooden stake to the heart of it? :p

[Elinor Everywhere]

 

Do you also think that good parents never have wayward kids? Because of course the actions of children are always mom and dad's fault? I should hope not. Because great loving parent who do great good for their kids can still end up with kids who make awful choices.

 

I figure our father in heaven is the same. He strives to give us blessings. And I imagine it gives him great sorrow when we pervert those gifts in awful ways.

 

I think people of strong character and determination handle what they must regardless. I think those people can be found in many demographics.

 

If anything I think we confuse learning curve with falling apart. There is a lot about being rich I don't know and I'm pretty sure I'd look like an bumbling idiot on how to get about in that environment. I bet the wealthy turned poor feel the same way. There are many social and economic differences is how those disparate demographics live their daily life that would feel over whleming to anyone thrust into a different class.

 

Not to keep the thread going (although obviously that's exactly what I'm doing :D), I really like the gracious way you worded this post.

 

Ok, now that I'M done, the thread can die. :p

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe use a wooden stake to the heart of it? :p

 

*Sis has crazy eyes*

 

I do have knitting needles.

[mommymilkies]

 

 

*Sis has crazy eyes*

 

I do have knitting needles.

 

Do they make silver bullets anymore? I'd say holy water, but that would open a whole nother can of worms.

[mommymilkies]

Does this make everyone else coo with good feelings?