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

[nmoira]

Sorry, a significant number of Walmart workers are ALREADY on Medicaid for their children. And considering I help this woman with her finances and taxes, yeah I have the whole story and then some, including the sketchy childcare arrangements very low income workers have to make all the time. When you have a paycheck that is consistently less than $300 a week plus even 1 child, being able to pay for health insurance is a cold comfort. Not when your rent (even at an income restricted place is half of your take home pay. And don't tell me a worker like that doesn't pay taxes- everyone everyone everyone with a job pays payroll taxes for SS and Medicare. I'd respond the the Obamacare remarks but that would most certainly be a political statement so I'm keeping my mouth shut. :)

 

There was a recent Politifact about just this:

 

"Alan Grayson says more Walmart employees on Medicaid, food stamps than other companies"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/dec/06/alan-grayson/alan-grayson-says-more-walmart-employees-medicaid-/

[lovinmomma]

How nightmarish would it be to have to put your kids in daycare and have both spouses work at Wal-Mart??? How could one even afford daycare? This country's pay scale is such a shame.

 

Gah! Isn't it? It's really very sad. :(

[Murphy101]

This really puts into perspective for me how rich the USA is. Our definition of poverty differs radically.

 

I wouldn't base the definition of poverty on dollar amounts. It's what those dollars can do that determines it for me. $31k here isn't of bad. Rough, but doable. $31k in a major city on either coast is real close to destitute. $31k where you are is what? Middle class?

 

But the reason that definition of poverty is so varied is because of what the dollar covers. In an area where it is considered acceptable to live far more humbly, it goes further.

[lovinmomma]

They can't so they have to use only the state subsidized daycares. Maybe my standards are too high, but I wouldn't leave my dog in most of those cheap daycares. God forbid you have to use the even worse weeknight or weekend options. I spent a month crying every time I dropped my baby off before I decided I'd rather eat less than leave my kid there and quit my job. After that, if I worked it was only opposite my dh so he could watch the kids.

My daughter attends head start. If it weren't for head start I would have literally had a nervous breakdown over where I would have had to have put my daughter for childcare. The wait list for my daughter's school? Well over 200 kids. Kids JUST like her. That's over twice the number of children attending her school as on the wait list. That's sad. It is STILL incredibly hard leaving my babies every day knowing that I'm going to go work a job that won't pay my bills.

 

ETA: Head Start isn't free.

[Hannah]

I wouldn't base the definition of poverty on dollar amounts. It's what those dollars can do that determines it for me. $31k here isn't of bad. Rough, but doable. $31k in a major city on either coast is real close to destitute. $31k where you are is what? Middle class?

 

But the reason that definition of poverty is so varied is because of what the dollar covers. In an area where it is considered acceptable to live far more humbly, it goes further.

 

I understand fully that COL needs to be factored in, but yes, $31k here would be middle class.

ETA: I have siblings and family all over the world, so have a fairly good idea of what things cost in different parts and cities of the world. Also, that people's expectations are formed by what they see around them.

[lovinmomma]

Sorry, a significant number of Walmart workers are ALREADY on Medicaid for their children. And considering I help this woman with her finances and taxes, yeah I have the whole story and then some, including the sketchy childcare arrangements very low income workers have to make all the time. When you have a paycheck that is consistently less than $300 a week plus even 1 child, being able to pay for health insurance is a cold comfort. Not when your rent (even at an income restricted place is half of your take home pay. And don't tell me a worker like that doesn't pay taxes- everyone everyone everyone with a job pays payroll taxes for SS and Medicare. I'd respond the the Obamacare remarks but that would most certainly be a political statement so I'm keeping my mouth shut. :)

 

1/2 of my pay goes to rent ALONE. That's not utilities. And I have a 2 bedroom in a very sketchy neighborhood. My kids' bikes were stolen last month. It took me forever just to save up enough to get them used bikes off of Craigslist just for them to be stolen.

[Annie G]

Sorry, a significant number of Walmart workers are ALREADY on Medicaid for their children. And considering I help this woman with her finances and taxes, yeah I have the whole story and then some, including the sketchy childcare arrangements very low income workers have to make all the time. When you have a paycheck that is consistently less than $300 a week plus even 1 child, being able to pay for health insurance is a cold comfort. Not when your rent (even at an income restricted place is half of your take home pay. And don't tell me a worker like that doesn't pay taxes- everyone everyone everyone with a job pays payroll taxes for SS and Medicare. I'd respond the the Obamacare remarks but that would most certainly be a political statement so I'm keeping my mouth shut. :)

 

 

Evidently I misunderstood your post that I responded to. You said Walmart was keeping her hours low so they didn't have to pay for insurance, and I took that to mean that they weren't allowing her to buy into the insurance plan because her hours fell under a certain number. Many employers require an employee to work full time to get benefits and I thought that's what you said Walmart was doing. Up until now, they have allowed part timers to buy insurance...and that's changing. That's all I was pointing out- I thought you said Walmart wasn't allowing her to buy insurance from them but what you meant is they aren't paying her enough to afford it. That's true for her, but not for everyone.

 

 

Whether or not they can afford to buy the insurance is a whole different thing. You're right that a number of Walmart workers already have Medicaid coverage for their kids. I don't argue that point at all.

 

Not sure why you think I believe lower wage workers don't pay taxes- I didn't mention that at all. And Obamacare wasn't brought up in either a positive or a negative light- I'm guessing there are as many who are happy to see it implemented as there are folks who are unhappy about it.

 

All I want is for families to be secure and not have to worry about a roof over their heads and food and medical care for their kids. How to achieve that for everyone is the tricky part. But yeah, I would love to see a day when there was no need for homeless shelters or food banks.

[Murphy101]

I understand fully that COL needs to be factored in, but yes, $31k here would be middle class.

ETA: I have siblings and family all over the world, so have a fairly good idea of what things cost in different parts and cities of the world. Also, that people's expectations are formed by what they see around them.

 

And a major frustration is the expectations of those better off. Codes that fine for hanging laundry to dry or gardens. Not being able to get a job because you don't have a cell phone. Degree mandates for jobs that don't need a degree and don't pay enough to get a degree. The list is endless.

 

Many people would be okay with doing without the stuff around them. It's the the people around them that penalize them for not having it.

[milovany]

Not sure why you think I believe lower wage workers don't pay taxes- I didn't mention that at all.

 

A lot of the time, low income people don't end up paying any federal income tax because the standard deduction for their family wipes out any taxes that would have otherwise been due. An attempt was made a preempting this accusation, knowing it could be made.

[justamouse]

My dh does not at all have a rosy view of large families or of reproduction, so please don't think that his statement supports that in any way. It is quite the opposite. I am not the partner who first said "let's stop at one child." ;)

 

That's a shame, my kids love their daddy and spends most of his available time with them. It sounds more like a personal problem of his father's though, and not the size of the family. Many fathers work long hours, have lots of kids, and have fulfilling, loving relationships.

[TranquilMind]

I understand surprise babies during difficult times. But I have struggled with people who are actively trying to have another child when they cannot provide for the ones they have. It seems irresponsible to me, but others might disagree with my choices also.

 

In other words, it's not my business.

 

 

There is a definite distinction here. I don't think anyone gives a thought to the surprise baby, but not being able to feed or clothe the ones you have, yet actively deciding to have another does seem irresponsible.

 

Being irresponsible isn't illegal though, as is quite obvious when you look around in this world, so people can do what they want to do.

 

I'm sure the government will probably regulate that someday too.

[TranquilMind]

 

Check out Craigslist. Lots of people now "upgrade" to new washers/dryers when the old ones work perfectly fine. You can usually get one for $50.

 

 

My landlord friends tell me this is the best time of the year to buy used appliances. Everybody seems to want to upgrade for the holidays.

 

I have older appliances than my tenants!

[Murphy101]

That's a shame, my kids love their daddy and spends most of his available time with them. It sounds more like a personal problem of his father's though, and not the size of the family. Many fathers work long hours, have lots of kids, and have fulfilling, loving relationships.

 

Yes. My dh was an only child and he is adament about not working his life away. His mom and dad both worked all the time and he doesn't want to do that.

[happyhomemaker25]

Does God give only believing, worshipping families these blessings? Does he give drug addicted prostitutes a blessing? What about the blessing of children born into abuse, sexual assault, active addiction? Aids in Africa? Regions without vaccines, education, drinking water? Females born into patriarchy and/or genital mutilation?

 

Or do you see God gives children as blessings only through the lens of Christian believers?

 

Nope. The truth is that *biology* creates babies. You can give credit to that biology to God, if you like, but it's humans through which reproductive biology manifests.

 

 

Yeah, I was just sharing our journey and why we welcome babies in the midst of trials. How miraculous we believed it was that after years of praying and pleading that God chose to give us a baby in the midst of trials. How after suffering through three traumatic losses we get to experience it again. When you struggle with infertility you never know if you'll get that opportunity again.

God did give me the necessary parts to create a baby, but HE was the one who ordained my baby. That's my belief, yes. It matters not to me whether you agree.

Believe what you want, but don't try to belittle me for clinging to my babies as hope and blessing. My five adopted children were born into less than ideal circumstances. I still believe they are blessings. They are my blessings. A friend was born into a home were she endured years of abuse. She is now a huge advocate for abused children and often lives on the verge of poverty to help them out. She is a blessing.

Your idea of what a blessing is might be different from mine. It does not make my idea wrong.

[PeacefulChaos]

I know that this is a controversial and potentially offensive question to some, but I still want to understand.

 

Why do people who are already struggling financially and rely on help from others still plan and have another baby?

 

A family we know who's family supports them becuase the husband is way underemployed (and in the current economy unlikely to get better prospects soon) is pregnant with their third child and the mom says they had planned the pregnancy and had been 'trying for a while'. I have to admit to being quite shocked. It seems very irresponsible.

 

Here there is no financial aid for them from the government, so things like additional child benefits and food aid, etc don't come into play.

 

I haven't read the other replies.

I don't think your question/position is offensive, per se, but I don't necessarily agree with it in MOST circumstances. (as in, I believe in birth control and I wouldn't personally have any more than I currently do, because FOR ME, more than 3 would mean we would have to forsake some of what we want to do with them. But I'll get to that in a second.)

I think that people have as many kids as they want to, and that they place 'family' in a higher priority than wealth. I don't see a problem with this. In fact, that is us. We didn't plan to get pregnant with Link, but we didn't try not to, either (I just figured after 2 years I wasn't going to get pregnant too easily, so I didn't bother). We were happy to be having a baby.

We lived in DH's parents' basement at the time. We had medicaid for Link. We moved out when he was around 9 months old, into a beat up old house that we had to clean for NINE days to make it liveable. But my child wasn't going to have his first Christmas in someone else's home. No way.

Once we had started having kids, it was MORE important to me to have my family than to worry about money much. We could eat. We didn't eat great, but we had food that was relatively healthy, and we could afford our bills. So when we started renting the house, I got off bc again to have another baby. Astro came a year later.

Money was tight. We had to buy a different car because ours died on the side of the interstate on our way to the beach to see DH's grandparents. We thought DH would have to get a second, part time job, but we ended up not needing it. We didn't qualify for food stamps but both the boys still had medicaid.

We thought we were done having kids. DH went into business for himself. We were doing ok (the boys had moved from medicaid to 'medicaid with a co-pay', which a family of four qualifies for here if they make up to around $50,000/year) and DH had mentioned another kid, so we thought we'd go for it when Astro was around 2. I had always said 3 kids, DH had always said 2-3.

When I was pregnant with Pink we were going to build a house, but my FIL didn't like the look of the economy so he didn't want to build one for us. We went along with it (he was our contractor, and we would never have gone with anyone else) and instead moved to the rental we're in now. It's MUCH nicer than the other one was. ;)

Pink still had 'medicaid with copay'.

So we were still getting government assistance. Things have changed again now (economy tanked, DH got out of business for himself because construction was going NOWHERE, our income was cut by 1/3, and the kids are back on regular medicaid.) But I placed our family before worrying about money. That's what I really think people are doing when they do this.

 

Now, there are some things I don't want to sacrifice. I want it to be possible to buy a house one day where each kid will have their own room. Idk why, but that matters to me. It doesn't matter to everyone. I want to be able to do different things with them that would be more difficult with more kids. So that's me.

I don't know. I guess on one hand I agree that if a family can't feed themselves - and they don't see a way out of it - that they probably shouldn't have any more kids. But it just isn't that important to me that I'd sit here and concern myself with it, kwim? I can't judge whether or not their kids are well cared for. So Idk... I just have a hard time saying that when it isn't my business, kwim?

[beaners]

 

There was a recent Politifact about just this:

 

"Alan Grayson says more Walmart employees on Medicaid, food stamps than other companies"

http://www.politifac...yees-medicaid-/

 

 

We are in the middle of some paperwork for Early Intervention that requires applying for Medicaid. Based on our income, we'd be pretty close to being eligible for the children at least. I'm nearly positive that our assets, including a second home that we are trying to sell, will mean we aren't eligible. Our current budget is tight, but manageable. Obviously cost of living makes this easier for us than someone in NYC, but there it is. When I think of being eligible for Medicaid, I don't think of someone who has enough income that they can afford payments on two (small, inexpensive) houses.

 

I'm not a cheerleader for Walmart, just pointing out that being eligible for Medicaid can mean a few different things.

[PeacefulChaos]

And the other thing I'll never understand is why anyone would WANT to. We waited until I was in my early 30s. And we had a BLAST. It wasn't that we were flush with cash but waiting until we weren't living paycheck to paycheck with $20 in the account made everything so much more relaxed. For example, LLL meetings. Afterwards, a group of us liked going out to eat. So we did. We called ourselved the "afterhours" LLL group. We were mostly the moms who had waited because the early 20-somethings couldn't afford to go or they had to work. I got to buy any cloth diaper I wanted and did I! :D We weren't at the point in our lives where ANYTHING went but we were at the point in our lives where, "Honey, the baby has been crying ALL day. Can you just pick up Chinese and get me 100 crab rangoons??!" was ok. We were at the point where I got to make decisions on car seats based upon safety ratings, not cost. I loved that. I watched a cousin have a baby when they had nothing and they aren't having nearly the fun we did by waiting. On the other hand, they will be there for their kids when DH and I will have died on ours. My kids had better be prepared to be on their own in their 60s. It's so flipping easy not to have a baby that I don't understand why reasonable people have babies they cannot afford. Obviously, a crime or a BC failure are different. But not all these "surprise" babies are BC failures or the pill's failure rate would be about 89%.

 

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

[mommaduck]

This really puts into perspective for me how rich the USA is. Our definition of poverty differs radically.

In the US though, you can lose your children if you lived as many countries allowed their people to live. There are certain things that are required to be met. $31,000 does not always make those ends meet. What people pay out to even be able to get to and from work, dress for work, eat, pay rent and basic utilities can eat all of that up.and then all the other things that happen that goes on our credit that people can pay for, but counts against them for future job and housing opportunities. So while it's a "higher" living, it's still poverty once everything boils down and you find you have worked your tail off and have nothing to show for it.

[I.Dup.]

In the US though, you can lose your children if you lived as many countries allowed their people to live. There are certain things that are required to be met. $31,000 does not always make those ends meet. What people pay out to even be able to get to and from work, dress for work, eat, pay rent and basic utilities can eat all of that up.and then all the other things that happen that goes on our credit that people can pay for, but counts against them for future job and housing opportunities. So while it's a "higher" living, it's still poverty once everything boils down and you find you have worked your tail off and have nothing to show for it.

 

I agree. Also, you are never supposed to have more than 2 people to a room (how crazy is that looking at the whole of history!!!!!). So a larger family would need a bigger home, which means a substantially larger rent. Anyone can easily find a 1-2 bedroom but when you need 4+ bedrooms, that is practically impossible.

[SKL]

Wow, what would everyone complain about if we didn't have Walmart?

 

Kuz Walmart is the only business that ever paid minimum wage or declined to pay 100% of health insurance or to act as an extra-governmental welfare organization.

 

I hope poor people stop shopping at Walmart since it is doing society such a disservice. Then nobody would have to worry about working there for low wages.

 

PS, I could very easily live on "poverty level" income (in fact, I do) because I share expenses with multiple working adults. It's not that hard.

[Joanne]

 

I read a beautiful quote in the book Disability and the Gospel about how God uses adverse circumstances like a sculptor uses a chisel to reveal the beautiful statue hiding inside the block of marble. He uses all things (even suffering) to glorify Himself.

 

Sorry, not buying it.

 

I can't embrace a loving God who would create a child to be born into an adverse situation to "glorify himself."

 

God's biology creating a child? I can go there.

 

God creating that child directly to be crack addicted, abused, or sexually assaulted? Nope.

[I.Dup.]

 

I can't embrace a loving God who would create a child to be born into an adverse situation to "glorify himself."

 

I had a feeling the "glorify Himself" bit was a terribly wrong choice of words...

[justamouse]

God creating that child directly to be crack addicted, abused, or sexually assaulted? Nope.

 

I used to think like this because biology is biology, and sex = babies. But if you carry that thought out, you're saying that God purposed that child to be abused, addicted, assaulted. Which would make you believe that God is pretty screwed up. And many people think that.

 

But here's the thing, God is always love, God is Always forgiveness and light. God can never collude with sin. So, now you're at an impasse. You can return to God being a jerkwad, and I think out of a highly tuned sense of justice, many people do this. But, if you hold God up as *supreme love* there's an alternative. That's us. That it's OUR fault.

 

God cannot go against free will. If two people have sex, even people that shouldn't, they're using their free will. There are consequences to free will and that is we make these huge mistakes. Now, we can use that freewill to become better people, to reject God, to become crack addicts. We use our freewill to promote bad policy that allows people to starve. We use it to give $ to ministries that helps immigrants and feed the poor.

 

Does God want a child born to be abused? No, God is always hopeful that the parent would repent and change, but only the parent can do such, God can't make him. But God is ever hopeful that we will do the right thing.

[Joanne]

I used to think like this because biology is biology, and sex = babies. But if you carry that thought out, you're saying that God purposed that child to be abused, addicted, assaulted. Which would make you believe that God is pretty screwed up. And many people think that.

 

But here's the thing, God is always love, God is Always forgiveness and light. God can never collude with sin. So, now you're at an impasse. You can return to God being a jerkwad, and I think out of a highly tuned sense of justice, many people do this. But, if you hold God up as *supreme love* there's an alternative. That's us. That it's OUR fault.

 

God cannot go against free will. If two people have sex, even people that shouldn't, they're using their free will. There are consequences to free will and that is we make these huge mistakes. Now, we can use that freewill to become better people, to reject God, to become crack addicts. We use our freewill to promote bad policy that allows people to starve. We use it to give $ to ministries that helps immigrants and feed the poor.

 

Does God want a child born to be abused? No, God is always hopeful that the parent would repent and change, but only the parent can do such, God can't make him. But God is ever hopeful that we will do the right thing.

 

 

Sorry, but either God "opens and closes" the womb and creates each indivdual being, even those born to be used as sex toys and punching bags OR God does not have a supernatural hand in biology.

 

I've heard your version for decades, and I tried and tried, and prayed. I can't believe it cognitively, logically, or spiritually.

[Murphy101]

Sorry, but either God "opens and closes" the womb and creates each indivdual being, even those born to be used as sex toys and punching bags OR God does not have a supernatural hand in biology.

 

I've heard your version for decades, and I tried and tried, and prayed. I can't believe it cognitively, logically, or spiritually.

 

 

"Born to be used"? Is there no free will? Of their parents or themselves or those in society?

 

No one is born to be used.

Everyone is born to be loved and to love.

 

It is a pervertion of the gift of life when they are not and do not.

 

The solution is not to remove the life. It is to remove the perversion of it.

 

I do not blame God for the perversions of men.

 

I understand you do and you're certainly entitled to your POV. I just don't agree just as cognitively, logically, and spiritually.

[PeacefulChaos]

Wow, what would everyone complain about if we didn't have Walmart?

 

Kuz Walmart is the only business that ever paid minimum wage or declined to pay 100% of health insurance or to act as an extra-governmental welfare organization.

 

I hope poor people stop shopping at Walmart since it is doing society such a disservice. Then nobody would have to worry about working there for low wages.

 

PS, I could very easily live on "poverty level" income (in fact, I do) because I share expenses with multiple working adults. It's not that hard.

 

 

I can't tell if this is supposed to be sarcastic or serious??? :001_huh:

I know it's totally not true... I'm just confused as to what it has to do with the conversation at hand... :confused:

 

ETA: Oops...somehow missed the other WalMart stuff upthread. Though I still don't see what WalMart itself has to do with anything - it's not like it isn't the same as MOST businesses... :)

[justamouse]

Sorry, but either God "opens and closes" the womb and creates each indivdual being, even those born to be used as sex toys and punching bags OR God does not have a supernatural hand in biology.

 

I've heard your version for decades, and I tried and tried, and prayed. I can't believe it cognitively, logically, or spiritually.

 

OK, but then you're saying that Christianity says that 1. God wants children to be assaulted, and 2. people who are infertile have had their womb closed...because God wanted them to not have children? That's a pretty painful stance, and many really fundy churches still do believe like that, true.

 

I'm not saying either of those, though, so I'm a bit confused. I'm wondering if Sola Scriptura hasn't twisted some stuff there...

 

Anyway, in this I agree with Martha, that I point the finger at us humans, and that what we as a race suffer from, are perversions of what God intended for us. We are so far from living in harmony with God, and it's up to us to get back to working with God for the greater good of humanity.

 

I'm more confused because I think you, as a therapist, deal with this every day in that you *attempt to bring healing to the people that come to you. (*attempt in that they (with their free will) may reject what you offer) But your stance is that God caused their problems or that there is no God?

 

You don't have to answer, this has gone way off course of the OP and I'm just thinking outloud.

[Jerico]

We know a lot of families that never will, or have used birth control. We personally decided against that as we always have medical debt from paying for our babies and we wanted to move to other things (like being able to do some things with our older children). It definitely is a personal decision, however, if we wanted more I would have. You only really have a short amount of time to have children in life.

[Supertechmom]

Oh my gosh, can you imagine the scandal that would happen if the lot of us got together and added alcohol to the mix? Every stereotype of homeschooling would be broken, along with many laws. Would we all have matching tattoos in the morning? It'd have to be something in Latin...

 

Would it be like the Hangover movies? Wonder if we could find a kilt convention selling cupcakes in crockpots?

[Audrey]

That's a shame, my kids love their daddy and spends most of his available time with them. It sounds more like a personal problem of his father's though, and not the size of the family. Many fathers work long hours, have lots of kids, and have fulfilling, loving relationships.

 

Well, I think that's very nice for you, but I have known far more people from large families to have small families of their own than I have known those from small families to go large. To me, that says a lot. Adults on their own often express themselves with more perspective than kids living right in the middle of it. But, that isn't related to the point of the OP, so good bye on this tangent AFAIC.

[LucyStoner]

My idea of poverty isn't the figure I shared. I shared the federal guideline for a family of 6. Just to clarify- that $31,000 is for SIX people. In most counties in this country, a family at the poverty line can not comfortably afford healthcare, housing, transportation, food, basic personal and household needs while saving for a rainy day and retirement. If you make too little to be able to pay your basic bills or save or have insurance you are not middle class by any real financial metric (though perhaps culturally- students, educational background etc)

 

Does that mean it is impossible to survive at that income? Of course not. Co-housing, multi generation households and various other efforts or choices make it way easier. I have lived as a young adult comfortably under the poverty line while the guardian of a teenager and with my husband (in college). We did fine. But we made choices that would be far less practical for us now now that we have 2 kids. Thankfully we have a much higher earning power.

[LucyStoner]

 

"Born to be used"? Is there no free will? Of their parents or themselves or those in society?

 

No one is born to be used.

Everyone is born to be loved and to love.

 

It is a pervertion of the gift of life when they are not and do not.

 

The solution is not to remove the life. It is to remove the perversion of it.

 

I do not blame God for the perversions of men.

 

I understand you do and you're certainly entitled to your POV. I just don't agree just as cognitively, logically, and spiritually.

 

There may be free will but that is cold comfort to young children simultaneously enduring unimaginable horrors and having to listen to naive folks insisting that "everything happens for a reason, God's plan" and my favorite "God doesn't give you more than you can handle." As a person who was sexually assaulted, homeless and quite poor all before the age of 12, God either DOES give people more than they can handle or God just doesn't have as much influence and control of human events as some would like to believe. As an adult, I have experienced a ridiculous number of miscarriages. All while people I knew were awful parents (ie throwing a TV on top of a toddler and more!) were having plenty more babies. The idea that God opens and closes wombs and gives you what you are able to handle sounds really privileged and frankly glib to me. Maybe there are people who have really truly suffered in significant ways who think it was all part of God's plan but I just refuse to believe that God would plan anything awful happening to innocent children.

[justamouse]

Maybe there are people who have really truly suffered in significant ways who think it was all part of God's plan but I just refuse to believe that God would plan anything awful happening to innocent children.

 

 

 

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?

[phathui5]

Years ago I had a friend who worked for DCF. She told me some of the stories of people she dealt with. I was so disturbed by her attitude I actually couldn't be friends with her anymore. She told me a story of a mother who couldn't afford to have her daughter's wisdom tooth pulled. They threatened to take the daughter away if the mother didn't come up with the money. I hope the heck there was more to the story than that, but I can't get that out of my head. If I can't provide for my kids, will I have stupid jerks from DCF breathing down my neck? I actually think about stupid stuff like that. I can't function with that kind of worry so I don't go out of my way to set myself up for it. KWIM?

 

But yeah, I don't have a problem with the fact others don't even think about stuff like that.

 

What would take care of crap like that is universal healthcare. Every year, I'm more and more in favor.

[Crimson Wife]

I wonder if there are some cultural differences between how people view children that causes different people to experience large family life differently. MIL grew up as one of six and she says she doesn't remember a single hug from her mom or dad and does not remember ever being held in their lap. It's not that they didn't love their children, it's just that they did not believe in showing affection.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

Both my mom and my dad grew up as the youngest of 4. My maternal grandparents were WASP's and there was very little physical affection or expressed emotions. My paternal grandparents were Irish Catholics and the complete opposite. My paternal grandma was even a member of LLL back in the '50's when hardly any moms nursed their babies. It was clear to me growing up that both sets of grandparents loved us grandkids very much- they just showed that love very, very differently.

[Crimson Wife]

 

I had a feeling the "glorify Himself" bit was a terribly wrong choice of words...

 

It's a reference to the numerous Scripture quotes stating that God uses all things to glorify Himself. Romans 11:36 is one example, "For from him and through him and to him are all things." God created a world free from suffering, but He gave us Free Will, and the result of Original Sin was that suffering came into this earthly life. But He uses that suffering to remind us of our need for Him.

[phathui5]

 

Two people working full-time on Wal-mart wages can have 4 children and not be below the poverty line.

 

The federal poverty guideline for a family of six is 30,970. If both parents worked full-time at Walmart, at $8/hr, since that's what I made when I started there in 2011, assuming one week off per year, they would pull in 32.640. That may be above the poverty guideline, but it's hardly enough to support six people without government assistance.

 

Let's look at a sample budget on that income:

 

$2720/Month

 

$1000- Rent (We paid $1200 last year but are paying $850 now)

$ 600- Groceries

$ 400- Health insurance

$ 400- Even if the parents work different hours, there's some childcare, so let's assume $100/week

$ 100- Electric

$ 100- Water (That's what it is in our little town in Oregon)

$ 100- Car insurance

$ 200- Gas

 

Oops! We're already at $2900 and I haven't put in silly things like a phone, clothes, shoes, school costs, dental (often not included in health insurance), vision, household items...

[Crimson Wife]

I have known far more people from large families to have small families of their own than I have known those from small families to go large. To me, that says a lot.

 

It says more about macroeconomic forces than anything else. The cost of basics just keep going up and each subsequent generation finds it harder and harder to support a large family. My dad could not afford to purchase a home similar to the one in which he grew up, and I could not afford to purchase a home similar to the one in which I grew up. Houses similar to the one my grandparents owned on a regular-middle class salary now sell for $1.5 to 2 MILLION. :scared:

[Hannah]

My idea of poverty isn't the figure I shared. I shared the federal guideline for a family of 6. Just to clarify- that $31,000 is for SIX people. In most counties in this country, a family at the poverty line can not comfortably afford healthcare, housing, transportation, food, basic personal and household needs while saving for a rainy day and retirement.

 

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.

[Jean in Newcastle]

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.

 

To answer your original question, which I think was made in the context of where you live and the fact that you really are talking about poverty in Africa and not poverty in America, the reasons they plan to have more are:

 

infant mortality rates can be so high that having more children ensures that at least one of them (hopefully) reaches adulthood

 

culture - this can be secular culture and/or religious culture

 

lack of affordable safe birth control as well as education about birth control

[Reya]

My daughter attends head start. If it weren't for head start I would have literally had a nervous breakdown over where I would have had to have put my daughter for childcare. The wait list for my daughter's school? Well over 200 kids. Kids JUST like her. That's over twice the number of children attending her school as on the wait list. That's sad. It is STILL incredibly hard leaving my babies every day knowing that I'm going to go work a job that won't pay my bills.

 

ETA: Head Start isn't free.

 

It's free to YOU if you qualify financially.

 

Of course, someone is paying for it.

[Reya]

Where? The federal poverty line for a family of 6 is just under $31,000. The federal minimum wage is $7.25. $7.25 x 40 x 2 is only $30,160. in states with higher minimum wages, 2 fulltime minimum wage workers earn a bit more than that but are still going to fall under 133% of poverty and be eligible for many social services. Two people here working at minimum wage would have a difficult time paying for a habitable place to live without social services help for housing and energy costs. A family of that size at that wage would qualify for assistance with healthcare, housing, childcare and food stamps, free school lunch and energy aid in my area and we have one of the highest minimum wages in the nation. There is a reason a sizable chunk of parents working at WalMart depend on help from the state. Also many folks can't get 40 hours from place like that either. I know a woman who has worked for Walmart for many years and they keep her hours down to avoid paying for insurance. Most of her coworkers are in the same boat.

 

Wal-mart does not pay minimum wage.

 

133% of poverty isn't below poverty level. Sorry. The American definition of poverty is pretty ridiculous, anyway,

 

Very few Wal-mart workers who want to be fulltime aren't. And part-timers can get insurance once they work...a year, I believe. If they can't get fulltime, the problem is probably them.

 

However, this will change now that everyone must have Cadillac plans or no plans at all. Our part of our insurance has gone up by $3000 a year in two years because of it--coverage for things we DON'T WANT that we have to pay for, anyway.

 

If you aren't a bad worker, you WILL be promoted to head cashier and then management. A girl I knew in high school who was borderline mentally retarded became a manager at the local Wal-mart after working there 6 years. She was punctual, diligent, and responsible, so she got promoted, and she's very good at her job. I don't have much sympathy for people of normal intelligence who can't be bothered to do the same.

[Reya]

I understand fully that COL needs to be factored in, but yes, $31k here would be middle class.

ETA: I have siblings and family all over the world, so have a fairly good idea of what things cost in different parts and cities of the world. Also, that people's expectations are formed by what they see around them.

 

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. Some people now think that they shouldn't have to factor how much they make into everyday living decisions like family size because that's not "fair."

 

Want to compare WITH cost of living? Look at Purchasing-Power Parity, and compare "poor" in other countries to our poverty cutoffs.

 

There are some restrictions that make so it harder for people in some areas to get things like decent housing and childcare. MOST towns have restrictions on the number of unrelated adults in a single-family unit. Fair enough. A few have restrictions on the number of people, total, that can be housed in a unit, as a discouragement to "slum lords." So that means that if you have 2 parents and 4 kids, you HAVE to rent a 3 bedroom unit, if you have 5 kids, it has to be 3 bdrm, etc. But that's a LOCAL ordinance, and it's actually burdensome to the poor, and most places do not have this. (If you own your home, there are no such limits.) That isn't a money problem. It's a law problem.

 

And again, in some states, there are very restrictive standards for childcare. In Maryland, you can only have a maximum of 3 infants per worker for childcare. What does that mean? Legal childcare is very expensive. So your choices are super-expensive legal childcare, with or without a subsidy; informal childcare arrangements with friends and relatives, which often work well but have to be available; and illegal childcare, which conforms to ZERO standards. In their effort to provide only the very, very, very best, a number of people get shoved out of the chance to have childcare with decent standards and get childcare with no standards at all. Again, not a money problem but a law problem.

[Hannah]

To answer your original question, which I think was made in the context of where you live and the fact that you really are talking about poverty in Africa and not poverty in America, the reasons they plan to have more are:

 

infant mortality rates can be so high that having more children ensures that at least one of them (hopefully) reaches adulthood

 

culture - this can be secular culture and/or religious culture

 

lack of affordable safe birth control as well as education about birth control

 

Going by infant mortality, 95.6% of children born in South Africa this year will live past a year vs 99.4% of children born in the USA. So, parents who have a child here would still have the expectation that the child will have to be cared for for the rest of his/her life.

 

The reasons you give are very valid, but my original question was regarding people who PLAN to have a child while they are in financial need (in the example I used they are relying on others). These are people who make a conscious decision to have another child.

 

There are many more reasons why people have children in less than ideal situations.

I agree that culture, and especially sexual culture, does have a huge role to play.

There is a lot of sexual violence against women in South Africa which places them in situations where they do not have any reproductive autonomy. If condoms are the birth control that is available, the woman cannot enforce the use of them (which is also the reason that AIDS spread so fast - latest statistics are that around 14% of the population has the disease).

[MistyMountain]

I am ok with a social safety net and people who don't make enough to get by relying on government help so they do. People in progressive countries have less poverty and better results. The cost of the social safety net isn't astronomical and is worth it. I think all people no matter of income deserve to determine their family size just like anyone else. There are children born in much worse circumstances than children in the US. It is natural for people to want to procreate regardless of income. If you look at things in terms of worldwide resources people who have more and don't depend on the government cause strain in other ways in a world of limited resources.

[Reya]

The federal poverty guideline for a family of six is 30,970. If both parents worked full-time at Walmart, at $8/hr, since that's what I made when I started there in 2011, assuming one week off per year, they would pull in 32.640. That may be above the poverty guideline, but it's hardly enough to support six people without government assistance.

 

Let's look at a sample budget on that income:

 

$2720/Month

 

$1000- Rent (We paid $1200 last year but are paying $850 now)

$ 600- Groceries

$ 400- Health insurance

$ 400- Even if the parents work different hours, there's some childcare, so let's assume $100/week

$ 100- Electric

$ 100- Water (That's what it is in our little town in Oregon)

$ 100- Car insurance

$ 200- Gas

 

Oops! We're already at $2900 and I haven't put in silly things like a phone, clothes, shoes, school costs, dental (often not included in health insurance), vision, household items...

 

$500- Rent -where we lived when we married and the current rate in my hometown for a not really nice but not dangerous 2bdrm/1.5bath or 3bdrm/1bath apt or duplex.

$300- Groceries -About 150% of what I spend now

$400- Health insurance

$400- Childcare, if you can't arrange something

$75- Electric - my rate was NEVER higher than this in an apartment

$35- Water -actually, water is usually $15/month

$100- Car insurance

$150- Gas -this is how expensive gas is for us right now, with all my extra driving

 

That's $1965/month. You have plenty of room for phone, car, clothes, etc.

 

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.

 

Don't think you can afford 4 kids right now? DON'T HAVE THEM. Get the raise first. Move to a cheaper area. Change jobs.

 

It's your right to live however you please as long as you take responsibility for yourself. If other people start footing the bill, you are no longer living like an adult and don't deserve to have the choices of one.

[Reya]

I am ok with a social safety net and people who don't make enough to get by relying on government help so they do. People in progressive countries have less poverty and better results. The cost of the social safety net isn't astronomical and is worth it. I think all people no matter of income deserve to determine their family size just like anyone else. There are children born in much worse circumstances than children in the US. It is natural for people to want to procreate regardless of income. If you look at things in terms of worldwide resources people who have more and don't depend on the government cause strain in other ways in a world of limited resources.

 

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!

 

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!).

 

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?

 

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.

[Reya]

Then I would agree with you. I do think it seems racist (bc it always seems to be the darker skinned poor or other undesirable demographics) or classist (more first world vs 2nd or 3rd world than the american low/middle/upper) to suggest 2/3 of the world's population is irresponsible for having children because they live in dire conditions.

 

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.

 

In addition, when people live on the edge, there is no retirement plan except their families. If their families are smaller, the number available to support the elderly are smaller.

 

Poor people in other countries are not going out and making stupid, reckless breeding decisions because they don't care if their kids starve. They are making the most intelligent decisions possible when an investment in a baby now means extra hands to work in 5 years and a net benefit to the family by 8 and for the rest of your life, if they survive. When starvation hits, you can think of it as a very human stock market crash, and the lost investments are the most vulnerable children.

[Reya]

Regarding the bolded, I have known more than one family with genetically passed on disabilities who continue to have children. I have to confess I have privately judged them. :( But it's really not my place. I'm not the one who has to take their child to the hospital or watch them suffer, they have to do that.

 

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?

[Reya]

How nightmarish would it be to have to put your kids in daycare and have both spouses work at Wal-Mart??? How could one even afford daycare? This country's pay scale is such a shame.

 

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.

 

You don't deserve to get paid more just because you want something nicer. I'd like a nicer house, with a separate bedroom for the coming child. Not a basis for going up to my husband's work and demanding more money.

 

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.