"I'm sort of amazed that they think they have a right to do this. "

I'm surprised you'd think anyone has the right to stop them.

Good point but... what's the point exactly. Of course people who can't afford kids shouldn't have them. So... what is the point of the post exactly? Just finger-wagging for fun?

I'm surprised you'd think anyone has the right to stop them.

They should stop themselves.

Nearly all wars boil down essentially to population pressures.

More people = more war.

Now they can either stop themselves, or fuck over society, and in the remote event of collapse I fucking shoot them if they try and take any of my resources.

I may not have the "right" t stop them from breeding like rabbits, but when we hit a real financial crunch and the government CANT afford to pay people to sit on their asses and not contribute I do have the right to kill looters.

I'm surprised you'd think anyone has the right to stop them.

But I don't and she doesn't.

It's just a way of thinking against a different way of thinking: "I'll do whatever I want, and never mind that I've created a new human being with a lot of expensive needs."

I posted this because I see it a lot -- this notion that you should be able to have kids (and I don't just mean biologically) simply because that's what you want.

My dad waited until he was in his 30s to get married so he could be sure he had enough money saved up for a house and a family. We weren't rich but we could always go to the dentist and doctor, and my mom could always buy groceries, and we took vacations by driving up in our station wagon to University of Michigan family camp for a week, where we stayed in cabins and ate in the mess hall.

As long as the village is paying, why not? Responsibility, pride, and shame are so 20th Century, conservative, and un-cool. You racist haters are not allowed to believe otherwise.

Yes, I am being sarcastic, but observant.

The human race would be on its way to extinction if most people put any thought at all into their reproductive behavior.

Is this another one of those rhetorical *why don't the poor and minorties have the same values, and respond to the same social cues as upper middle class Americans?

One, kids aren't that expensive. Yes you can spend vast sums on them, but the required economic input is really not that large.

Two, when you offer to pay people to make kids is it any shocker that some people take you up on that offer?

Three, can we expand this discussion of fiscal responsibility outside of babies? After all, it isn't baby base welfare that will bankrupt this nation. Elder welfare consumes far far more.

I agree that the welfare system as well as foster care system needs to be shut down. Along with the IRS and Department of Homeland Security. But this borders on desires for tyranny. The desire to preside over another's life decisions is absurd. I am not asking anyone for a dime, not even for public schools. You get no say in my fertility, which is declinIng anyway.

I find it funny when old men see my husband and our children they talk about how lucky he is.. When older woman see me the make snide comments about how stupid I am for having more than 2.. 3 if the first 2 are the same gender. I have been told, by a grocery clerk, that I should have stopped at the first 2.

I wish I could make the argument that people could be doing well, have a child, then lose everything. It's the argument I hear from others defending the fertility rights of others. The problem people have with me is I have more than 2. They don't care how I manage or how well off we are more than 1 boy and 1 girl or 2 of one and 1 of the other is too many.

My feeling.. Until I ask you for money for my family, please mind your business instead of mine.

My feeling.. Until I ask you for money for my family, please mind your business instead of mine.

Posted by: Josephine at March 13, 2015 7:10 AM

Good for you Josephine. I did the accepted thing thirty years ago, and stopped at 2. I now wish I had four or five.

It is often better to give four or five kids what they need, rather than attempting to give two kids everything they could wish for.

You raise better, more independent people that way.

I have many friends who come from large Catholic families, and they are generally less spoiled, less self centered, and less bothered by the idiosyncraties of other people than people who come from tiny families.

Kids in large families find out sooner that they aren't the center of the universe, and in my opinion, that is a very good thing.

"The human race would be on its way to extinction if most people put any thought at all into their reproductive behavior."

No, we'd just have a small, stable population with a high standard of living, a clean environment, and no wars.

Human being should be smart enough to figure this out, but they're not, so we're screwed.

If the only way to "save us from ourselves" is through a totalitarian government program, we're not worth saving anyway.

I got my tubes tied ten years ago without ever having kids and stopped caring about how stupid everyone is.

"No, we'd just have a small, stable population with a high standard of living, a clean environment, and no wars."

Pirate Jo, The rest of your post makes some sense, but the fact that you honestly seem to believe this puts you in La La land territory,

Even in the age of small hunter gatherer groups ten thousand years ago, there was still war, and environmental destruction.

Humans are not the only species guilty of this. Too many Elephants, deer or rabbits or a big forest fire can destroy the environment just as quickly.

The climate and the environment on earth has been anything but stable over the course of the last several million years.

I have many friends who come from large Catholic families, and they are generally less spoiled, less self centered, and less bothered by the idiosyncraties of other people than people who come from tiny families.

My dad is from a giant catholic family. A more self-sufficient, savvy, self-educated group you will not find. My boyfriend's parents also probably "shouldn't" have had kids, based on the fact they had NO money. Granted, my boyfriend still has issues with hoarding spoiled food (growing up without enough will do that to you), but when sh*t hits the fan and I lose my mind, he excels because he knows how much worse it could be.

More important than money is what my dad's parents and my boyfriend's parents had in common: Pride in self-sufficiency and a supportive community of similar families.

I'm inclined to agree with Amy, though, that you should be able to afford healthcare for your kids. My dad's siblings were taken to the doctor only for broken limbs and life-threatening lacerations (which are common when you have 8 kids that you let roam the city alone and play on construction equipment). But they couldn't afford check-ups or visits for even serious illnesses, let alone the dentist. Maybe this all made my dad "tougher," but I wouldn't want my kids to suffer more than necessary.

"They should stop themselves."

Yes, but you can't fix stupid.

"It's just a way of thinking against a different way of thinking: "I'll do whatever I want, and never mind that I've created a new human being with a lot of expensive needs.""

I find your assumption that most people think about these things beforehand quaint. And if being poor were criteria to not have kids, half the Earths population would be disenfranchised from procreating. And while I don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing, it's just not gonna happen. Might as well wish for world peace.

As long as the village is paying, why not? Responsibility, pride, and shame are so 20th Century, conservative, and un-cool.

I find even the most staunch so-called libertarians turn into socialists when it comes to paying for their kids.

The latest idea a la mode here is 'school choice' or 'parental choice,' which gives parents publicly funded vouchers for private schools. A more clear redistribution of wealth is hard to imagine, but it's popular... for a time.

"Humans are not the only species guilty of this. Too many Elephants, deer or rabbits or a big forest fire can destroy the environment just as quickly."

True. And an excess deer population doesn't last long, because they all starve. We'll end up the same way, but the difference is we should know better. We could avoid the suffering of millions, but don't and won't. In fact, we make even more millions and by doing so ensure that the offspring we profess to love will have an even lower standard of living than we do.

But then not everyone even understands that the bathtub is overflowing, and if you say anything, they think the fact that you noticed the overflowing bathtub is a character flaw on your part.

A smaller population of people can live on the planet with a sustainable first world standard of living, yet there still be enough people to provide the necessary specialization of labor to keep technology going. Would people still have problems and disagree, or even fight? Oh, maybe - it does seem like some people fight just because they like to. Will the climate change? Sure, but then if you don't have the place packed to the rafters, there's room for everyone to move around when some place gets too hot or cold or floods.

I don't see a solution, though. The end doesn't justify the means with a totalitarian solution, yet I don't think enough people will individually figure it out on their own, either. Everyone thinks it's someone else who needs to stop littering. And there's too much cultural baggage to overcome, like the guy in the article who said she was bringing shame on her boyfriend for not having his kids. The world is already chock full of ignorant morons just like him, and they breed faster than everyone else. So see, even if you have the one smart kid you can afford, look how stupid all his neighbors will be when he grows up. Plus he'll be trying to feed them all.

So, I guess I'll just pour myself some wine and wait for the next season of Game of Thrones.

"The latest idea a la mode here is 'school choice' or 'parental choice,' which gives parents publicly funded vouchers for private schools. A more clear redistribution of wealth is hard to imagine..."

Wrong. They paid that money in taxes. School choice simply allows them some control over how their taxes are spent, which is something they should have had all along. The other alternative is to eliminate the taxes and let parents spend the money on whatever education they want their children to have. But then the so-beloved public school system would die. (Which I'd be fine with, but...)

Cousin Dave, I think what Kevin is referring to when he mentions the redistribution of wealth is that the parents aren't the only ones who paid the taxes.

School choice solves nothing if there are only 10 spots in good schools, but 50 kids needing schools. All it can do is shuffle who gets the spots.

Vouchers for private schools will just drive up tuition buy whatever the cost of the voucher is, much like flooding the university market with loans has done, also solving nothing.

Cousin Dave, I think what Kevin is referring to when he mentions the redistribution of wealth is that the parents aren't the only ones who paid the taxes.

Ding ding ding. Taking my tax money to educate your kids in the private school of your choice is no different than taking my tax money to feed your kids in the restaurant of your choice.

I have 4 kids and get lots of rude comments about it pretty much every time we all go somewhere together on a family outing. I usually take my infant with me when I go out and am frequently asked if he's my first. When I say he's my fourth people react as if I just slapped them, then they ask if I'm done now. I don't see how that is any of their business or why they feel the need to share their disapproval with me. We do not receive any welfare, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, health care subsidies, or other public assistance of any kind. We are also looking to send our children to public school. We fully support our brood ourselves. I do understand the anger though. Most people rely on some form of assistance for their children nowadays. I see it all over the parenting forums I go to, and the worst part is they planned to have children knowing they'd need the help in the first place. The majority get on pregnancy Medicaid to cover their medical including those with private insurance already because they can't afford their copays and Medicaid will cover the rest for them. They then get on WIC to help feed them and then often food stamps as well. These are the people that are the problem. They can't afford to provide their children the necessities of life on their own. When it's pointed out the stupidity of them having children when they can't provide for them it's met with whining about how they shouldn't be denied children just because they can't afford them. Really? Why should I be denied a Ferrari just because I can't afford one? I want it!!! I think they should eliminate all these mooching programs so people will be forced to make more responsible choices.

It's tough, though, for women, because if you wait until you're done with grad school and have a few years work under your belt, that puts you in your 30s, when it is harder to conceive. Especially if you wait til your late 30s.

That said, most of the people I know had their kids in their 30s. Many needed a bit of a medical boost, but they have 'em and are doing fine. And because they had good jobs, they could afford the medical boost. So I guess that is a solution.

I do know a couple that was on food stamps when they had twins when they were both working on their Phds. It was temporary and they are now active members of the work force and have probably put in more than they took out.

Cousin Dave, I think what Kevin is referring to when he mentions the redistribution of wealth is that the parents aren't the only ones who paid the taxes.

Ding ding ding. Taking my tax money to educate your kids in the private school of your choice is no different than taking my tax money to feed your kids in the restaurant of your choice.

Posted by: Kevin at March 13, 2015 10:45 AM

News for you Kevin, the government does that too.

And why the anti capitalist screed about private schools? All schools should be private, in my opinion, and government should rebate your property taxes when you have kids in them. (Or allow a whopping tax credit)

Public education up through the 8th grade or until the age of 16 in mandated by most of the State's Constitutions.

I will assume for my purposes, that your statement was not hypocritical, because you have never attended a tax payer financed school of any sort, and that none of your family members did either?

Would this be correct?

Certain things are done for the public good. While I am willing to grant the the government shouldn't be taking your tax money at all to fund public education which is generally a piss poor waste of money controlled by the unions, and I don't really care if they fund private education through vouchers, I kind of like it that the city I live in provides roads to drive on, street lights, and a fire department, in spite of the fact that I have never called the fire department, or actually needed the street light.

Even if I had no car, I would value the fact that the UPS truck that frequently delivers things to my door, can actually get to my neighborhood courtesy of those public roads.

And if my city didn't provide them, I am sure the majority of people here would move somewhere that did.

A lot of cities and states are going broke funding a lavish retirement for their public employees.
When the gravy train ends, the teachers union will have to get off too.

Nope, isab. I'm a product of public schools; my parents didn't take tax money to send me to private ones.

My point is that if I kick in for basic services that I may not use, like public schools or SNAP benefits, I still get a say on how the money is spent.

For those who support the system financially with no kids, 'school choice' means just the opposite.

My feeling.. Until I ask you for money for my family, please mind your business instead of mine.

Posted by: Josephine at March 13, 2015 7:10 AM

So, you refuse the child EIC on your taxes then?

Oops. I meant to say I was planning to send my kids to private school in my earlier post.

Luj, most people who support their children without assistance don't qualify for EIC on taxes because of income. I didn't, even before I got married.

"I kind of like it that the city I live in provides roads to drive on, street lights, and a fire department, in spite of the fact that I have never called the fire department, or actually needed the street light. "

But those things are all actually useful. Even though I may never have to call the fire department, it indirectly benefits me by making my fire insurance rates go down. I may not make use of every street light or traffic signal in the city, but I never know for sure when I will, so it benefits me that they are there to be relied on when needed. They all constitute forms of assurance: stuff that's there if you need it.

The last time the instutuion of American public eduation fulfulled its intended purpose was during the Sputnik scare of the late 1950s. Since then, corruption has moved in to the extent that it is now unfixable, as repeated unsuccessful reform attempts have shown. Like a structurally unsafe building, the only thing you can do is tear it down and build something else. I acknowledge that there is still a need for public education in the general sense, but the public school system is not and cannot fulfill it. We're going to have to come up another idea.

I have many friends who come from large Catholic families, and they are generally less spoiled, less self centered, and less bothered by the idiosyncraties of other people than people who come from tiny families.

Kids in large families find out sooner that they aren't the center of the universe, and in my opinion, that is a very good thing.

Posted by: Isab at March 13, 2015 7:32 AM
____________________________________

If parents aren't smart enough to realize that kids have NEVER been grateful for the things they've had since birth - whether it's three meals a day or new diamond jewelry every year - and that the parents need to discipline their finances accordingly, they shouldn't be having kids. I've heard, time and again, that an only child is not necessarily spoiled.

I only had one sibling, but we certainly weren't allowed to believe we were the center of the universe.

That is, contrary to popular opinion, not your right as a sexually functioning human being. The only reason biological parents don't have to match the endless standards and scrutiny as people wanting to adopt is that bureaucracy can't regulate basic reproductive capabilities.
____________________________________

What she forgot to mention is that many people see it as God's destiny for them and therefore not something to question. (Not sure whether groups like Quiverfull believe in government help or not.)

Check out this 1990 letter to Ann Landers about such deluded parents:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-09-10/features/9003150881_1_babies-dear-ann-landers-younger

Thankfully, Ann sided with the daughter.

"I kind of like it that the city I live in provides roads to drive on, street lights, and a fire department, in spite of the fact that I have never called the fire department, or actually needed the street light. "

But those things are all actually useful. "

Of course they are, and so is a public education for citizens, in general, but the cost has exceeded the value, like so many things funded with taxpayer dollars.

This has also happened with roads, utilities, police departments, and other public works.

"I acknowledge that there is still a need for public education in the general sense, but the public school system is not and cannot fulfill it. We're going to have to come up another idea.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at March 13, 2015 12:48 PM"

We already have. Most useful basic education can be delivered through home schooling, and the Internet. There is no need for the bureaucracy except in cases where children are under government care.

However, until the public treasuries run dry, the union and the bureaucrats will fight this tooth and nail.

I hate to break it to you Kevin, but you have no more or less say on SNAP or WIC than you do on public education money, vouchered to a private school or not. And as someone without kids it has no effect on you one way or the other if some of that money is spent on a private institution. Lord knows a significant sum is spent on Sysco, a private company.

@Lenona

You see Lenona, when I say something *tends* to be true you respond with anecdotal evidence, or something from an Ann Landers column or a made for TV movie.

Of course there are only children who are not spoiled, and of course there are families with lots of kids where some of them are, mostly because parents....get...tired....

However: The last thirty years of single parents, and two earner couples have exacerbated the problem of small families with irresponsible, directionless children,

I watched these people delegate all teaching of morals and values to the public school system, or the daycare provider, or the soccer coach, while they showered their children with material possessions to make up for the fact that they were weekend parents, at best.

These middle class kids were both spoiled and neglected.

Disclaimer. I am an only child of an only child. It worked because I had cousins nearby, and while I slept in a different house, it was not the solitary existence that an only child would face today in the suburbs of a big city.

I think a lot of the reluctance of men in their late twenties and thirties to get married and have kids, other than the fact that they get hosed in court, is because way too many of them have never been part of a functioning family, and they have no clue how it works.
Furthermore the women they would be marrying and starting families with, don't know what a functioning family is either.

And as someone without kids it has no effect on you one way or the other if some of that money is spent on a private institution.

Of course it does.

The basic rule is: Take a government handout, be subject to the strings attached.

If you want food stamps, you can't spend them at any restaurant of your choice, because you're living on the taxpayers' dime. If you collect unemployment, you can't just do what you like with your time; you have to prove you're searching for a job.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want cash vouchers, you can't spend them on private schools, because you're living on the taxpayers' dime as well.

You're free to put your kids in any kind of school you like. You're not free to do so with my money.

Vouchers, whether you like it or not, are a welfare program.

Well here's something I was pondering.

My parents both came from fairly screwed-up families. They had kids because - and they actually told me this - "that's just what everyone did back then." They each had some ideas about how they wanted their own family to be less screwed up than their own had been - boys shouldn't be sharing a bed with their mamas when they are 14 years old, for example, and parents shouldn't abuse their kids - so those things didn't happen in my family.

But that said, there is a lot of difference between parents who successfully avoid one or two bad things (which is actually a pretty big accomplishment in itself, the way these behaviors tend to get passed on), and really knowing how to be GOOD parents. I think people only learn that from the families they grow up in.

So to Isab's point, about people who have never been part of functioning families choosing not to have their own, is that maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe it's a good thing for everyone when people from screwed-up families can just say, 'Well, my own family was screwed up, I have no idea what a good family acts like, I would have no idea what I was doing, so I'm not going to do it.'

That's not the reason I chose not to have children - my own reasons were pretty close to those in the linked article. My own parents probably pulled the family tradition from a D to a C, but I find myself wondering nowadays if a C is good enough.

For those like BunnyGirl, who sound like they are doing it right, how much do you think about that? For example, presumably you want your kids to become self-sustaining, happy adults. Do you put effort into helping them figure out what they enjoy doing, with a side helping of asking 'How much does it pay?' so that they get remunerative jobs someday that don't make them miserable? Are you going to be able to leave them enough money to start businesses or investments of their own?

My own parents didn't put any effort into that at all. In fact, as a Jehovah's Witness kid, the "list of things I enjoyed" lined up pretty closely with the "list of things I wasn't allowed to do," and I was always actively discouraged from going to college so I wouldn't be infected by "worldly" ideas. (Yeah, you can see how well THAT worked out.) It was on me to figure things out on my own. Hell, I wasn't even supposed to HAVE a job. I was supposed to get married and spend time trying to convert the masses.

But that was almost 25 years ago, and although the job market was starting to deteriorate even then, I managed. Now I'm not so sure. If your kid reaches adulthood with no concept of these things, how can they compete with poorer and hungrier people from other countries who have been schooled in landing meaningful employment since the age of five? I'm thinking that only kids raised in the B-plus or better families will have any hope at all.

And how would you raise a kid to be a healthy individual and be true to himself in a society that itself is sick? I wouldn't want my kid suffocating as they tried to follow a corporate Life Script in order to fit in, but I wouldn't want them living under a bridge, either.

Without spending any more time harping on the morons raising doomed children, what do you do in order to raise a non-doomed child?

Without spending any more time harping on the morons raising doomed children, what do you do in order to raise a non-doomed child?

You do the best that you can, in the circumstances, realizing that fortunately or unfortunately, there are a lot of things you can't control in life, including how your children turn out.

I have two children, both raised in the same two parent home, with someone in the house for them.
One did very well in high school, star athlete, decent student who is now at thirty one, a needy dependent mess, who makes poor choices in her love life, and has a serious drinking problem.
The other finished in the bottom of his high school class, never went to college, and is now in middle management of a very successful tech company.

Giving too much thought as to what your expectations are for your children, in many cases is worse than giving it too little thought.

I wish that more people gave some consideration to doing a better job than their parents did. Truth is, most people just parent the way they were raised, or worse, do what their friends do.
The only question is Jo. Why do you expect stupid, poorly educated people from dysfunctional families to figure out a better way?

We would never, in 1000 years, have looked at our finances and thought we could afford one kid, let alone 4. Yet not a one has ever done without anything needed, and few things that were wanted. And we started the "you'll need scholarships or other means" to attend college (if they decide to do so, I'm no fan of the automatic 4 year degree plan) very young in life. Our retirement will be fully funded, so we are not a drain on them, but while we will help with college, we won't be writing a check for a $100k or more per kid.

To raise a nondoomed child, we've taught that it requires money to get things, and work in order to get money. We've taught that more money and better work typically come to people specifically trained, who did well in school, so yes grades are important if not the be all end all. We've taught them that mean people suck and they should always stand up for people who need it. We take them to lots of different places and events. I'm no art expert, and our trip to the art museum last weekend was done at super-fast fly-by kid speed, but it planted a seed, and if it takes root in one we will provide more opportunities like that. That's all I can do: give them a wide range of experiences and opportunities and see where their interests lie as they grow. And give them limits, and enforce them, as far as behavior and what is and is not acceptable. It's working so far.

I had 2 people-in my life-ever mention anything remotely negative about my having more than 2 kids. One was an elderly some-how-related woman at a family funeral who said "and now this one was a surprise?" to me as I held my new #3. I just smiled vaguely and moved on-one should not cause dram if not needed and I would never see her again, and a funeral wasn't the place to make it about me. The second was an older lady at Steak and Shake when I was largely pregnant with #4 (and the other 3 were under 4). She said "don't you know what causes that?" and I smiled sweetly and replied "yes, and my husband and I love it" and moved on. I think the negative views of large families tends to be a northern, coastal, thing.

Jo,

Money can be a really bad problem when raising a kid. There is never enough that you can leave them some inheritance and they never have to worry, at least for the vast majority of us. And even if you have that much money it is not a healthy thing. The idle rich are often jaded and unhappy.

As others have said, you teach them that money is important but not the most important. And you teach them that they have to get their own money and can't rely on yours. Pain and adversity can be educational. Crippling and death are not. Setbacks when you are younger are easier to learn from and easier to recover from. Think of your own experiences. If you had your current viewpoint back then you would have weathered your own downturn better.

Never tell them about an inheritance. Many people think it is a nice idea to tell their kids that when they pass they are leaving all these wonderful things to their kids. What they are really doing is incentivising their kids to want them dead.

Earned income credit.. Excuse me while I die laughing. Not since my late 20s have we qualified for that. We do get some of our taxes back though. And I took wic for one year. I got lice at the office and never went back. Not for milk and a dozen eggs.

Would like to mention, I have 2 with autism that qualify for disability. I don't take it. As for food I grow my own stuff. Actually I would do that if I were super wealthy. As soo. As my ground thaws from these freaky I e storms I'll be out there filling. It's the difference between sweet tender carrots and orange woody sticks. I want chickens too and they are becoming popular in my area.. It would save some money but I really just like the idea of a living science project.

Actually, a fair body of research finds that only children are less selfish, easier to get along with, and more likely to be successful. Lauren Sandler discusses this in her book "One and Only"

The "cost of raising a child" today is wildly inflated by societal expectations that we buy them every toy, enroll them in every class, keep up with the Jones's in terms of vacations and birthday parties, etc.

And that "cost" is exacerbated when parents refuse to give up their own toys, parties and vacations in order to be able to take the kids to the dentist. It's not a matter of numbers or poverty (in most, but obviously not all, cases). It's a problem of priorities.

Isab,

"The only question is Jo. Why do you expect stupid, poorly educated people from dysfunctional families to figure out a better way?"

Well, I don't, and didn't mean to give the impression that I had that kind of expectation. My own mom spent a lot of her childhood at a neighbor's house and at least saw what a supportive family looked like, so sometimes there are outside influences that can help.

Ben,

As far as leaving kids money, and it making the kids wish them dead (that made me snicker, by the way), there is no reason to wait until you're dead. Some parents "trickle" a little money to their kids now and then, $1K or $2K here and there, when their investments are doing well. Nothing the kids learn to depend on or factor into their own living expenses, but in small enough amounts they don't have to pay income taxes on it, and an occasional windfall they can save or use to pay down a mortgage.

I think it was you who said in a post a while back that a lot of people spend a third of their lives paying the government and a third of their lives paying down debt, without much left over for themselves. If parents can at least help their kids avoid the debt piece, it's something anyway. Of course if their kids are racking up debt on an inflated lifestyle, that's a different story. If you can get families to work together as a team, intergenerational wealth can help keep each generation from having, for example, to take on student loan or mortgage debt. They'd still have to get jobs and work, but if the "family nest egg" is preserved and passed down, it raises the standard of living for the family as it goes on. (At least until somebody screws it up.) Wealthy families have already figured this out.

Maybe they don't have enough to be "idle rich," but they could, perhaps, find more meaningful work because they can focus on something besides how much it pays because they aren't struggling under the weight of a crushing mortgage payment.

Actually, a fair body of research finds that only children are less selfish, easier to get along with, and more likely to be successful. Lauren Sandler discusses this in her book "One and Only"

Posted by: NicoleK at March 14, 2015 3:44 AM

Well to begin with most social science is a bunch of crap because it relies on intangible judgement calls about what constitutes * selfishness*'*easy to get along with*, and *success*

This isn't emperical evidence of anything.

There are so many different social variables in how an only child is raised, such as with grandparents, and cousins close by, both parents working, only one parent working etc, that I would think only child characterists would be Impossible to quantify.

One large group for study would clearly be those born in China during the one child policy since they are a particularly homogenous group.

http://www.inquisitr.com/476762/chinas-children-are-little-emporers-study-finds/

I think I would have been a more empathetic, and loving person, if I had had the responsibilities of younger siblings, and probably more secure, if I had an older one.

Thank you, NicoleK.
______________________________________

Pirate Jo said:

Hell, I wasn't even supposed to HAVE a job. I was supposed to get married and spend time trying to convert the masses.

But that was almost 25 years ago, and although the job market was starting to deteriorate even then, I managed. Now I'm not so sure. If your kid reaches adulthood with no concept of these things, how can they compete with poorer and hungrier people from other countries who have been schooled in landing meaningful employment since the age of five? I'm thinking that only kids raised in the B-plus or better families will have any hope at all.
______________________________

Here's what I asked in the childfree (CF) newsgroup, last year:

Maybe one not-so-minor reason some people are openly contemptuous of the CF is that they secretly fear that the ranks of the CF are an economic sign of the times - that their own children will never be able to get good jobs? Plus, those people who are financially secure and want children but don't have them yet are afraid that it might turn out to be a very bad economic decision - but neither group wants to admit that, because this is supposed to be the country where "you can have it all"?

Well to begin with most social science is a bunch of crap because it relies on intangible judgement calls about what constitutes * selfishness*'*easy to get along with*, and *success*

This isn't emperical evidence of anything.

Yet it's infinitely more useful than anecdotal evidence.

My father had a large Catholic family of 10 siblings, plus him. They gre ups during the Depression. Some were successful. Some were alcoholic screw-ups. His experience means very little in the grand scheme of things.

" As my ground thaws from these freaky I e storms I'll be out there filling."

Freaky ice storms.. I'll be tilling not filling.

Bunny girl, I left my natural family planning board over people making fun of me that we couldn't afford pizza every weekend. The only reason they could was that they were on food stamps and wic.. I was so disgusted I told them off asked what they would do when those programs collapsed and they just blew me off. Money goes on forever when it's free right. These people scoffed at the idea of tilling ground and planting and one was bragging that since she had given birth to her children while living in her apartment she could have as many as she liked and not have to move.. They wouldn't be able to afford a house big enough anyway.. Bred thier way out of that possibility.. I know these people exist I just don't like being lumped in with them..

Momof-4 you are very lucky, maybe being "forgiven" because one pregnancy was twins. Or maybe you just know the nicest people on earth. Mine were singletons and I have 8.
I too am suspicious of every single degree requiring 4 years of study. My oldest son is currently working his way through coursera certification and my daughter is working with friend of ours who is a published author. She knows the word count and other requirements for mags that include short stories and who to ask for if you have to call. It's nice to have someone like that to help out. Our girly wants to be an author and a 4 year liberal art degree is unlikely. There are also free courses online. I myself am working on i-device repair and will be getting certification for that. It's nice to have the possibility of an income without the crippling debt.

Any who. I don't think subsidizing poverty should be how we live but dehumanizing people is a poor plan for fixing the problems we've gotten ourselves into. Everyone would come up with different standards for who could and could not have children. and for some it would be a standard that limited the fertility of everyone but them.

Jo,

That was me. I do approve of wealth accumulation and inheritance. I am all for removing the inheritance tax. The problem is expectations. What you described is passing down money in small enough sums the children can cope and in an unpredictable fashion. I approve of that. It is treated like a lucky event and everyone moves on. There are no future expectations or plans. The children's lifestyle is not significantly altered. If the payments stop tomorrow no big deal.

It is very bad to promise a lump sum at death. I've seen this in person and it is well documented in general. When you promise a child a large sum (say $1M) they then start planning what they will do with that income. And since the income is not here yet many put things off waiting for the money. You also make your death a desirable thing for your children. It is bad juju all over.

Even worse is to provide a significant portion of your child's income. Many wealthy parents do this as a way to keep control of their children. It breeds ongoing dependence and a very unhealthy relationship. I've seen this in person as well and it is not a kind thing to do to your kids. Adults should be independent.

Also, parental wealth is a terrible way to avoid debt. The reality is you can spend any sum of money. Debt should be avoided as much as possible just on general principal. Parental money, family nest egg, and even lotto winnings should not significantly change your lifestyle. Money is nice stuff. I'm not advocating a monastic lifestyle. But money is not magic. It brings many problems as well. You can look up the history of lotto winners to see how a large sum of money given to someone not prepared for it usually brings pain and misery.

Lenona,

I think that is more of a people are assholes and some people are loud assholes phenomenon.

I think learning about budgets and manageable debt is something that can be taught at every economic level.

As for assistance, I'm not against it.

My anecdote is my Dad who was on unemployment a few months after getting laid off when I was a baby. Rather than getting the first job that came along, he and a few friends used the time to found a company. My dad is retired but the company still exists, and hires around 50 people.

Being on assistance a few months allowed my dad to be a much greater contributor to society than he would have been otherwise.

Same with my friends who were on food stamps when they had twins while getting their Phds. If they'd had to drop everything and get the first job that came along, they wouldn't have finished their education and might not be doing as well today. I am sure they've since put in more than they took out.

It is good to be self-reliant, but not to the point where it prevents you from meeting your potential.

Other anecdote...

I had an ex who had wealthy parents and had a complex about it. Refused help of any kind, and used it as an excuse not to go to grad school (too expensive, didn't want to ask for help), get a good job (didnt want to use connections) etc etc etc.

Motivated people take what is offered and use it wisely.

RE only children: Reading that book didn't stop me from having number two. But that was for selfish reasons... I'm selfish probably due to not being an only child ;)

"but neither group wants to admit that, because this is supposed to be the country where "you can have it all?"

I don't think so.

I think Crid said something like this once to the people, who want to have children.

"How do you ask someone to die? How do you do that to someone you are supposed to love?"

We all know that how it is going to end. Romeo must die.

To Chang:

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that people WITH children secretly feel guilty for bringing them into a world that's less than ideal - or that they feel guilty just because their children can't live forever even if they make it to 100?

Neither.

If you are going to feel guilty, you will not be having children. At least not the second or third one. You are not ashamed of having children. That is why you keep having them. It worked for the last million years and will work for another million years.

What I don't understand is that knowing that your child will die miserably just like yourself and your mother, why do you delude yourself that you had your child out of love? Out of hate, yes but out of love? I don't think so.

Do you think the turkeys in the turkey farm are having their babies out of love? Maybe. Because they simply don't know that they all are going to end up on the Thanksgiving table slaughtered. But if the mother turkey knew that is what is going to happen at the end, I expect her not to reproduce out of love.

Is that too much to ask?

So . . . immortality or extinction? This is like songs from the radio, you are either perfect or worthless. Nothing inbetween exists.