My wife and I have decided to forgo a second income so that she may stay home with our children and give them personalized attention. To make this choice has cost us over $200,000 of lost income. However we prefer our children to have our attention instead of any adult who had taken 12 units at a community college and wandered into a day care center to earn a whole $8-9 an hour.
Wait, you send your second wife or your oldest kid to work and get you the second income?
If having a child gives you $ 200,000 of lost income AND a lot of expenses (e.g. another 100-200,000 $ by the time he has completed his studies) why do you bother producing children? And talking about hundreds of thousands of $, the 10 cents make the difference for you? You shouldn't be anabled to have kids
It's funny how people throw around how poor people shouldn't have kids... and why give them a crack at daycare?
The point of daycare is so they can WORK. And perhaps become LESS poor. It's funny how entitled people think they are. They figure they work harder than poorer people so they deserve to have kids.
More and more families need two parent incomes to have a decent home and necessities.
What do I advocate for single parents? How about I advocate they marry the person they had the sex with or some other suitable replacement.
--snip--
Having it with someone too irresponsible to marry, assist, etc. just makes it a worse choice.
Nick
So, do single mothers who are single through no fault of their own - like death of the husband, never married but got pregnant b/c of rape, divorce because of wife-beating, or any other of an nearly infinite set of facts that don't deal with "irresponsibility", get day-care?
What's this "other suitable replacement" thing? Do single parents have to seek out a mate at the earliest opportunity to avoid being tabbed "irresponsible?" Wouldn't seeking a mate solely for support for your child be gold digging?
Exactly. And there are a lot of two parent homes that have to have two people working. This is not an issue that is all about single poor people.
"As for the real goal being child seperation. What else could it be? I already see these children more than their working parents see them. It is sad but true."
The goal is simple -- it is to PAY for all of the expenses of having children. Or maybe only families where the man earns over $50,000 a year should be allowed to have kids? Because where I live, you would be poor on anything less (poor as in: can't afford both a house and a car, much less food). Talk about class warfare ...
"How about I advocate they marry the person they had the sex with or some other suitable replacement."
What about divorce? What if your spouse dies?!?
"As for supporting welfare so they can stay with their children? Why would I do that?"
Because it will cost you a lot more tax dollars in the future when the kids are on welfare too--or in prison. Besides that, has nothing unexpected ever happened in your life? Can you tell us exactly what your economic situation will be 15 years from now? Nothing is a sure thing. No matter how much you plan, things can go wrong. A person might be making $100,000 a year today, but there is no guarantee they won't end up on welfare themselves in a few years (layoffs, bankruptcy, company sold, whatever) Then what? You just give up on those people and their kids??? "You should have known you were going to be fired when your child was 5!"
Don't send your kids to daycare, they will be brain-washed
Exactly. And there are a lot of two parent homes that have to have two people working. This is not an issue that is all about single poor people.
"As for the real goal being child seperation. What else could it be? I already see these children more than their working parents see them. It is sad but true."
The goal is simple -- it is to PAY for all of the expenses of having children. Or maybe only families where the man earns over $50,000 a year should be allowed to have kids? Because where I live, you would be poor on anything less (poor as in: can't afford both a house and a car, much less food). Talk about class warfare ...
"How about I advocate they marry the person they had the sex with or some other suitable replacement."
What about divorce? What if your spouse dies?!?
"As for supporting welfare so they can stay with their children? Why would I do that?"
Because it will cost you a lot more tax dollars in the future when the kids are on welfare too--or in prison. Besides that, has nothing unexpected ever happened in your life? Can you tell us exactly what your economic situation will be 15 years from now? Nothing is a sure thing. No matter how much you plan, things can go wrong. A person might be making $100,000 a year today, but there is no guarantee they won't end up on welfare themselves in a few years (layoffs, bankruptcy, company sold, whatever) Then what? You just give up on those people and their kids??? "You should have known you were going to be fired when your child was 5!"Don't send your kids to daycare, they will be brain-washed Since you don't have day care, you can't work Now that you are not working, you are poor You're poor! You shouldn't have had kids!!!
Good post.
I would add a few other points in response to Trumpetman's remarks.
Some of what Trumpetman is saying is a criticism of parents who send their children to daycare. This is typical conservative crap. As a parent who has had his children in daycare or taken care of by a nanny at various times, I have heard this quite a bit from ?friends? and am very tired of it. Putting aside for a moment the question of subsidies for parents who can?t afford daycare (susidies that have been adequately supported in other posts in this thread) lets discuss stay-at-home vs. daycare generally.
It is not necessarily true that children who stay at home with a parent will do better than children in daycare. I am full of admiration for parents who stay at home (I just came off spending a year at home with our youngest child.) However, in addition to the situation of parents who must both work due to absolute economic necessity, there are also situations where parents do not want to give up their careers by staying at home for extended periods. I have seen examples of these same parents who make negative comments about daycare themselves having poor home lives because the woman is frustrated and bored. The children are not particularly well cared for, fed, exercised, or entertained and are not well-behaved. The husband, of course, does not think that this is his responsibility. The husband ends up f*cking the secretary, rather than his unhappy wife. Marriages break down and the children are further stressed. The husband may or may not pay child support. (Of course, under Trumpetman?s logic this would all be the woman?s fault, and something, because of her fault, the children should pay for). This is not just stereotype. I have seen it happen.
On the other hand, many daycares provide excellent childcare, including healthy meals and lots of exercise, as well as opportunities for socialization for the children. If they are good environments, they also provide real love and affection for the children. Some may say this is against nature and wrong. This is because they live in a 1950s mindset (the typical mindset of conservative suburban North Americans), not in appreciation of reality or history. Traditionally, even women who stayed at home had so much work (before modern conveniences came to play), that children were not raised just by their mother or father, but by the extended family or neighbourhood. As a good American woman once wrote, ?it takes a village?. Daycares are part of the modern village.
I am not saying that being a stay-at-home parent is worse. In good circumstances, where parents can afford it and one of them is happy staying home all the time, it can be just about perfect. But stop knocking daycare.
In good circumstances, where parents can afford it and one of them is happy staying home all the time, it can be just about perfect. But stop knocking daycare.
I am not saying that being a stay-at-home parent is worse. In good circumstances, where parents can afford it and one of them is happy staying home all the time, it can be just about perfect. But stop knocking daycare.
It's funny how people throw around how poor people shouldn't have kids... and why give them a crack at daycare?
The point of daycare is so they can WORK. And perhaps become LESS poor. It's funny how entitled people think they are. They figure they work harder than poorer people so they deserve to have kids.
More and more families need two parent incomes to have a decent home and necessities.
Or...DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THEM!
Now, I'd gladly pay a 10 cent tax on every item I purchase to give free abortions for anyone who asks.
Now, I'd gladly pay a 10 cent tax on every item I purchase to give free abortions for anyone who asks.
So you agree, any family in an urban area that doesn't have at least one earner making ~$50,000 should not have kids? Now, what would be reasonable for a rural area ... hmm, maybe $35,000?
Of course, it will be awfully hard to even find someone to work at Starbucks to serve you a latte in about 20 years. Given the declining birthrates it would cause, our country would soon become a province of Mexico. I guess everyone left would be a millionaire though.
So you agree, any family in an urban area that doesn't have at least one earner making ~$50,000 should not have kids? Now, what would be reasonable for a rural area ... hmm, maybe $35,000?
Of course, it will be awfully hard to even find someone to work at Starbucks to serve you a latte in about 20 years. Given the declining birthrates it would cause, our country would soon become a province of Mexico. I guess everyone left would be a millionaire though.
Don't be foolish. There are ways of getting by with low income. They have existed before daycare existed. People are just so used to handouts (and the foodstamp racket...don't get me started on that bs) that people like you assume that raising a kid in a low income household isn't possible any other way.
You might have noticed that the economy has changed since those days. The earning power of your typical bread-winner is substantially lower than it was in the days before child care; that is why there are so many two working parent families. Do you think people prefer leaving their children with day care providers?
Wait, you send your second wife or your oldest kid to work and get you the second income?
If having a child gives you $ 200,000 of lost income AND a lot of expenses (e.g. another 100-200,000 $ by the time he has completed his studies) why do you bother producing children? And talking about hundreds of thousands of $, the 10 cents make the difference for you? You shouldn't be anabled to have kids
Why do I bother producing children in spite of the costs? Because believe it or not, people had children BEFORE government day care programs. (Scary thought I know.)
Not all folks would lose as much income as we do. My wife has a college degree and was working as a jr. high school English teacher before she decided to stay home. If you take all the money we could have made during the years she has stayed home, it would total $200,000. Plenty of folks decide not to forgo it and hand their children over to day care.
As for claiming that if people worry about the costs of children when having them and thus that makes you a bad parent. You are blowing bullshit all over the place. If people worried about the costs, then we wouldn't be discussing things like government day care. If anything they should think about the costs. Likewise all western societies (including Europe and especially Spain) have had their birth rates decline dramatically as their prosperity has increased. So I am not alone in the trend of fewer children = more money.
It's funny how people throw around how poor people shouldn't have kids... and why give them a crack at daycare?
The point of daycare is so they can WORK. And perhaps become LESS poor. It's funny how entitled people think they are. They figure they work harder than poorer people so they deserve to have kids.
More and more families need two parent incomes to have a decent home and necessities.
I'll try to put a couple of these together since they are saying the same thing.
Quote:
Originally posted by james808
Exactly. And there are a lot of two parent homes that have to have two people working. This is not an issue that is all about single poor people.
Quote:
The goal is simple -- it is to PAY for all of the expenses of having children. Or maybe only families where the man earns over $50,000 a year should be allowed to have kids? Because where I live, you would be poor on anything less (poor as in: can't afford both a house and a car, much less food). Talk about class warfare ...
What about divorce? What if your spouse dies?!?
Because it will cost you a lot more tax dollars in the future when the kids are on welfare too--or in prison. Besides that, has nothing unexpected ever happened in your life? Can you tell us exactly what your economic situation will be 15 years from now? Nothing is a sure thing. No matter how much you plan, things can go wrong. A person might be making $100,000 a year today, but there is no guarantee they won't end up on welfare themselves in a few years (layoffs, bankruptcy, company sold, whatever) Then what? You just give up on those people and their kids??? "You should have known you were going to be fired when your child was 5!"Don't send your kids to daycare, they will be brain-washed Since you don't have day care, you can't work Now that you are not working, you are poor You're poor! You shouldn't have had kids!!!
First of all I contend that most people really don't have to work two jobs to get by. They choose to do so because our standards of what is "acceptable" living have changed.
When you look back at the 60's, most familiies were just considering the possibility of a new car. Most homes had one television. Likewise those homes were typically 2 bedroom, 1 bath, and about 900-100 sq ft.
Those homes still exist, are affordable in most cases but they are not considered livable in this day and age. Likewise families didn't buy new clothes for every child multiple times per year and eat out multiple times per week.
I don't say this to be callous, but rather to show we have moved well beyond needs and into wants for the majority of these cases.
A second job has additional costs, day care among them. There is the increased need for vehicles and the gas that goes in them. Higher insurance and gas costs associated with the miles driven. A second professional wardrobe, more likely to eat out, more expensive weekend trips to make the small amount of family time "special" since there is so little of it, etc. Folks should have to consider the real return on the dollar of that second job before they commit their children to someone other than themselves. Lastly if someone is doing this to earn MORE money, that doesn't deserve a government program. You should not take money from people to help other people earn even MORE money.
I go over this with people all the time. As a teacher I obviously don't earn the world's highest salary. I do well for the average person, but not well for most college educated professionals. Yet I have found a way to financially educate myself so that my wife may stay home and we still have everything we need, and most of the things we want as well. We do this by being frugal which most people don't know how to do any more.
As for things like divorce, widowers, etc. No one has said there could NEVER be an instance where someone would need government assistance via day care. We were talking about a tax that was being passed to provide pretty much universal day care.
As for what it will cost me in the future. I can tell you point blank that children in day care a high number of hours will cost me more in the future than children taken care of by a parent. The are exceptions to every rule, but I have no doubt about the general truth of that.
Have I ever had something unexpected happen in my life? Sure and I was able to pay for it because instead of living paycheck to paycheck and using this little thing called "credit" excessively, I had a rainy day fund.
So in otherwords don't ask me how would I get by without the government because I do and always have. I always will as well.
Can I tell you what my financial situation will be 15 years from now. Sure I can because I have a financial plan. There can be variables within that plan but there is a plan. The current plan calls for me to own 10 properties by the time I am 40. I am 33 and own 5 properties. I suspect that 15 years from now they will be bringing in enough additional income to give me two times the income I will be making as a teacher. Since I will be working as a teacher and so will my wife by then we will be free to invest this money to create even more wealth. If I were killed, I have enough insurance to pay off all the properties and give my wife the rents as income so she would never have to work again.
I really can't get into the discussion about why I don't depend on an employer because that is just part of why I also don't depend on the government. I expect to end up quite wealthy. The average person isn't because they don't have the same mentality. There was a time when I believed the system was what it was. I had middle class beliefs, and amazingly enough I was middle class. I grew up in a poor family, saw those beliefs and know why they kept them poor.
As for why people end up crying when their company goes up. Anytime you poor your time and effort into something that someone else controls, don't be surprised if you can end up in a bad spot. Even then that doesn't mean you have to end up that way. Kentucky Fried Chicken was started because Mr. Sanders was broke. Plenty of people start with less then nothing and end up profoundly well off. Likewise plenty of people are wealthy and end up poor from the decisions they have made. The fact that these things can happen is why we shouldn't allow the government into these scenarios. We are not like Europe in that you are just as likely to die in the class and location in which you were born.
I was born to a now twice divorced mother who happens to be an alcoholic. My biological father was/is a drug addict. My stepfather was a wife-beater and heavy drinker. (By twice divorced you can properly assume they are no longer married, even the stepfather and my mother.) My stepfather is a diesel mechanic. She was a housewife and occasionally did hair. She is now a paralegal.
So don't talk to me about who THOSE kids will come up and how they will be in prison and destroyed. I AM THOSE KIDS and came out just fine.
As for the reasoning at the end. Having children is a commitment on all levels. Certainly my wife and I could be "richer" income-wise than we were before the children. However our lives would not be richer intrinsically. There is more to life than slaving away for a boss. Plenty of families make the commitment to invest in themselves. It doesn't require an enormous salary to do this. It just requires a different set of values and being able to see the difference between want and need regarding themselves and their children.
I would add a few other points in response to Trumpetman's remarks.
Some of what Trumpetman is saying is a criticism of parents who send their children to daycare. This is typical conservative crap. As a parent who has had his children in daycare or taken care of by a nanny at various times, I have heard this quite a bit from ?friends? and am very tired of it. Putting aside for a moment the question of subsidies for parents who can?t afford daycare (susidies that have been adequately supported in other posts in this thread) lets discuss stay-at-home vs. daycare generally.
It is not necessarily true that children who stay at home with a parent will do better than children in daycare. I am full of admiration for parents who stay at home (I just came off spending a year at home with our youngest child.) However, in addition to the situation of parents who must both work due to absolute economic necessity, there are also situations where parents do not want to give up their careers by staying at home for extended periods. I have seen examples of these same parents who make negative comments about daycare themselves having poor home lives because the woman is frustrated and bored. The children are not particularly well cared for, fed, exercised, or entertained and are not well-behaved. The husband, of course, does not think that this is his responsibility. The husband ends up f*cking the secretary, rather than his unhappy wife. Marriages break down and the children are further stressed. The husband may or may not pay child support. (Of course, under Trumpetman?s logic this would all be the woman?s fault, and something, because of her fault, the children should pay for). This is not just stereotype. I have seen it happen.
On the other hand, many daycares provide excellent childcare, including healthy meals and lots of exercise, as well as opportunities for socialization for the children. If they are good environments, they also provide real love and affection for the children. Some may say this is against nature and wrong. This is because they live in a 1950s mindset (the typical mindset of conservative suburban North Americans), not in appreciation of reality or history. Traditionally, even women who stayed at home had so much work (before modern conveniences came to play), that children were not raised just by their mother or father, but by the extended family or neighbourhood. As a good American woman once wrote, ?it takes a village?. Daycares are part of the modern village.
I am not saying that being a stay-at-home parent is worse. In good circumstances, where parents can afford it and one of them is happy staying home all the time, it can be just about perfect. But stop knocking daycare.
The fact that someone can design a good day care does not mean the government should provide day care for all. Likewise think about other public endeavors and how closely government day care is likely to resemble your ideal day care scenario.
Do public schools serve nutritious meals? No they serve fast food crap. Is public housing safe? Generally no they are gang infested, drug warrens that resemble hell on earth. This is coming from a man who use to walk his students home to them.
As for the criticism of parents who send their children to day care, over staying home with them. It isn't conservative crap it is reality. Children need time and attention. If you don't care to give them it, then don't have them.
I never said a mother had to be the one to stay home with the children. (You can even find other threads where I have said it can be either parent) However if no one cares to stay home and raise them, then why have them? So they can complete the Yuppie Suburbia dream package? That is pure bullshit. Kids need a commitment, and if you aren't willing to make it, don't have them just because you have a "need" for a child while also having a "need" to leave them and have a career.
If the woman or man is sitting at home bored it is because they are boring and need to get off their fat ass. My wife finds so many free, unique and interesting things to go to that my home feels like a friggin year round summer camp. (By that I mean that I get jealous of the time she has that I do not, and I only work 180 days a year.) Museums, aquariums, etc. They are all over the place. Parks, hiking trails, crafts, etc. Any parent has to parent, not just park their but and let the TV babysit. This is true for daycare or parents alike. I just contend that day care is more likely to see it based off of what I have personally seen and since the ratio is 15-1 instead of 3,2-1 in most families.
The point is they shouldn't be expected to make the same wage if they refuse to put in the same time, effort, and dedication to the job.
I know everyone in my companies salary and beleive me, what people make and what they should make has so little to do with time, effort and dedication to the job that I'm more than happy to let some stressed out overburdened parents get over a little. BTW, you should look into Eugenics, seems to go along with your view of the world......
So you agree, any family in an urban area that doesn't have at least one earner making ~$50,000 should not have kids? Now, what would be reasonable for a rural area ... hmm, maybe $35,000?
Of course, it will be awfully hard to even find someone to work at Starbucks to serve you a latte in about 20 years. Given the declining birthrates it would cause, our country would soon become a province of Mexico. I guess everyone left would be a millionaire though.
I lived in Long Beach through 5 years of college on $7000 a year. I have no doubt that if I were working full time and earning double to triple that I could have sustained a family.
Likewise when I owned my condo, I rented it after I moved out from it. I rented it to all types of low income folks who rented it for $700-800 a month. (This was 1998-2002) I rented it to married couples, gay couples, cohabitating couples, etc. It was affordable for them and I know what they made since they had to verify their income to rent from me. Plenty of them got by on about $22-26k a year in an urban area.
Those homes still exist, are affordable in most cases but they are not considered livable in this day and age. Likewise families didn't buy new clothes for every child multiple times per year and eat out multiple times per week.
A second job has additional costs, day care among them.
Can I tell you what my financial situation will be 15 years from now. Sure I can because I have a financial plan.
I really can't get into the discussion about why I don't depend on an employer because that is just part of why I also don't depend on the government.
1) In my area, a 1000 square foot apartment costs over $1,000 a month, much less a house. A normal townhouse typically starts at around $180,000. That is affordable, for a family earning in the neighborhood of $65,000 a year. Granted, there are slums you could live in for less (if you don't value safety, or care that your kids are going to terrible schools)
2) Who would work a second job if they were losing money because of it? There is a large area in between the income of one job, and the reduced income of the second job due to child care expenses. If you would lose money by having the second job, obviously you wouldn't do it (I doubt anyone likes to PAY to work
3) Your plan could quickly be disrupted by any number of events. For instance, the real estate market could crash. There is every indication housing is overpriced in our country, and is in fact a bubble. In addition, given that you live in California, there are a number of natural disasters that could effect you financially. I assume you would be opposed to my east-coast tax dollars baling you out of a Californian earthquake when you willingly live in an unstable geological environment?
4) Your employer IS THE GOVERNMENT (public school teacher, right?). That is irony for you..
Plenty of them got by on about $22-26k a year in an urban area.
Nick
When I first moved here, my household income was $45,000 a year. The three of us lived in a 2 bedroom apartment (900 sq ft) for $980 a month with no car payments, no debt, and $150 a month for child care. We lost $50 a month until I got my first salary review, and we didn't buy anything unless we absolutely had to. There is no way a family of three could live anywhere around here for 50 miles for $22K, unless it was in a cardboard box, or they have three families in their house (which is illegal due to zoning)
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
My wife and I have decided to forgo a second income so that she may stay home with our children and give them personalized attention. To make this choice has cost us over $200,000 of lost income. However we prefer our children to have our attention instead of any adult who had taken 12 units at a community college and wandered into a day care center to earn a whole $8-9 an hour.
Wait, you send your second wife or your oldest kid to work and get you the second income?
If having a child gives you $ 200,000 of lost income AND a lot of expenses (e.g. another 100-200,000 $ by the time he has completed his studies) why do you bother producing children? And talking about hundreds of thousands of $, the 10 cents make the difference for you? You shouldn't be anabled to have kids
Do you think the states are struggling because of thier own discretionary spending?
This is how it worked here.
Free or cheap daycare equals more women in the work force equals more money in tax.
More tax > cost of day care.
Less tax on latte.
The point of daycare is so they can WORK. And perhaps become LESS poor. It's funny how entitled people think they are. They figure they work harder than poorer people so they deserve to have kids.
More and more families need two parent incomes to have a decent home and necessities.
Originally posted by trumptman
What do I advocate for single parents? How about I advocate they marry the person they had the sex with or some other suitable replacement.
--snip--
Having it with someone too irresponsible to marry, assist, etc. just makes it a worse choice.
Nick
So, do single mothers who are single through no fault of their own - like death of the husband, never married but got pregnant b/c of rape, divorce because of wife-beating, or any other of an nearly infinite set of facts that don't deal with "irresponsibility", get day-care?
What's this "other suitable replacement" thing? Do single parents have to seek out a mate at the earliest opportunity to avoid being tabbed "irresponsible?" Wouldn't seeking a mate solely for support for your child be gold digging?
Thoth
Originally posted by chu_bakka
The point of daycare is so they can WORK.
Exactly. And there are a lot of two parent homes that have to have two people working. This is not an issue that is all about single poor people.
"As for the real goal being child seperation. What else could it be? I already see these children more than their working parents see them. It is sad but true."
The goal is simple -- it is to PAY for all of the expenses of having children. Or maybe only families where the man earns over $50,000 a year should be allowed to have kids? Because where I live, you would be poor on anything less (poor as in: can't afford both a house and a car, much less food). Talk about class warfare ...
"How about I advocate they marry the person they had the sex with or some other suitable replacement."
What about divorce? What if your spouse dies?!?
"As for supporting welfare so they can stay with their children? Why would I do that?"
Because it will cost you a lot more tax dollars in the future when the kids are on welfare too--or in prison. Besides that, has nothing unexpected ever happened in your life? Can you tell us exactly what your economic situation will be 15 years from now? Nothing is a sure thing. No matter how much you plan, things can go wrong. A person might be making $100,000 a year today, but there is no guarantee they won't end up on welfare themselves in a few years (layoffs, bankruptcy, company sold, whatever) Then what? You just give up on those people and their kids??? "You should have known you were going to be fired when your child was 5!"
Originally posted by james808
Exactly. And there are a lot of two parent homes that have to have two people working. This is not an issue that is all about single poor people.
"As for the real goal being child seperation. What else could it be? I already see these children more than their working parents see them. It is sad but true."
The goal is simple -- it is to PAY for all of the expenses of having children. Or maybe only families where the man earns over $50,000 a year should be allowed to have kids? Because where I live, you would be poor on anything less (poor as in: can't afford both a house and a car, much less food). Talk about class warfare ...
"How about I advocate they marry the person they had the sex with or some other suitable replacement."
What about divorce? What if your spouse dies?!?
"As for supporting welfare so they can stay with their children? Why would I do that?"
Because it will cost you a lot more tax dollars in the future when the kids are on welfare too--or in prison. Besides that, has nothing unexpected ever happened in your life? Can you tell us exactly what your economic situation will be 15 years from now? Nothing is a sure thing. No matter how much you plan, things can go wrong. A person might be making $100,000 a year today, but there is no guarantee they won't end up on welfare themselves in a few years (layoffs, bankruptcy, company sold, whatever) Then what? You just give up on those people and their kids??? "You should have known you were going to be fired when your child was 5!"Don't send your kids to daycare, they will be brain-washed
Since you don't have day care, you can't work
Now that you are not working, you are poor
You're poor! You shouldn't have had kids!!!
Good post.
I would add a few other points in response to Trumpetman's remarks.
Some of what Trumpetman is saying is a criticism of parents who send their children to daycare. This is typical conservative crap. As a parent who has had his children in daycare or taken care of by a nanny at various times, I have heard this quite a bit from ?friends? and am very tired of it. Putting aside for a moment the question of subsidies for parents who can?t afford daycare (susidies that have been adequately supported in other posts in this thread) lets discuss stay-at-home vs. daycare generally.
It is not necessarily true that children who stay at home with a parent will do better than children in daycare. I am full of admiration for parents who stay at home (I just came off spending a year at home with our youngest child.) However, in addition to the situation of parents who must both work due to absolute economic necessity, there are also situations where parents do not want to give up their careers by staying at home for extended periods. I have seen examples of these same parents who make negative comments about daycare themselves having poor home lives because the woman is frustrated and bored. The children are not particularly well cared for, fed, exercised, or entertained and are not well-behaved. The husband, of course, does not think that this is his responsibility. The husband ends up f*cking the secretary, rather than his unhappy wife. Marriages break down and the children are further stressed. The husband may or may not pay child support. (Of course, under Trumpetman?s logic this would all be the woman?s fault, and something, because of her fault, the children should pay for). This is not just stereotype. I have seen it happen.
On the other hand, many daycares provide excellent childcare, including healthy meals and lots of exercise, as well as opportunities for socialization for the children. If they are good environments, they also provide real love and affection for the children. Some may say this is against nature and wrong. This is because they live in a 1950s mindset (the typical mindset of conservative suburban North Americans), not in appreciation of reality or history. Traditionally, even women who stayed at home had so much work (before modern conveniences came to play), that children were not raised just by their mother or father, but by the extended family or neighbourhood. As a good American woman once wrote, ?it takes a village?. Daycares are part of the modern village.
I am not saying that being a stay-at-home parent is worse. In good circumstances, where parents can afford it and one of them is happy staying home all the time, it can be just about perfect. But stop knocking daycare.
Originally posted by Chinney
In good circumstances, where parents can afford it and one of them is happy staying home all the time, it can be just about perfect. But stop knocking daycare.
Good post and agreed
Originally posted by Chinney
Good post.
I am not saying that being a stay-at-home parent is worse. In good circumstances, where parents can afford it and one of them is happy staying home all the time, it can be just about perfect. But stop knocking daycare.
I agree with James 808. Good post.
Thoth
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It's funny how people throw around how poor people shouldn't have kids... and why give them a crack at daycare?
The point of daycare is so they can WORK. And perhaps become LESS poor. It's funny how entitled people think they are. They figure they work harder than poorer people so they deserve to have kids.
More and more families need two parent incomes to have a decent home and necessities.
Or...DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THEM!
Now, I'd gladly pay a 10 cent tax on every item I purchase to give free abortions for anyone who asks.
Originally posted by BR
Or...DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THEM!
Now, I'd gladly pay a 10 cent tax on every item I purchase to give free abortions for anyone who asks.
So you agree, any family in an urban area that doesn't have at least one earner making ~$50,000 should not have kids? Now, what would be reasonable for a rural area ... hmm, maybe $35,000?
Of course, it will be awfully hard to even find someone to work at Starbucks to serve you a latte in about 20 years. Given the declining birthrates it would cause, our country would soon become a province of Mexico. I guess everyone left would be a millionaire though.
Originally posted by james808
So you agree, any family in an urban area that doesn't have at least one earner making ~$50,000 should not have kids? Now, what would be reasonable for a rural area ... hmm, maybe $35,000?
Of course, it will be awfully hard to even find someone to work at Starbucks to serve you a latte in about 20 years. Given the declining birthrates it would cause, our country would soon become a province of Mexico. I guess everyone left would be a millionaire though.
Don't be foolish. There are ways of getting by with low income. They have existed before daycare existed. People are just so used to handouts (and the foodstamp racket...don't get me started on that bs) that people like you assume that raising a kid in a low income household isn't possible any other way.
Originally posted by BR
They have existed before daycare existed.
You might have noticed that the economy has changed since those days. The earning power of your typical bread-winner is substantially lower than it was in the days before child care; that is why there are so many two working parent families. Do you think people prefer leaving their children with day care providers?
Originally posted by Giaguara
Wait, you send your second wife or your oldest kid to work and get you the second income?
If having a child gives you $ 200,000 of lost income AND a lot of expenses (e.g. another 100-200,000 $ by the time he has completed his studies) why do you bother producing children? And talking about hundreds of thousands of $, the 10 cents make the difference for you? You shouldn't be anabled to have kids
Why do I bother producing children in spite of the costs? Because believe it or not, people had children BEFORE government day care programs. (Scary thought I know.)
Not all folks would lose as much income as we do. My wife has a college degree and was working as a jr. high school English teacher before she decided to stay home. If you take all the money we could have made during the years she has stayed home, it would total $200,000. Plenty of folks decide not to forgo it and hand their children over to day care.
As for claiming that if people worry about the costs of children when having them and thus that makes you a bad parent. You are blowing bullshit all over the place. If people worried about the costs, then we wouldn't be discussing things like government day care. If anything they should think about the costs. Likewise all western societies (including Europe and especially Spain) have had their birth rates decline dramatically as their prosperity has increased. So I am not alone in the trend of fewer children = more money.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It's funny how people throw around how poor people shouldn't have kids... and why give them a crack at daycare?
The point of daycare is so they can WORK. And perhaps become LESS poor. It's funny how entitled people think they are. They figure they work harder than poorer people so they deserve to have kids.
More and more families need two parent incomes to have a decent home and necessities.
I'll try to put a couple of these together since they are saying the same thing.
Originally posted by james808
Exactly. And there are a lot of two parent homes that have to have two people working. This is not an issue that is all about single poor people.
Quote:
The goal is simple -- it is to PAY for all of the expenses of having children. Or maybe only families where the man earns over $50,000 a year should be allowed to have kids? Because where I live, you would be poor on anything less (poor as in: can't afford both a house and a car, much less food). Talk about class warfare ...
What about divorce? What if your spouse dies?!?
Because it will cost you a lot more tax dollars in the future when the kids are on welfare too--or in prison. Besides that, has nothing unexpected ever happened in your life? Can you tell us exactly what your economic situation will be 15 years from now? Nothing is a sure thing. No matter how much you plan, things can go wrong. A person might be making $100,000 a year today, but there is no guarantee they won't end up on welfare themselves in a few years (layoffs, bankruptcy, company sold, whatever) Then what? You just give up on those people and their kids??? "You should have known you were going to be fired when your child was 5!"Don't send your kids to daycare, they will be brain-washed
Since you don't have day care, you can't work
Now that you are not working, you are poor
You're poor! You shouldn't have had kids!!!
First of all I contend that most people really don't have to work two jobs to get by. They choose to do so because our standards of what is "acceptable" living have changed.
When you look back at the 60's, most familiies were just considering the possibility of a new car. Most homes had one television. Likewise those homes were typically 2 bedroom, 1 bath, and about 900-100 sq ft.
Those homes still exist, are affordable in most cases but they are not considered livable in this day and age. Likewise families didn't buy new clothes for every child multiple times per year and eat out multiple times per week.
I don't say this to be callous, but rather to show we have moved well beyond needs and into wants for the majority of these cases.
A second job has additional costs, day care among them. There is the increased need for vehicles and the gas that goes in them. Higher insurance and gas costs associated with the miles driven. A second professional wardrobe, more likely to eat out, more expensive weekend trips to make the small amount of family time "special" since there is so little of it, etc. Folks should have to consider the real return on the dollar of that second job before they commit their children to someone other than themselves. Lastly if someone is doing this to earn MORE money, that doesn't deserve a government program. You should not take money from people to help other people earn even MORE money.
I go over this with people all the time. As a teacher I obviously don't earn the world's highest salary. I do well for the average person, but not well for most college educated professionals. Yet I have found a way to financially educate myself so that my wife may stay home and we still have everything we need, and most of the things we want as well. We do this by being frugal which most people don't know how to do any more.
As for things like divorce, widowers, etc. No one has said there could NEVER be an instance where someone would need government assistance via day care. We were talking about a tax that was being passed to provide pretty much universal day care.
As for what it will cost me in the future. I can tell you point blank that children in day care a high number of hours will cost me more in the future than children taken care of by a parent. The are exceptions to every rule, but I have no doubt about the general truth of that.
Have I ever had something unexpected happen in my life? Sure and I was able to pay for it because instead of living paycheck to paycheck and using this little thing called "credit" excessively, I had a rainy day fund.
So in otherwords don't ask me how would I get by without the government because I do and always have. I always will as well.
Can I tell you what my financial situation will be 15 years from now. Sure I can because I have a financial plan. There can be variables within that plan but there is a plan. The current plan calls for me to own 10 properties by the time I am 40. I am 33 and own 5 properties. I suspect that 15 years from now they will be bringing in enough additional income to give me two times the income I will be making as a teacher. Since I will be working as a teacher and so will my wife by then we will be free to invest this money to create even more wealth. If I were killed, I have enough insurance to pay off all the properties and give my wife the rents as income so she would never have to work again.
I really can't get into the discussion about why I don't depend on an employer because that is just part of why I also don't depend on the government. I expect to end up quite wealthy. The average person isn't because they don't have the same mentality. There was a time when I believed the system was what it was. I had middle class beliefs, and amazingly enough I was middle class. I grew up in a poor family, saw those beliefs and know why they kept them poor.
As for why people end up crying when their company goes up. Anytime you poor your time and effort into something that someone else controls, don't be surprised if you can end up in a bad spot. Even then that doesn't mean you have to end up that way. Kentucky Fried Chicken was started because Mr. Sanders was broke. Plenty of people start with less then nothing and end up profoundly well off. Likewise plenty of people are wealthy and end up poor from the decisions they have made. The fact that these things can happen is why we shouldn't allow the government into these scenarios. We are not like Europe in that you are just as likely to die in the class and location in which you were born.
I was born to a now twice divorced mother who happens to be an alcoholic. My biological father was/is a drug addict. My stepfather was a wife-beater and heavy drinker. (By twice divorced you can properly assume they are no longer married, even the stepfather and my mother.) My stepfather is a diesel mechanic. She was a housewife and occasionally did hair. She is now a paralegal.
So don't talk to me about who THOSE kids will come up and how they will be in prison and destroyed. I AM THOSE KIDS and came out just fine.
As for the reasoning at the end. Having children is a commitment on all levels. Certainly my wife and I could be "richer" income-wise than we were before the children. However our lives would not be richer intrinsically. There is more to life than slaving away for a boss. Plenty of families make the commitment to invest in themselves. It doesn't require an enormous salary to do this. It just requires a different set of values and being able to see the difference between want and need regarding themselves and their children.
Nick
Originally posted by Chinney
Good post.
I would add a few other points in response to Trumpetman's remarks.
Some of what Trumpetman is saying is a criticism of parents who send their children to daycare. This is typical conservative crap. As a parent who has had his children in daycare or taken care of by a nanny at various times, I have heard this quite a bit from ?friends? and am very tired of it. Putting aside for a moment the question of subsidies for parents who can?t afford daycare (susidies that have been adequately supported in other posts in this thread) lets discuss stay-at-home vs. daycare generally.
It is not necessarily true that children who stay at home with a parent will do better than children in daycare. I am full of admiration for parents who stay at home (I just came off spending a year at home with our youngest child.) However, in addition to the situation of parents who must both work due to absolute economic necessity, there are also situations where parents do not want to give up their careers by staying at home for extended periods. I have seen examples of these same parents who make negative comments about daycare themselves having poor home lives because the woman is frustrated and bored. The children are not particularly well cared for, fed, exercised, or entertained and are not well-behaved. The husband, of course, does not think that this is his responsibility. The husband ends up f*cking the secretary, rather than his unhappy wife. Marriages break down and the children are further stressed. The husband may or may not pay child support. (Of course, under Trumpetman?s logic this would all be the woman?s fault, and something, because of her fault, the children should pay for). This is not just stereotype. I have seen it happen.
On the other hand, many daycares provide excellent childcare, including healthy meals and lots of exercise, as well as opportunities for socialization for the children. If they are good environments, they also provide real love and affection for the children. Some may say this is against nature and wrong. This is because they live in a 1950s mindset (the typical mindset of conservative suburban North Americans), not in appreciation of reality or history. Traditionally, even women who stayed at home had so much work (before modern conveniences came to play), that children were not raised just by their mother or father, but by the extended family or neighbourhood. As a good American woman once wrote, ?it takes a village?. Daycares are part of the modern village.
I am not saying that being a stay-at-home parent is worse. In good circumstances, where parents can afford it and one of them is happy staying home all the time, it can be just about perfect. But stop knocking daycare.
The fact that someone can design a good day care does not mean the government should provide day care for all. Likewise think about other public endeavors and how closely government day care is likely to resemble your ideal day care scenario.
Do public schools serve nutritious meals? No they serve fast food crap. Is public housing safe? Generally no they are gang infested, drug warrens that resemble hell on earth. This is coming from a man who use to walk his students home to them.
As for the criticism of parents who send their children to day care, over staying home with them. It isn't conservative crap it is reality. Children need time and attention. If you don't care to give them it, then don't have them.
I never said a mother had to be the one to stay home with the children. (You can even find other threads where I have said it can be either parent) However if no one cares to stay home and raise them, then why have them? So they can complete the Yuppie Suburbia dream package? That is pure bullshit. Kids need a commitment, and if you aren't willing to make it, don't have them just because you have a "need" for a child while also having a "need" to leave them and have a career.
If the woman or man is sitting at home bored it is because they are boring and need to get off their fat ass. My wife finds so many free, unique and interesting things to go to that my home feels like a friggin year round summer camp. (By that I mean that I get jealous of the time she has that I do not, and I only work 180 days a year.) Museums, aquariums, etc. They are all over the place. Parks, hiking trails, crafts, etc. Any parent has to parent, not just park their but and let the TV babysit. This is true for daycare or parents alike. I just contend that day care is more likely to see it based off of what I have personally seen and since the ratio is 15-1 instead of 3,2-1 in most families.
Nick
The point is they shouldn't be expected to make the same wage if they refuse to put in the same time, effort, and dedication to the job.
I know everyone in my companies salary and beleive me, what people make and what they should make has so little to do with time, effort and dedication to the job that I'm more than happy to let some stressed out overburdened parents get over a little. BTW, you should look into Eugenics, seems to go along with your view of the world......
Originally posted by james808
So you agree, any family in an urban area that doesn't have at least one earner making ~$50,000 should not have kids? Now, what would be reasonable for a rural area ... hmm, maybe $35,000?
Of course, it will be awfully hard to even find someone to work at Starbucks to serve you a latte in about 20 years. Given the declining birthrates it would cause, our country would soon become a province of Mexico. I guess everyone left would be a millionaire though.
I lived in Long Beach through 5 years of college on $7000 a year. I have no doubt that if I were working full time and earning double to triple that I could have sustained a family.
Likewise when I owned my condo, I rented it after I moved out from it. I rented it to all types of low income folks who rented it for $700-800 a month. (This was 1998-2002) I rented it to married couples, gay couples, cohabitating couples, etc. It was affordable for them and I know what they made since they had to verify their income to rent from me. Plenty of them got by on about $22-26k a year in an urban area.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Those homes still exist, are affordable in most cases but they are not considered livable in this day and age. Likewise families didn't buy new clothes for every child multiple times per year and eat out multiple times per week.
A second job has additional costs, day care among them.
Can I tell you what my financial situation will be 15 years from now. Sure I can because I have a financial plan.
I really can't get into the discussion about why I don't depend on an employer because that is just part of why I also don't depend on the government.
1) In my area, a 1000 square foot apartment costs over $1,000 a month, much less a house. A normal townhouse typically starts at around $180,000. That is affordable, for a family earning in the neighborhood of $65,000 a year. Granted, there are slums you could live in for less (if you don't value safety, or care that your kids are going to terrible schools)
2) Who would work a second job if they were losing money because of it? There is a large area in between the income of one job, and the reduced income of the second job due to child care expenses. If you would lose money by having the second job, obviously you wouldn't do it (I doubt anyone likes to PAY to work
3) Your plan could quickly be disrupted by any number of events. For instance, the real estate market could crash. There is every indication housing is overpriced in our country, and is in fact a bubble. In addition, given that you live in California, there are a number of natural disasters that could effect you financially. I assume you would be opposed to my east-coast tax dollars baling you out of a Californian earthquake when you willingly live in an unstable geological environment?
4) Your employer IS THE GOVERNMENT (public school teacher, right?). That is irony for you..
Originally posted by trumptman
Plenty of them got by on about $22-26k a year in an urban area.
Nick
When I first moved here, my household income was $45,000 a year. The three of us lived in a 2 bedroom apartment (900 sq ft) for $980 a month with no car payments, no debt, and $150 a month for child care. We lost $50 a month until I got my first salary review, and we didn't buy anything unless we absolutely had to. There is no way a family of three could live anywhere around here for 50 miles for $22K, unless it was in a cardboard box, or they have three families in their house (which is illegal due to zoning)