# Your views on affording more children.



## Upside (Jun 27, 2007)

I'm trying to figure out what this statement means to me right now. We're currently expecting baby #2, just as planned. I don't know at this point if I want more than 2 children, but something I hear and read often is that people say that can't afford more children. In what way? We have a 3 bedroom house, 2 bedrooms for kids, someone bunks up so I don't think we need more space. Is it the basics people can't afford, extra health and food costs? Those seem like something we could handle IF we decided on more kids.

Is it that people feel public schools aren't good and need to send their little ones to private schools? Are parents worried about paying for college? My parents were not able to help me through college but I'm fine with paying off my own student loans, so I don't feel like that's an issue for me, I'm glad they had me even though they didn't have a lot of money.

Here's what I'm really saying, I feel like middle and upper middle class parents have a certain expectation for what they need to provide for their children, and I can't figure out quite yet where I come down on this issue. It seems like if I give my kids love, warmth, food, clothes, make sure they go to school (public for us), then am I really limited by whether or not 20 years down the road i can pay for them to go to college or help them buy a house? Is the tendency to materialize our lives the real issue? I'm not sure how well I'm expressing myself, I do come down on the side of more kids, less stuff, but any thoughts?


----------



## erin_d_a (Jun 27, 2007)

Quote:

Here's what I'm really saying, I feel like middle and upper middle class parents have a certain expectation for what they need to provide for their children, and I can't figure out quite yet where I come down on this issue. It seems like if I give my kids love, warmth, food, clothes, make sure they go to school (public for us), then am I really limited by whether or not 20 years down the road i can pay for them to go to college or help them buy a house? Is the tendency to materialize our lives the real issue? I'm not sure how well I'm expressing myself, I do come down on the side of more kids, less stuff, but any thoughts?
Yeah, I get it.

I see parents who have MUCH more than we do say they can't afford more children and it boggles my mind. I can understand why parents feel they need to be able to give their children the best, and send them to great colleges, but I see parents who say they want more children, but can't afford them living in McMansions, driving Lexus SUVs etc... I think there is a balance that has to be found between the lifestyle you want and the children you want. For us, we figure as long as our children have food in their bellies, clothes on their backs and roofs over their head they are good to go. Nothing more is needed besides lots of love.

I DO know some families who truly cannot afford more children. They are living paycheck to paycheck and more children may send them over the edge. There is a difference between having to choose between a decent place to live and clothes vs having to shop at sears over Nordstroms.


----------



## elmh23 (Jul 1, 2004)

For us, it comes down to spending 4k per child for grades 1 through 8. The public schools are not options here (our local school for instance is only 2 years old but so over crowded it's ridiculous, plus the school day is way too long (9am to 4pm)) We own a 3 bedroom house and have no problem having the kids share. We also will only pay for college if we have the extra money, which I don't really see happening at this point. Dh paid for his own college and we managed to do it without loans and only one income (dh's, I was too ill to work.) We even had a baby in his last year!

But because of the cost of Catholic school, we'll probably only have 3.


----------



## SquishyKitty (Jun 10, 2005)

I think my frustration with this statement comes from people who want more children, but yet talk about having to decide whether to pay the gas bill or the water bill this month.

For me, affording kids means you have enough money to pay the bills each month, ensure they have good food and warm clothes, and health care. The college thing I'm torn on, because a lot of parents seem to feel it's not their responsibility, but DH and I have already saved a substantial amoutn for DS's college fund because we want to give him that.

I understand that things happen and it's not always feasible to wait for some families, but at the same time, my frustration is with the families who are obviously struggling, yet plan for more kids because "Babies are cheap!".

Kids don't need designer clothes, their own rooms pimped out with the biggest and best toys, or private schools and tons of sports. But, they do need stability and a reliable home. I have lots of friends who cosleep and homeschool, but they wouldn't have another baby if they were having problems paying the bills.


----------



## lanamommyphd07 (Feb 14, 2007)

I keep saying I would have kid #2 tomorrow if I could figure out a way to make it financially feasible. At 640/month for daycare, I'm still trying to figure out ways to cover all the rest of the crap in life (mortgage, etc). If I put another kiddo in daycare (b/c I'm a single mom and simply have to go to work) it would be 1280. It's just way too much for me to spend right now. (now if I could figure out a way to do psych work with a kiddo with me.......)


----------



## ChristyMarie (May 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SquishyKitty* 
I think my frustration with this statement comes from people who want more children, but yet talk about having to decide whether to pay the gas bill or the water bill this month.

For me, affording kids means you have enough money to pay the bills each month, ensure they have good food and warm clothes, and health care. The college thing I'm torn on, because a lot of parents seem to feel it's not their responsibility, but DH and I have already saved a substantial amoutn for DS's college fund because we want to give him that.

I understand that things happen and it's not always feasible to wait for some families, but at the same time, my frustration is with the families who are obviously struggling, yet plan for more kids because "Babies are cheap!".

Kids don't need designer clothes, their own rooms pimped out with the biggest and best toys, or private schools and tons of sports. But, they do need stability and a reliable home. I have lots of friends who cosleep and homeschool, but they wouldn't have another baby if they were having problems paying the bills.


Very well said.

For us waiting to "afford" it meant waiting until we could afford for me to stay home. And since I carried our health insurance, waiting to afford private health insurance, with maternity!


----------



## edamommy (Apr 6, 2004)

well, for me it's that we're not middle or upper class... we're poor. And we cannot afford to LIVE let alone have another child... and I imagine it's that way for a lot of people.


----------



## CheapPearls (Aug 7, 2007)

Our #3 was very unplanned and it's putting us in a tight spot but we can afford it with adjusting. Heck if we were having problems I wouldn't have the internet or cable (we want to get rid of cable anyway but need it for cable internet with this company.







). It all comes down to needs vs wants.

It kind of goes with the debate on if you are on WIC or welfare then choose to have another baby. If you can't afford to feed the family you have now don't add to it.

But I agree with you, I think people these days focus on more materalistic things rather then what is really needed. My kids have a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, decent clothes on their backs and great health care thanks to the US Army. That's all they need, the rest can wait until we have extra.


----------



## Brilliantmama (Sep 28, 2006)

One thing I learned from how my parents raised me was that when it comes to what your kids _need_, you find a way to afford it.

With that mindset, I really don't think that I could say that we "can't" afford another. I think that we would use handmedowns, share rooms, etc, to afford it.

I think most families would do just that, make it work.


----------



## FiddleMama (Feb 27, 2007)

We're expecting #2 also (imminently!) and we've decided that 2 is enough. We live within our means now and have hopes of providing enrichment for our children especially in the form of music lessons and travel. We know that we have the time, energy, and finances to be great parents to two children but more than that would stretch us in a lot of ways. If I weren't a SAHM, even 2 would be an impossibility. The day care costs alone would wipe us out.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I guess I'm one of the people who frustrates you. We have had just one and we've been debating long and hard about whether we can "afford" another one. And we don't literally mean afford - we knew we could afford another child in that he/she would never be hungry or not have something to wear - that kind of thing. When we say that we mean whether we can afford to buy $60 shoes for two kids instead of one, and whether we'll be able to afford the expensive Montessori preschool for another kid, airfare for four instead of three when we travel, that kind of thing. We have decided to have another child, but we want our lifestyle to stay the same, and we want to be able to give the next one what the first one has had.

I don't see why it's wrong to take that kind of thing into consideration. I certainly don't expect other people to use my criteria when choosing how many children to have. It's just about us and our family.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I guess I'm one of the people who frustrates you... We have decided to have another child, but we want our lifestyle to stay the same, and we want to be able to give the next one what the first one has had.

I don't see why it's wrong to take that kind of thing into consideration. I certainly don't expect other people to use my criteria when choosing how many children to have. It's just about us and our family.

See, I don't find what you're saying frustrating at all, because you make it clear you "don't expect other people to use (your) criteria when choosing how many children to have." I'm not frustrated when people are simply saying THEY can't afford more children, but I do get frustrated when people apply their own criteria to others.

I don't know how to put two different quotes in the same post, so I'll come back with examples.


----------



## Peony (Nov 27, 2003)

For some it's not that they really worry about affording another but worry about how their quality of life will change. I do admit that I take into consideration all the extras that I want for my children. I grew up with parents that were low middle class then, i didn't care about the shopping at thrift stores, but I did want more then anything to take one class here or there, ballet, soccer, anything. I still remember as plain as day, the many times asking if one dance class might be able to be added into the budget. I never did any sports, classes, anything that wasn't free, and I wasn't allowed to do any extra school programs because then I couldn't of taken the school bus home and they weren't going to come and get me. I don't want to enroll my DC in every program under the sun, but to be able to enroll them in one here and there if they should desire.

And the medical bills are a huge part of my decision. No matter how healthy you are, illness happens, our DD2 threw us for a loop. Our out of pocket expenses are 20 grand for this year alone, I want to be able to pay the meds and equipment my child needs/has to have that insurance refuses to cover. And there are no payment plans to be worked out when the meds are 1500.00 a dose and they require payment before shipping.

I guess my views go above and beyond a simple increase of the food, electric, water, etc... bills,







but this is important to my family and obviously everyone is different.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Here's an example of going beyond deciding what's best for _your own_ family:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SquishyKitty* 
I think my frustration with this statement comes from people who want more children, but yet talk about having to decide whether to pay the gas bill or the water bill this month...

I understand that things happen and it's not always feasible to wait for some families, but at the same time, my frustration is with the families who are obviously struggling, yet plan for more kids because "Babies are cheap!"


----------



## Upside (Jun 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I don't see why it's wrong to take that kind of thing into consideration. I certainly don't expect other people to use my criteria when choosing how many children to have. It's just about us and our family.


I certainly don't think that's wrong, and that's not the impression I want to give people. I guess what got me thinking was another post I read this morning, can't remember which, about wife wanting more kids and husband not wanting more kids. A couple of the honest mamas who wanted more expressed jealousy of a friend or relative who was having another child and couldn't really "afford it." That's what got me thinking.

Also to Edamommy, I didn't mean to sound insensitive to the families that are financially struggling. I think you're right, there are a lot of families that just plain can't afford it today, not down the road.


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

Haven't read the replies yet, but chiming in on what's making us wait for #2. We have a nice but modest house, but we live in a somewhat expensive area. I don't feel like we live extravagantly, but we do have cable/high speed internet and cell phones, and also some credit card debt we're still paying off. But we don't take vacations every year, don't eat out terribly often, buy used cars, etc.

The thing that's really weighing on me is infant care. At this point, with what my husband makes, we need my salary to make our monthly expenses. Once I start my paychecks again in September (I'm a teacher), we'll be coming out ahead, but without my pay, we wouldn't be making ends meet. I stayed at home with Lucy for the first year of her life, and I'm really grateful for that time. I would like to have the same with #2 (actually would love to stay home with them for longer), but right now, a year without my salary isn't feasible. So, the baby would have to be in infant daycare (as opposed to toddler daycare), and that's just not what I want (not to dig on any mamas who chose this route).


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Here's another example:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CheapPearls* 
It kind of goes with the debate on if you are on WIC or welfare then choose to have another baby. If you can't afford to feed the family you have now don't add to it.

I think it works both ways. Those of us who don't believe in using birth-control shouldn't "get frustrated with" those who do, and vice-versa. It's all about respecting individual choice.

I find it interesting that contraception was supposed to expand choices for everyone -- but it seems like it actually makes some feel more constricted. We now "have the choice" to control family size -- but it can feel more like a mandate to those of us who choose _not_ to take control, and to let God decide.

Another interesting by-product of this whole cultural transition, is that those of us who don't contracept are often accused of "thoughtlessly" having children -- as if "lack of family planning" were an indication that children are unimportant to us.

I realize this isn't a discussion about contraception, and am not trying to hi-jack this thread. I just think the tendency to judge for *someone else* whether they "have enough children,"

as well as the counter-tendency to judge whether *someone else* "really could afford more if they weren't so materialistic,"

are both rooted in a coercive attitude toward other people. I say, live and let live.


----------



## starry_mama (May 26, 2006)

For our family, it was only the first kid that really cost any money. We bought slings, diapers, clothes, I quit my job, etc. Each kid after him will reuse all of those slings, clothes, diapers, etc, and I'm already at home. I think me NOT working is the biggest "expense", and that won't change whether we have 1 or 10 kids.

BUT, we are having #3 this winter and we live in a 2 bedroom duplex. Since our kids are little, and co-sleep, the bedroom thing isn't a big deal. But we will have to move someplace bigger as they get bigger, and/or have more kids. So that is one things that DOES change the more kids we have, at least with our family.

But as far as health insurance goes, its the same price no matter how many kids we have. As far as schooling goes, we are homeschooling, and honestly, I do not feel we "owe" our kids a college education. We will help them anyway that we can, and take out loans, etc, if necessary, but I am not going to put my kids in day care and get a job NOW, in order to save money for college.







:


----------



## lisac77 (May 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *staceychev* 
The thing that's really weighing on me is infant care.

Yes.

In our area, the best infant care places (and could I choose anywhere else?) are $1100 per month. The price drops slightly as the kids get older. We are paying $800 a month for my son to attend Pre-K this year.

When I think about paying for another child it literally makes my head go







: . It's just incredibly expensive.

And even though we have a nice house, decent jobs, good insurance, etc., it doesn't mean we have a lot of money left over every month! We're not poor, but we're not rolling in it either, and daycare is just incredibly, incredibly expensive.


----------



## GranoLLLy-girl (Mar 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
I guess I'm one of the people who frustrates you. We have had just one and we've been debating long and hard about whether we can "afford" another one. And we don't literally mean afford - we knew we could afford another child in that he/she would never be hungry or not have something to wear - that kind of thing. When we say that we mean whether we can afford to buy $60 shoes for two kids instead of one, and whether we'll be able to afford the expensive Montessori preschool for another kid, airfare for four instead of three when we travel, that kind of thing. We have decided to have another child, but we want our lifestyle to stay the same, and we want to be able to give the next one what the first one has had.

I don't see why it's wrong to take that kind of thing into consideration. I certainly don't expect other people to use my criteria when choosing how many children to have. It's just about us and our family.

This might apply to me as well. To me education is THE most important thing--probably because my PhD is in education. So I WANT to afford to send my kids to college because I know that it will be costly by the time they are ready to go and I fear that they might think that it is too costly for them to go on loans. I am also an older mom and by the time my kids go to college, I will be retired and living off of my retirement funds. I also WANT to be able to provide my children afterschool activities if they should want them and I want to be able to afford educational experiences and options should we choose to. It IS expensive to have tutors (if they are needed) and braces for teeth and sports equipment, etc. I worked three jobs while I put myself through my undergraduate and graduate programs and I STILL had to have a loan to help me afford an apartment when I was in graduate school. I'm still paying that off!
Frankly, I think people are fooling themselves when they think that they can afford just to live for themselves--children or no children--social security as we know it will not exist when we retire (and those who are younger than me will have it even worse)...and you cannot expect your children to help you in your retirement--that type of mental insurance is not realistic.
I say be prepared for all options so that you don't find yourself in a bind. And a nice house on the outside does not mean that folks can afford anything else. Most of the people where I live would fall flat on their financial faces if one of the two working parents lost their jobs. They "appear" to be well-off, but I bet many of them are upside down on their homes and their credit cards debts are high. We don't live like this (I SAH) but I know many many who do. It's not a safe bet. Foreclosure is the name of the game around here. I don't want to live like that and worry about the what if's. I don't think that is wise whether you have children or not.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *starry_mama* 
For our family, it was only the first kid that really cost any money. We bought slings, diapers, clothes, I quit my job, etc. Each kid after him will reuse all of those slings, clothes, diapers, etc, and I'm already at home. I think me NOT working is the biggest "expense", and that won't change whether we have 1 or 10 kids.

While this can be true when kids are very young for many of us that changes as kids get older. Nursing was free, but a preteen can eat as much as an adult. Our child is now in adult shoes - they are twice as expensive as kid's shoes. Braces are medically necessary, cost $5,000 and are not covered by insurance. He plays a musical instrument and lessons are expensive. At one time anything that came from a garage sale or thrift store worked great for homeschooling, but as he's gotten older and has more specific interests it isn't as easy to find bargains. We now have more interest in going to museums and concerts rather than just going to the park for free.

Yes, music lessons, books on topics of interest, classes, and concerts are not strictly necessary in order to live, but they are things we value and are glad to provide.

I would encourage people to take a longer range view than how much babies cost because the bigger costs come as kids get older.


----------



## pumpkin (Apr 8, 2003)

For us its not about affording the day to day bills - thats never been an issue. It really comes down to affording a top-notch education.


----------



## Upside (Jun 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
While this can be true when kids are very young for many of us that changes as kids get older. Nursing was free, but a preteen can eat as much as an adult. Our child is now in adult shoes - they are twice as expensive as kid's shoes. Braces are medically necessary, cost $5,000 and are not covered by insurance. He plays a musical instrument and lessons are expensive. At one time anything that came from a garage sale or thrift store worked great for homeschooling, but as he's gotten older and has more specific interests it isn't as easy to find bargains. We now have more interest in going to museums and concerts rather than just going to the park for free.

Yes, music lessons, books on topics of interest, classes, and concerts are not strictly necessary in order to live, but they are things we value and are glad to provide.

I would encourage people to take a longer range view than how much babies cost because the bigger costs come as kids get older.

Here is some good info. Although I never felt like having a baby was cheap, I hadn't thought of braces! I was completely bucktoothed until I had mine. I think I was skipping entirely over the adolescent years to my concerns about college. Like I said in the OP, I'm still paying off my student loans but there's not a day where I've said to myself, you know I wish my parents wouldn't have had me because they couldn't pay for my college education...I don't know, I'm staying at home so we're not saving much right now, but my, I would never expect my children to support me in my retirement...What a crazy burden for my children!


----------



## 4C-mom (Jul 1, 2007)

This is something I've been thinking about, as my 2 school aged kids (we have 4) go to private school, and the cost per month is the same as our mortgage + one car payment. and we have 2 more little ones not school aged yet.

I want more kids, but at this point, affording private school for them will be tough. WE also had to buy a van with the arrival of baby #4-we only had one car, and it only had 5 seats, and we do all go places together.

Healthcare is only more expensive the in co-pay department. the monthly cost doesn't go up with the addition of more kids.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Whenever this puzzlement about folks who say they "can't afford more kids" comes up, it always seems to be from parents of very young children, in situations where there is a sahp. And I can understand that. When you've got babies and toddlers, you're so caught up in that world, and you know very well that - barring unforeseen medical conditions - babies and toddlers don't cost a family very much.

Unless both parents have to/want to work outside the home, of course, in which case, they do.

But I don't hear that kind of "puzzlement" from parents of older kids. Those folks know that shoes, clothes, sports, field trips, music lessons, food all add up. And once your kid gets to be 7 or 8, it's a lot harder to find all those barely worn thrift store clothes you could always score for the little ones.

But all this aside, I think it really comes down to what you want for your kids and what you think they need. That's going to be highly individual for each family. Technically, we could have another two kids. Sure, we could. We have the space for them in the house, and we could afford to feed them and clothe them.

But we couldn't save for college for four the way we can for the two we have. And saving for college is one of our highest financial priorities. It obviously isn't for everyone, but it's a deal-breaker for us. We can't afford more kids.

But for me, finances are almost beside the point. The main way we can't afford more kids is emotionally. Two are the most our marriage, our patience, and our mental health can stand. And I think that a lot of people who say they can't afford more kids mean it in more ways than financially.


----------



## Upside (Jun 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama* 
Whenever this puzzlement about folks who say they "can't afford more kids" comes up, it always seems to be from parents of very young children

This seems logical though, since it is common to have all your children in a 3 to 6 year time span.


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Here's another example:

I think it works both ways. Those of us who don't believe in using birth-control shouldn't "get frustrated with" those who do, and vice-versa. It's all about respecting individual choice.

I find it interesting that contraception was supposed to expand choices for everyone -- but it seems like it actually makes some feel more constricted. We now "have the choice" to control family size -- but it can feel more like a mandate to those of us who choose _not_ to take control, and to let God decide.

Another interesting by-product of this whole cultural transition, is that those of us who don't contracept are often accused of "thoughtlessly" having children -- as if "lack of family planning" were an indication that children are unimportant to us.

I realize this isn't a discussion about contraception, and am not trying to hi-jack this thread. I just think the tendency to judge for *someone else* whether they "have enough children,"

as well as the counter-tendency to judge whether *someone else* "really could afford more if they weren't so materialistic,"

are both rooted in a coercive attitude toward other people. I say, live and let live.

No doubt. And it's nice to know that now I can think about how people wish I would stop reproducing since we have WIC right now.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dnw826* 
No doubt. And it's nice to know that now I can think about how people wish I would stop reproducing since we have WIC right now.









It seems many find it hard to see others joyfully welcoming new babies, especially when those "others" are financially less well-off than many of the people who are stopping with one or two.

I think if everyone felt good about their own decisions, there's be no patronizing judgment directed at those who decide differently.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

I have to agree with Roar and Zine and others who have mentioned the cost of older children. Groceries alone make my head spin. My kids wear men's shoes and outgrow them every other month. We will be paying out of pocket for a dental retainer next year. The list goes on.

Enrichment and activities are a real issue too, I think. Its not as easy to argue that our kids do not really need these things, when they are 8 or 10, and show a real aptitude or a passionate interest in something. You WANT to feed this kind of need like you do any other need.

I know of a family who lives hand-to-mouth, who can't pay all their bills every month, who will argue that "babies are cheap," and they keep having them. And yet they also feel very depressed that their 8 yo. child shows enormous musical aptitude, and they can't afford to do a single thing to nurture it. I don't know what the answer is for them, or if hindsight even applies (who regrets a child, you know???) but I do see that as their children get older, their enthusiasm about having more is wanning.


----------



## jocelyndale (Aug 28, 2006)

I'm unable to work, so we must not only consider our child's future, but our own retirement. Our son is four months old and we're not currently planning on ever having another, though that could change.

My husband and I are both musically gifted (he much more than I), if our child shows aptitude, we absolutely will support this as much as we can. I was an athlete and while public school athletics aren't super expensive, they aren't a non-expense, either. Years of wearing crappy shoes and the ensuing health problems that come with means that I'll be keeping a close eye on my kid's shoes. I remember how fast *I* grew--I get dizzy thinking about buying new sneakers every few months.

We may not buy a larger house--our house is very small and will probably prove cramped in a few years. It would be very tight with additional children. It would be hard to afford a larger house in the town we currently live in, especially on a single income. We do want some creature comforts. Right now, it just makes sense to stick to one child.

My parents covered the portions of my college which weren't met by my scholarships. My in-laws helped my husband. I absolutely *do* want to provide a college education for my child and we're starting to work on that now.

Hand-me-downs and room sharing are fine and dandy, though if we were to have a daughter, I'd eventually want the kids to have their own rooms sometime in elementary school.

Right now, one child is all our physical and mental health can accomodate. We adore our son, but would have trouble coping with more. And we're okay with that.


----------



## mistymama (Oct 12, 2004)

For me, it means that I'm able to AFFORD to not work for a few years. I feel very strongly about being the primary caregiver for my baby the first 3 years. So I wont have any more children if that means I'm going to have to continue to work and leave them in somene else's care.

Private school is an issue for us. I'm far from rich, but went to private school myself and have experienced the difference. I want that difference for my child and I'm willing to sacrifice to give it to him.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Having read the examples, I see your point and I agree that it isn't anyone's business how many children another family chooses to have. People have children for many reasons, and as was mentioned not everyone believes in birth control. I am a strong believer in reproductive rights, and by that I mean *all* reproductive rights, including having a large number of children when you're struggling. It isn't my place or anyone else's to judge families on this issue. And as I've said a million times in my life, welfare is a small small part of the federal budget. There is so much waste in our government that dwarfs how much is spent on different kinds of assistance to families. We as a country (speaking of the US now) really need to just get over demonizing poor people for being poor.


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama* 
Whenever this puzzlement about folks who say they "can't afford more kids" comes up, it always seems to be from parents of very young children, in situations where there is a sahp. And I can understand that. When you've got babies and toddlers, you're so caught up in that world, and you know very well that - barring unforeseen medical conditions - babies and toddlers don't cost a family very much.

Unless both parents have to/want to work outside the home, of course, in which case, they do.

But I don't hear that kind of "puzzlement" from parents of older kids. Those folks know that shoes, clothes, sports, field trips, music lessons, food all add up. And once your kid gets to be 7 or 8, it's a lot harder to find all those barely worn thrift store clothes you could always score for the little ones.

But all this aside, I think it really comes down to what you want for your kids and what you think they need. That's going to be highly individual for each family. Technically, we could have another two kids. Sure, we could. We have the space for them in the house, and we could afford to feed them and clothe them.

But we couldn't save for college for four the way we can for the two we have. And saving for college is one of our highest financial priorities. It obviously isn't for everyone, but it's a deal-breaker for us. We can't afford more kids.

But for me, finances are almost beside the point. The main way we can't afford more kids is emotionally. Two are the most our marriage, our patience, and our mental health can stand. And I think that a lot of people who say they can't afford more kids mean it in more ways than financially.









: I have a 15 yo and a 2 yo and I absolutely agree with you. In my case because I waited a long time to have a 2nd child, I was quite well aware of the cost factor and that same factor will probably keep me from having #3. My eldest is entering his sophmore year of HS and I am petrified about college because I saved nothing (I was 19 when I had him) and while my family income is decent I know he probably won't get a ton of free money for college. Hell, I put myself through college and grad school, kept a 3.8 and still have 100K in student loans.

IMO when your kids are little its easy not to see the costs, but let me tell you as the Mama of a teenager, they can eat you out of house and home and its not so easy to do free stuff with a teen either. Don't even get me started on clothes, even at our 2nd hand stores near here just the other day a few items for my son and I still costs me $70 at a used store???









Though I agree about the mental piece, my 2 yo is high needs and as my dh recently said he doesn't know that he can do another child. (my son is not his) Our relationship has taken a hit from having a child who still at 2 must be held for naps, the only way we even get 1 on 1 time is because we use daycare for her. Mentally we are drained and as lovely as dd is another child like her might do us in, so money aside I am not sure we can afford more kids. I'm gonna have a college freshman and a kindergartener at the same time.







:

Shay


----------



## mommato5 (Feb 19, 2007)

I believ epeople can have as many children as they would like if they weren't so set on having a bunch of materialistic crap!

We take our kids different places. They don't fret if we can't all fly to mexico or the bahamas. We like day trips or even weekend trips. My family went on one weekend trip to Niagara Falls when I was 16. That hasn't negatively impacted my life! Growing up, my parents couldn't even afford to go to Wal-mart. It was Aldi's and Goodwill and handmedowns. I'm not in therapy over it! My parents sent us to public school *gasp*. We each had a bed and dresser with at least 2 children in each room. I didn't have a full college tuition waiting for me. My husband went to college without him or his parents paying a dime.

I understand medical gets expensive, hence why some things, you need to save for or find a good place you can do payments with. I know one day we will have kids who need braces and we are prepared for that. The only reason i will even consider those is because I have needed them and my parents never bothered. It has affected my self esteem.

Where there is a will, there is a way.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommato5* 
I believ epeople can have as many children as they would like if they weren't so set on having a bunch of materialistic crap!

Do you consider piano lessons materialistic crap?


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommato5* 
I believ epeople can have as many children as they would like if they weren't so set on having a bunch of materialistic crap!

I don't believe that a liberal arts education constitutes a bunch of materialistic crap. It's important for me to pay for as much of my kids' college education as I reasonably can. So I'm not having more kids.

I certainly respect your right to have as many children as you want and to raise them in any way you want. However, it would never occur to me to describe your choices as "crap." And I'll raise my children to have the same consideration for other's choices as I do. I guess we differ in more than our financial priorities.


----------



## 2Sweeties1Angel (Jan 30, 2006)

Quote:

I believ epeople can have as many children as they would like if they weren't so set on having a bunch of materialistic crap!
Do you consider food on the table and a roof over the head materialistic crap?


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Yeah, it isn't about materialist crap. Music lessons, sports, books, preschool, etc. There are lots of things that parents might choose to spend money on that aren't "materialist crap".

And I understand that not everyone will be able to pay for their kids' college educations, but it is important to me that we be able to provide that for any children we have.


----------



## mistymama (Oct 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommato5* 
I believ epeople can have as many children as they would like if they weren't so set on having a bunch of materialistic crap!
Where there is a will, there is a way.

Is wanting to be able to stay home with my baby materialistic? Is wanting food and shelter materialistic? Is giving my child the BEST education that I can materialistic? NO. How offensive.

Materialistic is not having more kids so I can buy new cars, clothes or a better house. We are NOT doing those things .. we live a very modest life and can not afford another child.

But oh yeah, I guess we just need to give up all this materalistic crap we have lying around!


----------



## lisac77 (May 27, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
Yeah, it isn't about materialist crap. Music lessons, sports, books, preschool, etc. There are lots of things that parents might choose to spend money on that aren't "materialist crap".

And I understand that not everyone will be able to pay for their kids' college educations, but it is important to me that we be able to provide that for any children we have.

Yeah for me it's not at all about "materialistic crap." It's about providing an enriched life. And unfortunately that costs money.

It is also important for me to pay as much as I can for DS's college. Having watched my brother and sisters struggle to pay for their college educations, and in some cases eventually drop out because they couldn't afford it any more... I never want that for him. I want him to get a good start in life as an adult.


----------



## Upside (Jun 27, 2007)

Wow, on this note I think I'll bow out of the thread I started. I certainly didn't mean to get tempers flaring. I do feel like I learned a little bit though, so thanks for the input from everyone.


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommato5* 
I believ epeople can have as many children as they would like if they weren't so set on having a bunch of materialistic crap!

We take our kids different places. They don't fret if we can't all fly to mexico or the bahamas. We like day trips or even weekend trips. My family went on one weekend trip to Niagara Falls when I was 16. That hasn't negatively impacted my life! Growing up, my parents couldn't even afford to go to Wal-mart. It was Aldi's and Goodwill and handmedowns. I'm not in therapy over it! My parents sent us to public school *gasp*. We each had a bed and dresser with at least 2 children in each room. I didn't have a full college tuition waiting for me. My husband went to college without him or his parents paying a dime.

I understand medical gets expensive, hence why some things, you need to save for or find a good place you can do payments with. I know one day we will have kids who need braces and we are prepared for that. The only reason i will even consider those is because I have needed them and my parents never bothered. It has affected my self esteem.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

True, I hear what you are saying. However as someone who grew up the way you did, it ain't an experience I wish to repeat with my own kids. By the time I was in HS, wearing 2nd hand stuff really bugged me, did I need Armani stuff? No, but it would have been nice to not always be the hand me down kid and it did impact my ability to do activties because my folks couldn't afford them. I remember having free dance lessons only to have a recital and my folks couldn't afford to get me the proper attire, what my Mom found at the thrift shop didn't cut it. I was 10 or 11 at the time and I am 34 now but I still remember the shame like yesterday.

I suppose its countless incidents like that that made me skittish about additional kids coupled with the fact that I was a young mama and had no $$ in my son's early days.

Its not about materialistic crap, but I know for a fact that had my folks had $$ so I could have pursued my dance and music in HS I probably would not have ended up being a stoner who dropped out. No, I am not in therapy about it and looking back I marvel at my folks creativity but frankly their hand to mouth existence has impacted me even as an adult. My Mom died 3 years ago and they had no $$, I had to help pay for my Mom's cremation. My Mom died early, right after my brother graduated from college, I know they figured they's have time to earn money (My Mom was a SAHM for most of my childhood) but it didn't work out that way.

Personally I don't knock anyone for the number of kids they have regardless of income source but I do know what my own personal comfort level is.

Shay


----------



## 2Sweeties1Angel (Jan 30, 2006)

Quote:

Materialistic is not having more kids so I can buy new cars, clothes or a better house.
There's nothing wrong with that, either. The world is overpopulated as it is (says me with my 3 children) and if people don't want more kids for WHATEVER reason, GOOD.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

To me, not being able to "afford" children means not being able to provide them with the basics, and I think that's a bad idea. That said...when I had ds2, I went on maternity leave, and my ex hadn't found work (he was working when I got pregnant, but lost the job a couple of months in, and it's hard to find work when you're not looking). We had a car payment (couldn't just sell the car, because it broke down the day I came home from the hospital, and required $3000 in repairs) and our rent, which left us with $125.00/month for food, utilities and phone. It could easily be said that we couldn't afford ds1, but we still wanted more kids. While my ex missed a few meals, ds1 and I never did (I was a nursing mom, so if there was enough food for one, my ex made sure I got it). We always got the rent paid, and ds1 always had clothes, shoes, etc...all second hand, but that's not an issue to me. We could afford kids, even though we were ridiculously broke.

OTOH...ds1 is now 14. He was invited to attend a Marine Science field trip in May. That gave him the opportunity to explore several marine environments, participate in lab experiments, and spend part of a day on a marine research vessel to participate in the dredging of the ocean floor. That's a once in a lifetime opportunity. My ex and I could never have come up with the fee, but dh and I could. While I have very few regrets about my financial situation when ds1 was very young, I'm awfully happy that my situation has improved enough to do a few things like this for him. Not being able to do this wouldn't mean that I couldn't afford my son...but I'm still awfully glad I _can_...and I'm not sure I'd choose to continue having kids at this point if I couldn't. Having a teenager has changed my perceptions of what constitutes a "frill". Marine science field trips aren't a necessity...but I'd no longer call them a "frill", either...


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
While this can be true when kids are very young for many of us that changes as kids get older. Nursing was free, but a preteen can eat as much as an adult.

DS1 currently eats roughly as much as dh and I combined. He's growing like a weed, and very active, and it takes a _lot_ of fuel to keep him going.


----------



## sonrisaa29 (Feb 3, 2007)

I would LOVE to have another baby, but we literally cannot afford it since we can't afford to have 2 children in daycare. Now the reason for this is because my parents couldn't afford to pay for my college and I had to work and take out loans which now have left me in debt.The same goes for my DH as well.

So we'll have to wait till our son starts K in a few years to be able to have another one and while that saddens me there isn't much I can do about it.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CheapPearls* 
Our #3 was very unplanned and it's putting us in a tight spot but we can afford it with adjusting. Heck if we were having problems I wouldn't have the internet or cable (we want to get rid of cable anyway but need it for cable internet with this company.







). It all comes down to needs vs wants.

It kind of goes with the debate on if you are on WIC or welfare then choose to have another baby. If you can't afford to feed the family you have now don't add to it.

But I agree with you, I think people these days focus on more materalistic things rather then what is really needed. My kids have a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, decent clothes on their backs and great health care thanks to the US Army. That's all they need, the rest can wait until we have extra.

Technical correction here, WIC is not welfare at all.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Do you consider piano lessons materialistic crap?

I firmly believe you can find things inexpensively if you look hard enough. Sure, you could pay $$$ for piano lessons.... or... you could find someone in the community that is willing to barter, or who loves children and loves to play piano. There are many ways to accomplish something, and they don't all take a lot of money.. just time and creativity. Something IMO many people lack these days.

I also don't think that children need to be scheduled every moment of every day with lessons here and there across town. I see friends that are spending so much money on classes, and they don't even know anything about their own kids because they never get to see them. All their free time is spent at extra curricular classes. You know.. the All American way.







:


----------



## momz3 (May 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CheapPearls* 
Our #3 was very unplanned and it's putting us in a tight spot but we can afford it with adjusting. Heck if we were having problems I wouldn't have the internet or cable (we want to get rid of cable anyway but need it for cable internet with this company.







). It all comes down to needs vs wants.

It kind of goes with the debate on if you are on WIC or welfare then choose to have another baby. If you can't afford to feed the family you have now don't add to it.

But I agree with you, I think people these days focus on more materalistic things rather then what is really needed. My kids have a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, decent clothes on their backs and great health care thanks to the US Army. That's all they need, the rest can wait until we have extra.

Yep, the army is taking care of us as well and thanks to my hard working husband , my kids have NEVER went without anything they needed.

I don't think WIC is welfare though...I'm not on it, but most (if not all) military families qualify and I KNOW they live pretty comfortable!


----------



## RainCoastMama (Oct 13, 2004)

Wow that's harsh. One person's materialistic crap is another person's bread and butter. It's all about priorities and goals.

If your goal for your children in life is to provide little beyond basic necessities (food, shelter) then power to you.

If your goal is enrichment, alternative education, college tuition, vacations, or not having your kids struggle the way you did as a child, I fail to see why judgement falls upon these people.

I find it condescending that someone would judge someone else's goals in life - be it a car that runs well, nice family dinners out, whatever - as materialistic crap and think that there's anger and bitterness behind that horrible label.

Live and let live.

As to the OP - I am one of those people who stopped at 2 children when I factored in the cost of private school education, family vacations further than a car-ride away, braces, enrichment lessons (music, dance, etc. etc.) and a nice house in a nice neighbourhood. We agreed that I could SAH for as long as I wanted to based upon our expense calculations - I actually did a rough calculation with DH. If we did have a third child, we could not do most of the above things. Would it devastate me? No. It would sadden me that I would have to give up some of the goals and lifestyle choices that I have for my current children. We ponder fertility with open eyes and an economic bottom line. I am not depriving myself by not reproducing beyond what we have and we are very happy with our decisions.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisac77* 
Yeah for me it's not at all about "materialistic crap." It's about providing an enriched life. And unfortunately that costs money.


Sorry for double posting but... Why do you think this way? I honestly do not understand why some feel that an enriched life costs money..


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RainCoastMama* 
Wow that's harsh. One person's materialistic crap is another person's bread and butter. It's all about priorities and goals.

If your goal for your children in life is to provide little beyond basic necessities (food, shelter) then power to you.

If your goal is enrichment, alternative education, college tuition, vacations, or not having your kids struggle the way you did as a child, I fail to see why judgement falls upon these people.

I find it condescending that someone would judge someone else's goals in life - be it a car that runs well, nice family dinners out, whatever - as materialistic crap and think that there's anger and bitterness behind that horrible label.

Live and let live.

As to the OP - I am one of those people who stopped at 2 children when I factored in the cost of private school education, family vacations further than a car-ride away, braces, enrichment lessons (music, dance, etc. etc.) and a nice house in a nice neighbourhood. We agreed that I could SAH for as long as I wanted to based upon our expense calculations - I actually did a rough calculation with DH. If we did have a third child, we could not do most of the above things. Would it devastate me? No. It would sadden me that I would have to give up some of the goals and lifestyle choices that I have for my current children. We ponder fertility with open eyes and an economic bottom line. I am not depriving myself by not reproducing beyond what we have and we are very happy with our decisions.

Perhaps because it sorta feels like judgement is being placed on the mamas who have more than one child, and are low or middle income. I mean, look at the way you worded your post even..

Quote:

If your goal for your children in life is to provide little beyond basic necessities (food, shelter) then power to you.

If your goal is enrichment, alternative education, college tuition, vacations, or not having your kids struggle the way you did as a child, I fail to see why judgement falls upon these people.
So much more importance is based on the second choice, and the first choice given with a shake of the head and a "power to you." You are not the first poster to have worded their post that way either, so I don't mean to pick on you. Only to point it out.

I don't think most of us feel angry at all, but perhaps a little defensive about how it seems others feel we aren't giving the best to our kids, or are making bad choices, especially with many stories of "I know a friend who has too many kids they can't afford...."

Threads like these are always filled with judgment and hurt feelings.


----------



## SquishyKitty (Jun 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommato5* 
I believ epeople can have as many children as they would like if they weren't so set on having a bunch of materialistic crap!

We take our kids different places. They don't fret if we can't all fly to mexico or the bahamas. We like day trips or even weekend trips. My family went on one weekend trip to Niagara Falls when I was 16. That hasn't negatively impacted my life! Growing up, my parents couldn't even afford to go to Wal-mart. It was Aldi's and Goodwill and handmedowns. I'm not in therapy over it! My parents sent us to public school *gasp*. We each had a bed and dresser with at least 2 children in each room. I didn't have a full college tuition waiting for me. My husband went to college without him or his parents paying a dime.

I understand medical gets expensive, hence why some things, you need to save for or find a good place you can do payments with. I know one day we will have kids who need braces and we are prepared for that. The only reason i will even consider those is because I have needed them and my parents never bothered. It has affected my self esteem.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

Food and shelter are not materialistic, and that is what a lot of people are referring to in this thread.

Furthermore, enriching your childs life with lessons is important to many people, and it is not materialistic. If DS displays an aptitude for something, I want to be able to nurture that. I don't want to see my child in debt for school, either. We have the ability to save and help him with this, so we will.

I feel that these are important things, as do many others. I'm sorry, but this was kind of offensive.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
I don't think most of us feel angry at all, but perhaps a little defensive about how it seems others feel we aren't giving the best to our kids, or are making bad choices, especially with many stories of "I know a friend who has too many kids they can't afford...."

Threads like these are always filled with judgment and hurt feelings.









I don't think that anyone has been terribly offensive here, except for Mommato5, who made the "materialistic crap" comment.

I limited the size of my family because I want to provide my children with certain things (college, music, travel) that are important to me. But I don't fault anyone for whom these are not priorities. I don't expect everyone to have the same priorities. I fully understand that bartering produce for music lessons and raising kids with the expectation that college is their own responsibility reflects some families values. Not everyone values the things I do, and I don't think they're making bad choices or giving their children less.

That's why I said (and I'll repeat it) that how many kids a family can "afford" is not going to be a cut and dried affair. It's going to be a complex calculation revolving around what we want to, need to, and can affford to give our children. Acknowledging that is not offensive, imo.


----------



## RainCoastMama (Oct 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
Perhaps because it sorta feels like judgement is being placed on the mamas who have more than one child, and are low or middle income. I mean, look at the way you worded your post even..

So much more importance is based on the second choice, and the first choice given with a shake of the head and a "power to you." You are not the first poster to have worded their post that way either, so I don't mean to pick on you. Only to point it out.

I don't think most of us feel angry at all, but perhaps a little defensive about how it seems others feel we aren't giving the best to our kids, or are making bad choices, especially with many stories of "I know a friend who has too many kids they can't afford...."

Threads like these are always filled with judgment and hurt feelings.









I agree that threads like that are always filled with judgement and hurt feelings, and around MDC, sometimes it seems that if your views on life are a little more mainstream or capitalism-firendly, you get the same sorts of prejudices thrown at you from the mamas who are uber-opposite, KWIM? A bit of defensiveness all around.

And yes, I did throw more adjectives into the second choice because it IS my choice, therefore I have more to say about it. i obviously did not choose the first way of living. I really, really DO mean power to you - having to expend more energy to find people to barter services with, etc. etc. IS a struggle to me than picking, say, a music teacher out of the phonebook. I do prefer not having to, and I see nothing inherently wrong with not having to by way of having money = choices.

I do not judge people on their lifestyle choices. I was a social worker for 7 years in the poorest postal code in Canada. I've seen happy non-materialistic families, and I've seen unhappy ones, and vice versa. It's a blanket generalization and stereotype that materialistic things cause happiness (or not) - sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. It's not black or white but infinite shades of gray. There are as many happy poor people as there are rich. It depends on SO MANY other factors.

But going into a life situation with eyes open is the only way to do it, IMHO. Nothing beats planning ahead, esp with kids involved.


----------



## mommato5 (Feb 19, 2007)

My materialistic crap comment means things like expensive name brand clothes, expensive shoes, cell phones, computers, travel, expensive cars, big expensive houses people don't need, the latest electronics, ridiculous toys, etc. Does that make more sense??

I wasn't meaning food, shelter, or utilities.

We aren't barely scraping by, but I refuse to become a person who has to have this or that in order to have a rich life. I don't want my children feeling that they are entitled to things. We provide better than our own parents, but, I don't want to raise a bunch of spoiled kids.They need to learn the value in everything we have. I do not want them growing up thinking money can buy love or happiness. People too often think that because they have money and can have a certain lifestyle above others that it makes them high and mighty and happy.

Growing up how I did has turned me into a decent person. My younger siblings who are growing up with that literal silver spoon in their mouths are inconsiderate people who expect things to just be handed to them. The differences in them and me is astounding. I've also noticed a difference in the kind of person that my mother has turned into since she started living the way she has. Family no longer matters, she matters, inconsiderate and selfish.

I can also honestly say that as our family has grown, our lives have been MUCH more enriched and happy. We actually do more now than we did years ago! Another person means one more person to love and enjoy.

It honestly irritates me when people talk about affording kids and their "lifestyle" is more important than anything. "I have to give my kid this or that" NO, you don't have to give your kid this or that. A special person is being skipped over because people want to spend thousands sending their kids to some private school or going on expensive trips. Do you think children look back and say "My parents loved me so much that they sent me to this private academy and took me to Italy" or "My parents loved me so much that they took the time to spend with me. We went to the park to feed the ducks. We went to the library. We went to these neat places and really explored our community. My parents took me to see their volunteer work". Trips and private schools don't equal love!

Lifestyles can change in one day. It can be here one day and gone the next. Your children are your children forever!

Do I make sense???


----------



## sonrisaa29 (Feb 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
Technical correction here, WIC is not welfare at all.

What would you consider WIC since its based on income levels? For me, any federal/local/state program that assists a family is welfare.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
I firmly believe you can find things inexpensively if you look hard enough. Sure, you could pay $$$ for piano lessons.... or... you could find someone in the community that is willing to barter, or who loves children and loves to play piano. There are many ways to accomplish something, and they don't all take a lot of money.. just time and creativity. Something IMO many people lack these days.

That is one way to do things and it is an okay way if it works for you. We are solidly middle class and we do some of this. I will say though I'd be happy to have the money NOT to need to barter. We have found people who are generous and have offered to help with barter arrangments and with free mentorships and I accept that help graciously but I am aware there is an element of charity to it and it is only extended because the child is unusual. I would prefer to simply pay for everything if we could because I appreciate the time and talent of teachers and I believe they deserve to be compensated.

I don't agree that there is always a way to barter for the exact thing the kid wants. If your child is a talented violinist and needs a full size instrument and there isn't someone who wants to give it to you or trade for it, you will need to pay or they won't get it. If there is only one violin teacher in town and they aren't interested in barter then you are stuck.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
I also don't think that children need to be scheduled every moment of every day with lessons here and there across town. I see friends that are spending so much money on classes, and they don't even know anything about their own kids because they never get to see them. All their free time is spent at extra curricular classes.

Obviously no one is suggesting this. It doesn't take hours every week for lessons to be very expensive. In many areas an hour of music instruction is $40. So a single hour of music lessons a year is a couple of thousand dollars, two lessons a week and that's four thousand dollars a year.

It is fine to say that music lessons aren't something our family considers important or considers a priority. But, I don't accept your giant leap that if someone else prioritizes this and their child takes a couple of lessons a week that means they "don't know anything about their kids".


----------



## lisac77 (May 27, 2005)

I have a deep and abiding problem with the mentality that depriving people of _whatever_ is the only way to make decent/happy/unselfish/insert-your-own-adjective-here adults. That can't possibly be true.

I didn't see anyone here saying that they don't understand that circumstances can change in a heartbeat. I hear them saying that they are better prepared for those situations with a smaller family.

It is not in any way wrong to want to buy nice things, however. I don't know what that is so vilified. Honoring nice things over your family? Not good. Honoring your famly while still liking nice things? In my opinion, that's OK.


----------



## RainCoastMama (Oct 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommato5* 
My materialistic crap comment means things like expensive name brand clothes, expensive shoes, cell phones, computers, travel, expensive cars, big expensive houses people don't need, the latest electronics, ridiculous toys, etc. Does that make more sense??

I wasn't meaning food, shelter, or utilities.

We aren't barely scraping by, but I refuse to become a person who has to have this or that in order to have a rich life. I don't want my children feeling that they are entitled to things. We provide better than our own parents, but, I don't want to raise a bunch of spoiled kids.They need to learn the value in everything we have. I do not want them growing up thinking money can buy love or happiness. People too often think that because they have money and can have a certain lifestyle above others that it makes them high and mighty and happy.

Growing up how I did has turned me into a decent person. My younger siblings who are growing up with that literal silver spoon in their mouths are inconsiderate people who expect things to just be handed to them. The differences in them and me is astounding. I've also noticed a difference in the kind of person that my mother has turned into since she started living the way she has. Family no longer matters, she matters, inconsiderate and selfish.

I can also honestly say that as our family has grown, our lives have been MUCH more enriched and happy. We actually do more now than we did years ago! Another person means one more person to love and enjoy.

It honestly irritates me when people talk about affording kids and their "lifestyle" is more important than anything. "I have to give my kid this or that" NO, you don't have to give your kid this or that. A special person is being skipped over because people want to spend thousands sending their kids to some private school or going on expensive trips. Do you think children look back and say "My parents loved me so much that they sent me to this private academy and took me to Italy" or "My parents loved me so much that they took the time to spend with me. We went to the park to feed the ducks. We went to the library. We went to these neat places and really explored our community. My parents took me to see their volunteer work". Trips and private schools don't equal love!

Lifestyles can change in one day. It can be here one day and gone the next. Your children are your children forever!

Do I make sense???


Your POV is clear.

However I still think that you are making an unfair blanket generalization - that rich = spoiled/uncharitable/selfish and not rich = caring/loving/etc. It may be in your situation, but it isn't in mine.

I came from a very wealthy background and had everything mentioned above: private schools, lessons, free tuition - as well as a heap of 'stuff' - growing up. BUT my parents were very AP, very loving, very involved. I did community volunteering once a week EVERY week from the time I was 11. My parents were community leaders of a social service organization. We were always taught that it was not about stuff - that was drilled home, and that living the way we did was a privilege, not a right. I chose the poorest profession ever - a social worker - and both of my sisters are teachers, one in a very poor school in the Bronx and another just got back from a village in Peru. Hardly the doom and gloom scenario you described









Oh and you know what? We went to feed ducks as kids, the library, etc. etc. ad nauseum. As a social worker, I can throw back at you that some of the materialistic-free families I worked with did NOT volunteer, did NOT feed ducks or go to the library, etc. A lot of their parents did NOT give a flying darn about them.

No one is saying that spending money diametrically inverse to expressing non-materialistic love - you are.

It's all about the values you pass onto your kids.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisac77* 
I have a deep and abiding problem with the mentality that depriving people of _whatever_ is the only way to make decent/happy/unselfish/insert-your-own-adjective-here adults. That can't possibly be true.

I agree. Intentional deprivation probably builds more resentment than character.

When parents are genuinely committed to facilitating their children's pursuit of the things that make them (the children) happy, I think those children are more likely to grow up with a desire to help others. They know they're loved, and their needs are not forgotten, and this frees them to care about someone else's needs.

When parents express the attitude that, "There are only so many pieces of pie and these crumbs are what you get," children are more likely to learn to grab what they can when they can.

But I in no way believe that being born into a big family means you get "crumbs," any more than being born into a small family does. It's all about the mindset of the parents.

If you see love and good things as pieces of a pie that, "Now you see it, now you don't" (there's only so much to go around and when it's gone, it's gone) -- well, one child is probably too many for you.

But if you believe the old saying that, "The gift of life just keeps on giving," you can have any number of children and no one's going to get stuck with "crumbs."

I only have 2 children. I'm 43 and maybe there'll be another -- but I can't count on that, so I'm certainly not knocking people with 1 or 2 kids. We're a small family and very happy. You can have a full, rich life with 1 child and you can have a full, rich life with many children.

I think the people who are truly happy with their choices, don't feel a need to knock the choices of others. If I'm happy living a simple, non-materialistic life with little in the way of extras or possessions, I certainly won't feel a need to label someone else's lifestyle choices and prized possessions as "junk."

And if I'm happy having fewer children and being able to spend more money on each individual child -- well, you get the picture, I sure won't be pointing the finger and saying, "That other couple has more kids than they can afford."

So lets all just be happy and give each other the same respect we'd like to have ourselves!


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

My daughter has lots of nice things, but I've never heard anyone call her spoiled. She's a very sweet girl, and I'm not just saying that because I'm biased.









Giving your child things doesn't make them spoiled any more than not giving children things makes them deprived. It isn't about stuff.


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

i say i can't afford more kids not due to stuff so much as the expenses as they get older. its hard paying for theater and dance for ds, who is nine, alone and now dd is at the age where she wants to stuff like that. plus i woh and another baby means another 3 months out of the workforce.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
That is one way to do things and it is an okay way if it works for you. We are solidly middle class and we do some of this. I will say though I'd be happy to have the money NOT to need to barter. We have found people who are generous and have offered to help with barter arrangments and with free mentorships and I accept that help graciously but I am aware there is an element of charity to it and it is only extended because the child is unusual. I would prefer to simply pay for everything if we could because I appreciate the time and talent of teachers and I believe they deserve to be compensated.

I don't agree that there is always a way to barter for the exact thing the kid wants. If your child is a talented violinist and needs a full size instrument and there isn't someone who wants to give it to you or trade for it, you will need to pay or they won't get it. If there is only one violin teacher in town and they aren't interested in barter then you are stuck.

Obviously no one is suggesting this. It doesn't take hours every week for lessons to be very expensive. In many areas an hour of music instruction is $40. So a single hour of music lessons a year is a couple of thousand dollars, two lessons a week and that's four thousand dollars a year.

It is fine to say that music lessons aren't something our family considers important or considers a priority. But, I don't accept your giant leap that if someone else prioritizes this and their child takes a couple of lessons a week that means they "don't know anything about their kids".

I said nothing about a couple hours a week. I said, every moment of every day.. and I literally meant that. My daughter is one of those children who is over scheduled because its how her father runs her life. I disagree with that way of parenting. I didn't disagree on an hour of piano lessons.

However, I still maintain that I do believe there is a way to everything. Maybe there is only one violin teacher, but there are other ways to begin learning that don't involve formal classes. There is craigslist and a million other places to begin looking for a used violin. I don't think the answer is as simple as "My daughter wants to learn violin, therefore I must get her a teacher for lessons and a new violin."









So perhaps the way you choose to do it is expensive, but that doesn't mean there are not less expensive ways to go about enriching your child. KWIM? And what I see a lot of people saying is that in order for my child to be enriched and learn these extra things, it costs a lot of money that I don't have. And what I'm saying is.. I don't believe that to be true. I believe you can do a lot on a little, its all in how you view things.

And yes, in case anyone doesn't know by now.. LOL I come from a very poor family. We couldn't afford clothes at Sears or Ames, let alone the mall. Every single article of clothing came from a secondhand store. Every toy and every book, same thing. Even christmas presents. And there was never any moments of shame, or feeling deprived at all. I grew up happy and loved. And that is how I've chosen to raise my children.

If we fell into millions of dollars tomorrow, it wouldn't change how I spend it. I would still buy very little, and find ways to do things for less.

And yet I now hear this being called "intentional deprivation" ?







I honestly don't think that not buying brand name clothes, 10 pairs of sneakers to match every outfit, or letting my children take more than one extra curricular activity at a time can be labeled as deprivation.


----------



## thebarkingbird (Dec 2, 2005)

it irritates me when people fail to see the difference between "we can or cannot afford another child" and "we can't afford another child while maintaining our perfered lifestyle" the difference there is HUGE! it also bothers me when people fail to see this difference and feel tortured about not having more children when they simply cannot see that the things they need would be available and honestly decide weather maintaining a lifestyle or having more children is more important. i don't think coming down on any one side of that debate is better/morally right but i do think it's sad when people feel so trapped by imaginary needs that they're incapable of seeing all their real options and deciding from there.


----------



## RainCoastMama (Oct 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thebarkingbird* 
i do think it's sad when people feel so trapped by imaginary needs that they're incapable of seeing all their real options and deciding from there.

It's really sad to still see people so condescending towards ANYONE's parenting choices. Imaginary needs? Again, wow.

Choosing your - and your family's - lifestyle when choosing the number of kids is IMO NOT an 'imaginary need'. I call it being responsible and accountable to your own standards.


----------



## thebarkingbird (Dec 2, 2005)

Quote:

it also bothers me when people fail to see this difference and feel tortured about not having more children when they simply cannot see that the things they need would be available and honestly decide weather maintaining a lifestyle or having more children is more important.
no judgment here. i just do see alot of people who have been sucked into alot of people who can't seem to feel good about their decision. that bugs me. people need food and water and something to keep the elements out. everything else is gravy. every parent decides how much they want to give their kids and really i could care less how much that is. really. none of my business. i have seen wonderful people come from homes where everyone had college paid for and private therapy and were on the equestrian team. i've also seen really cool people come from families w/ 10 kids where the girls made most of their own clothes. the choices people make isn't my beef. i just don't like to hear people sad that they can't afford something they identify as a need which is really a luxury. i won't have another baby before i finish my masters. getting an advanced degree isn't a need but it's important to me and i ought to have it. i'm not ashamed nor should anyone be for desiring a comfortable life for their family.

i totally support being accountable to ones own standards. i just don't like it when people confuse their own standards with basic human needs.


----------



## bdavis337 (Jan 7, 2005)

To the PP who said "babies are cheap" - they can be. But older children, they cost more! We just had baby #3. I formula supplement for low supply, that's pricey itself. We had to buy more cloth diapers, b/c my toddler isn't potty trained yet. My oldest needed pricier school supplies this year, my hospital birth co-pay is over $1000................

it adds up.


----------



## SquishyKitty (Jun 10, 2005)

I have to agree with the PP who stated that there's as much, if not more, judgement going towards those who want to maintain a certain standard of living (for us, it's not about the latest "Stuff", more about what we are able to do, we love to travel, not just day trips) then to those who sacrifice and deprive themselves for the sake of having another child.

The materialistic crap comment is pretty rude, and I don't understand why it's okay for somebody to say that here, yet everybody gets all up in arms when somebody else posts that they are frustrated by people who complain they can't pay the bills, yet talk about TTC.


----------



## RainCoastMama (Oct 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thebarkingbird* 

i totally support being accountable to ones own standards. i just don't like it when people confuse their own standards with basic human needs.

Hmmm...I reread the thread...where was this done?







I doubt many on here would equate paying a kid's college tuition with, say, 3 squares a day..


----------



## thebarkingbird (Dec 2, 2005)

i wasn't addressing anyone here. the original question was about ones opinions on the concept of affording more kids. i was keeping it pretty theoretical. i actually have a IRL friend who is constantly sad that she can't have another baby until her car and house are completely paid off and she's invested money. i think it's a bit silly as she has literally cried over how much she wants another baby and i still wouldn't tell her she'd made a bad choice. it's not my business. i was under the impression we were talking about hypothetical people having hypothetical children who might hypothetically want to go to college.


----------



## missys__mom (Sep 14, 2006)

what about a family living on ssi and disability, alarming credit card debt, taking advantage of food pantries and free lunch at school, trying to get food stamps, with three children and wanting more. can they afford more kids?


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"A special person is being skipped over because people want to spend thousands sending their kids to some private school or going on expensive trips."

Using this logic -- do you expect everyone to have as many children as they can possibly give birth to? Each period is a missed "special person" based on this position.

And for the anti-contraceptive folks -- is abstinence not permitted? The arguments that are made always seem to ignore that option.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
However, I still maintain that I do believe there is a way to everything. Maybe there is only one violin teacher, but there are other ways to begin learning that don't involve formal classes. There is craigslist and a million other places to begin looking for a used violin. I don't think the answer is as simple as "My daughter wants to learn violin, therefore I must get her a teacher for lessons and a new violin."









Right, when your kid is in the first year it may do to find a high school student. For students with advanced abilities who have been playing for years, no that isn't going to cut it. Again, it is totally great if you enjoy begging and bartering to do so. I consider both of those a form of labor I don't particularly enjoy. I'd prefer to be able to offer my child lessons with a qualified professional teacher of their choice. I think it is silly to pretend in this culture that a lot of things don't require money to pay for them. That isn't to say it should be the thing you value most, but I don't see why we need to pretend that it has no value.

Along the same lines I could get my child's braces at the dental school for 2/3 of the price. It is already hard enough to have braces and I prefer not to put him through that. And, yes, that is one of the reasons why we have fewer kids.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Right, when your kid is in the first year it may do to find a high school student. For students with advanced abilities who have been playing for years, no that isn't going to cut it. Again, it is totally great if you enjoy begging and bartering to do so. I consider both of those a form of labor I don't particularly enjoy. I'd prefer to be able to offer my child lessons with a qualified professional teacher of their choice. I think it is silly to pretend in this culture that a lot of things don't require money to pay for them. That isn't to say it should be the thing you value most, but I don't see why we need to pretend that it has no value.

Along the same lines I could get my child's braces at the dental school for 2/3 of the price. It is already hard enough to have braces and I prefer not to put him through that. And, yes, that is one of the reasons why we have fewer kids.

Such loaded words.. _begging?_









I don't believe its silly. I honestly do believe and have found that there is a way to get what you need, and even what you want if you look outside the box. Again, you've stated that you don't want to take the time to look. You'd rather just pay the money to do something. And I understand that. Heck, I have an ex husband that thinks exactly like that. I don't agree, but its not my money he's spending.

I do wonder what kind of message it sends to children though... that having lots of money is always better? to have fun and be enriched you need to *BE* rich? That only the best things are good enough for them? That people with less money are below them and in need of "charity." Or maybe just looked down on instead? It seems a horribly materialistic way to live to me. I honestly just can't imagine living that way.

In this world though, I realize that many people do and can't imagine living how I live.

Quote:

what about a family living on ssi and disability, alarming credit card debt, taking advantage of food pantries and free lunch at school, trying to get food stamps, with three children and wanting more. can they afford more kids?

I'm sure you'll find this is a whole argument in itself here on MDC. The poverty and low income mamas don't deserve kids thread most likely.

I don't have any credit card debt, but we are both on disability, food stamps, and do use the food pantry. We're also expecting our fourth baby in Feb and couldn't be happier.


----------



## mamaduck (Mar 6, 2002)

As a kid I was supplied with bartered piano lessons. My lessons were irregular, my teachers were very nice, but incompetent, and changed so frequently that there was little or no consistant methodology. My parents can say with honesty that they supplied me with 5-6 years of piano lessons at no cost -- but I hated it, I was confused all the time, and I can't play. Watching my own children learn an instrument with a consistant qualified teacher who can articulate his approach and methodology has made me realize that I'd have been better off with no lessons at all.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
If we fell into millions of dollars tomorrow, it wouldn't change how I spend it. I would still buy very little, and find ways to do things for less.

And yet I now hear this being called "intentional deprivation" ?







I honestly don't think that not buying brand name clothes, 10 pairs of sneakers to match every outfit, or letting my children take more than one extra curricular activity at a time can be labeled as deprivation.

I think I'm the only one who used the words "intentional deprivation." And no, I wasn't defining it as "intentional deprivation" to not buy brand name clothes, and so on and so on.

If you re-read my post, you'll see it was a response to the idea that withholding things from our kids will somehow make them better people.

As far as still living the way I now live if I had millions of dollars -- well, there's honestly lots I'd do differently if I had no financial limits. But it's not necessarily deprivation if you have millions, and still choose to live the way you live now, as long as your children are also making this choice, and are happy, nurtured, and loved.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *missys__mom* 
what about a family living on ssi and disability, alarming credit card debt, taking advantage of food pantries and free lunch at school, trying to get food stamps, with three children and wanting more. can they afford more kids?

If they think they can, they can. Criticizing them is no different, and just as intrusive, as criticizing couples who stop with 1 or 2 to maintain a higher standard of living. It's not up to you or me to make this decision for other people.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
And for the anti-contraceptive folks -- is abstinence not permitted? The arguments that are made always seem to ignore that option.

Sure, if we _choose_ to abstain, then it's certainly permitted. I think the reason that option "gets ignored," is that most people don't choose to take it. I've got no desire to give up sex, but thanks for reminding me it's an option if I ever feel the urge.


----------



## Quinalla (May 23, 2005)

There are definitely some folks who really can't afford another child. Where they are barely making ends meet with the child(ren) they currently have and another could tip the scales.

But yes, there are those who could easily afford more children with lifestyle changes. Some folks do want to provide a certain amount for each child above and beyond what is needed and others want something for the whole family or themselves. Whether that is being able to spend on more frivolous items/activities, early retirement, lots of savings, etc. And I see nothing wrong with any of this, but there is a big difference between "Can't afford (without lifestyle changes)." and "Can't afford (period)."


----------



## bczmama (Jan 30, 2006)

"I find it interesting that contraception was supposed to expand choices for everyone -- but it seems like it actually makes some feel more constricted. We now "have the choice" to control family size -- but it can feel more like a mandate to those of us who choose not to take control, and to let God decide."

This was what wasn't ringing true to me, since the choice to abstain (I thought) was and is a legitimate option for anti-contraceptive families.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
"I find it interesting that contraception was supposed to expand choices for everyone -- but it seems like it actually makes some feel more constricted. We now "have the choice" to control family size -- but it can feel more like a mandate to those of us who choose not to take control, and to let God decide."

This was what wasn't ringing true to me, since the choice to abstain (I thought) was and is a legitimate option for anti-contraceptive families.

It's a legitimate option, but it isn't a realistic option.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

Well we want to help with school someday and pay for activities like Karate and music. I feel that if we had more kids its would only be cheating the kids we have out of things that they would have had. We really can't afford more though, we are on Medicaid and if we wanted could qualify for food stamps. Bringing more kids into the world whes we are already on welfare isn't a good idea.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bczmama* 
"I find it interesting that contraception was supposed to expand choices for everyone -- but it seems like it actually makes some feel more constricted. We now "have the choice" to control family size -- but it can feel more like a mandate to those of us who choose not to take control, and to let God decide."

This was what wasn't ringing true to me, since the choice to abstain (I thought) was and is a legitimate option for anti-contraceptive families.

How does what I said "not ring true?" Abstinence is certainly an option, if anyone wants to go that route. But what does that have to do with what I said? Some of us choose _not_ to control family size -- and your comment seems to simply be another criticism of this choice.

Abstinence may not technically be contraception, but it's still a means of controlling family size, is it not? It's theoretically an "option" (as are bc pills, depo-shots, condoms, and the like), but it would be hard on many marriages. That's why I call it a "theoretical" option, because I don't think many couples would see it as viable.

Again, I don't see what that has to do with what I said. I was referring to how the advent of more effective contraceptive methods was supposed to "free" women. Now it almost sounds like you're saying, "If you don't want to contracept, maybe you should quit having sex."

No, you didn't literally say that. But if that's not what you meant, what did you mean?


----------



## GinaNY (Aug 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GranoLLLy-girl* 
This might apply to me as well. To me education is THE most important thing--probably because my PhD is in education. So I WANT to afford to send my kids to college because I know that it will be costly by the time they are ready to go and I fear that they might think that it is too costly for them to go on loans. I am also an older mom and by the time my kids go to college, I will be retired and living off of my retirement funds. I also WANT to be able to provide my children afterschool activities if they should want them and I want to be able to afford educational experiences and options should we choose to. It IS expensive to have tutors (if they are needed) and braces for teeth and sports equipment, etc. I worked three jobs while I put myself through my undergraduate and graduate programs and I STILL had to have a loan to help me afford an apartment when I was in graduate school. I'm still paying that off!
Frankly, I think people are fooling themselves when they think that they can afford just to live for themselves--children or no children--social security as we know it will not exist when we retire (and those who are younger than me will have it even worse)...and you cannot expect your children to help you in your retirement--that type of mental insurance is not realistic.
I say be prepared for all options so that you don't find yourself in a bind. And a nice house on the outside does not mean that folks can afford anything else. Most of the people where I live would fall flat on their financial faces if one of the two working parents lost their jobs. They "appear" to be well-off, but I bet many of them are upside down on their homes and their credit cards debts are high. We don't live like this (I SAH) but I know many many who do. It's not a safe bet. Foreclosure is the name of the game around here. I don't want to live like that and worry about the what if's. I don't think that is wise whether you have children or not.

Well said. I saw my parents struggle horribly and we were just a family of five. I always felt so guilty and still do. I always looked longingly at the kids who could go to extra activities and lessons. My mom & dad worked their a** off for us and it is so sad that they have never been able to do things for themselves. They were always too tired. It's not just about money, it's also energy. When my dad lost his job we did fall flat on our faces.

I am a big fan of thrift shops and craigslist. I believe in quality over quantity. I don't want to HAVE to shop at walmart. (I don't shop at Nordstromes either). I just don't want my children to carry MY burden like I do with mine. I ALWAYS worry if they're ok. On special occasions, I tend to give gift certificates so that they can put it towards appliances or stuff they need. It's never just something for them to enjoy. It is possible to provide the NEEDS, but I want to be able to do more than that, I don't want to just get through it. Sure my parents are happy enough, but watching their eyes light up when we do something extra is priceless.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
Such loaded words.. _begging?_









I don't believe its silly. I honestly do believe and have found that there is a way to get what you need, and even what you want if you look outside the box. Again, you've stated that you don't want to take the time to look. You'd rather just pay the money to do something. And I understand that. Heck, I have an ex husband that thinks exactly like that. I don't agree, but its not my money he's spending.

If you carefully read my earlier post you will see that I said we have worked out such arrangements. I recognize though that there is an element of charity to it. The teachers would rather be paid cash but have willingly bent because they want to help our child and our family. They've got families to support and bills to pay and I value their time and experience and would prefer to pay outright. I don't particularly enjoy the feeling that I'm not paying my full share. And, I recognize that in these sorts of arrangements it may mean you don't get the teacher or program that would be best for them.

My other point which I didn't explain in detail is that labor is labor. I don't understand why you consider it morally superior for a person to use their labor to fix the piano teacher's computer in trade for lessons rather than fixing someone else's computer and then using money to pay for the lessons. Fixing a computer is fixing a computer. Bartering doesn't mean the labor disappears, it may just mean that it has less value.

I'm sure there is always a way to get something for less. Like I said we could be getting braces through the dental school. I have no problem sending my child the message that his dental health is important enough that we make it a priority to get him professional care instead.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
I do wonder what kind of message it sends to children though... that having lots of money is always better? to have fun and be enriched you need to *BE* rich? That only the best things are good enough for them? That people with less money are below them and in need of "charity." Or maybe just looked down on instead? It seems a horribly materialistic way to live to me. I honestly just can't imagine living that way.

Living what way - the way where you pay the piano teacher what she deserves to be paid? How does planning the number of children that allows you to afford lessons and braces teach children something negative?

We don't live in a "horribly materialistic way". 99% of my clothes come from the thrift, we swap books, we garden for veggies, etc. Education is our family priority and we do put money into lessons, books, tuition. I don't find that to be materialistic.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamazee* 
It's a legitimate option, but it isn't a realistic option.

And yet it is proposed as realistic for teenagers all the time...


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommato5* 
Do you think children look back and say "My parents loved me so much that they sent me to this private academy and took me to Italy" or "My parents loved me so much that they took the time to spend with me. We went to the park to feed the ducks. We went to the library. We went to these neat places and really explored our community. My parents took me to see their volunteer work". Trips and private schools don't equal love!

These two options are not mutually exclusive, you know.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
And yet it is proposed as realistic for teenagers all the time...

I don't personally think it's realistic there either, but it's particularly not realistic for adults who are in a romantic relationship, have a sexual relationship, are living with each other, and are likely sleeping in the same bed each night.


----------



## Sonnenwende (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GinaNY* 
It is possible to provide the NEEDS, but I want to be able to do more than that, I don't want to just get through it.

Yeah, that.

Nope, not going to go out with my "extra" income and buy the biggest McMansion and SUV on the block. I don't care about that crap. However, I do want to afford at least one trip a year back to Germany for my husband and daughter, be able to support local farmers and buy organic/fair trade frequently, buy a nice day sailer, pay in cash for high quality things in my home, be able to retire early or on time. Having more kids would make each one of those goals harder to meet. I am not interested in making things harder on myself.

Could I afford to have more kids? Maybe, but it would require more sacrifice than I am willing to make for myself and my family as it exists now. That is the bottom line.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
I'm sure there is always a way to get something for less. Like I said we could be getting braces through the dental school. I have no problem sending my child the message that his dental health is important enough that we make it a priority to get him professional care instead.


So, if I choose to have my child get braces through a dental school.. that means that I don't believe their dental health is important, or a priority?

Interesting..

Certainly seems to me that you believe money talks, and thats that.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thebarkingbird* 
it irritates me when people fail to see the difference between "we can or cannot afford another child" and "we can't afford another child while maintaining our perfered lifestyle" the difference there is HUGE! it also bothers me when people fail to see this difference and feel tortured about not having more children when they simply cannot see that the things they need would be available and honestly decide weather maintaining a lifestyle or having more children is more important. i don't think coming down on any one side of that debate is better/morally right but i do think it's sad when people feel so trapped by imaginary needs that they're incapable of seeing all their real options and deciding from there.

Why do you think people don't know the difference? I think most people do, and choose to limit their family to their comfort level accordingly.

Not everyone thinks having more children is a good decision for their family.


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
So, if I choose to have my child get braces through a dental school.. that means that I don't believe their dental health is important, or a priority?

I have no idea what that decision would mean for you. I don't know you or your situation.

What it would mean for me is that I'm choosing to put saving money over my child's comfort and health. He has difficulty with dental treatments (due to apparently terrible genetics and anxiety) and my goal is to get him the best treatment I can with as little pain from him as possible.

I am fully admitting a certain set of values that probably most of us reading here have. I don't want to sell plasma or wonder how we will have enough food to make it through the week. I enjoy seeing my child happy because he gets to learn music and I anticipate he'll be happy as an adult that he can chew without being in pain. I feel fortunate I was able to make a set of decisions that has allowed me to give my child these sorts of life enriching things that I value. I recognize that I could be hit by a bus and that could all go away tomorrow because there are no guarantees and I will gratefully accept help at that point. But, I set out with the best intentions to accomplish this set of goals and I am. I am not saying you should have the same ones.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
Certainly seems to me that you believe money talks, and thats that.

I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. When our kid needed dental care we found that yes providers expected to be paid for that care. That seems to be the general requirement in the United States and I'm not sure why we are supposed to pretend that isn't true because some people have less money. If anything, I think it would be more appropriate to acknowledge that it is true and push for a reform to an acknowledgment that medical care including dental care should be a basic right guaranteed to all.


----------



## RoadBuddy (May 19, 2005)

I think the issue is with the phrase "can't afford". I have one DS, and would like maybe 2-3 children. IF I had mmore money and an agreeable DH, I'd like maybe 4-5. Yes, I *could* afford 4-5 kids on our current income. However, it would require sacrifices I'm not comfortable with. Others may feel differently, and as long as the child is fed and loved, that's fine. And if a fourth child was dropped in my lap, I'd make it work, but that's not my plan.

As far as college education, parents of dependent students making a certain amount HAVE to pay a portion. It's the expected family contribution (government term). So if my kids go to college (and I hope they do), I will need to pay some part. I'd like to pay for more, if possible, but that's above and beyond the required. I would also like them to go to the college of their choice, be it Harvard or the local community college. I would prefer money not get in the way of their educational ambition, whatever it may be. That doesn't mean I need 4 years Harvard tuition in the bank for each child (not gonna happen!), but I do need some college savings per child. The rest can be loans in their name, grants, financial aid, whatever.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

I think there is some confusion on this thread.

When people like me, Roar, Choli, Shay, etc (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting any of you) say we can't afford more children while maintaining the lifestyle we want and giving our children certain things, I think some people read that as, we really *want* more children, but, blinded by the need to live a certain way, we're forgoing them. And that if only we'd give some up some of our desires, we could have those kids.

But I don't think any of us want more children. We want the number of kids we have, and we want the lifestyle we have. At least, that's the way I feel. Yeah, I couldn't afford to give 5 kids the things I can give two. But I don't want 5 in the first place.


----------



## SquishyKitty (Jun 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama* 
I think there is some confusion on this thread.

When people like me, Roar, Choli, Shay, etc (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting any of you) say we can't afford more children while maintaining the lifestyle we want and giving our children certain things, I think some people read that as, we really *want* more children, but, blinded by the need to live a certain way, we're forgoing them. And that if only we'd give some up some of our desires, we could have those kids.

But I don't think any of us want more children. We want the number of kids we have, and we want the lifestyle we have. At least, that's the way I feel. Yeah, I couldn't afford to give 5 kids the things I can give two. But I don't want 5 in the first place.

I agree with this.


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaduck* 

I know of a family who lives hand-to-mouth, who can't pay all their bills every month, who will argue that "babies are cheap," and they keep having them. And yet they also feel very depressed that their 8 yo. child shows enormous musical aptitude, and they can't afford to do a single thing to nurture it.

Tangent, but I know a lot of singers in this situation. Usually they would join honors choir at school, get scholarships to music camp in the summer as voice majors, scrape together enough and/ or barter for voice lessons starting at age 16, and then get scholarships to music school as a voice major. Even the super-rich don't start voice lessons until high school, because they have to wait for their voices to mature; so the playing field is relatively level for singers.


----------



## Juliacat (May 8, 2002)

We have one child and we are not materialistic AT ALL, as in, our house is the size of some people's living rooms, we drive a small sedan, and we rarely buy anything but food. Even so, I don't think we could afford more children without lifestyle changes we are unwilling to make. We would HAVE to buy a bigger house, first of all. This one barely holds all three of us as it is. I would have to pay the midwives somehow. There is no way we could afford daycare for two kids, so I would be forced to stay at home, thus being unable to earn any money for quite some time. We would probably be able to feed and house them, but there'd be no emergency savings account, no retirement savings, no college savings. Possibly no health insurance. I can't live like that.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

I definately think people expectations and idea of how "deprivation" is defined are very different in the States.

My dh survived the famines and civil war in Ethiopia, so to him, not learning to play piano is _not_ deprivation.







Neither is having to work your way through college. Going by most people's standards, we can't afford to be married, let alone have three children. But none of us are suffering, and we won't if we have more children. No, we're not going to be able to shell out 100K (or whatever college costs in twenty years) for each of them, but we wouldn't if we had it. We will help financially, and they will be welcome to live with us and start off with state schools for their first years, to be able to save money while they go to school.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

Now the reason for this is because my parents couldn't afford to pay for my college and I had to work and take out loans which now have left me in debt.The same goes for my DH as well
You could have not gone to college. Or worked for several years before you went to college so that you could pay for it. Went to a cheaper community college for two years first and then transferred to a 4 year one. Joined the military so they could pay for college.

I'm not seeing where you being in debt is because your parents didn't pay for your college (which is your expense if you choose to go, not theirs).


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Juliacat* 
We would probably be able to feed and house them, but there'd be no emergency savings account, no retirement savings, no college savings. Possibly no health insurance. I can't live like that.

I think thats really the difference. For many, perhaps most of you... living with things like this (retirement, savings, college savings, etc) is a necessity and you can't imagine not having it. For others, like me... those are things we've never had and so therefore, don't put much importance on personally. Some people simply don't have the money to have things like that, and choose not to put their life and children on hold until they get it.

Necessities to me are literally food, shelter, clothing. Everything else is an extra.

I guess some people just have a very different standard of living. I know I can't imagine going out to eat more than once a month, yet I know some people do it daily or at least weekly. To me thats an enormous amount of money for that. Because in comparison...it IS an enormous amount of our monthly income. Someone mentioned violin lessons averaging to what.. three thousand a year I think was said? Thats three months income for me. No way would I be able to sink that amount of money towards lessons of any kind. So there are other ways. We find them, and have no problem utilizing them.

I guess my problem is.. we're supposed to accept that if you have the money to spend it on things, than you should be allowed to live how you want. Fine. I do accept that. But then the argument is, that people that don't have enough money keep having kids. Having enough money is relative. It really is. With my three things I listed as the important things, that actually leaves quite a bit left over. But my quite a bit would seem like a very tiny amount to most of you. It all comes down to what YOU think are YOUR priorities and having enough money for that, but not coming down on others who don't have those same priorities, or who have alternate means of meeting goals that don't take a lot of money.

Honestly, I am glad that I can barter and "beg" as the word was used. I know there are people out there that want to help, not just because we're a charity case. I see nothing wrong with utilizing those in your community, nor do I think the quality you get is inferior just because less cash or no cash was exchanged for it. Personally, thats where things get hurtful in this thread. Judgments get placed on peoples values, and it sucks no matter who is judging whom.

Also, I'm coming from a very different place growing up. I was poor. Always had second hand things. But in contrast to many of you, I never felt second rate. I never felt ashamed. I never felt the poverty I was in, *ever.* So I don't see how I grew up so horribly simply because we had little money. So the reason of, not wanting to struggle because of going through it as a child etc.. to me, just doesn't have a voice because I had the opposite experience. I respect that our childhoods were experienced in vastly different ways and no doubt that has colored our parenting.


----------



## Starr (Mar 16, 2005)

FOr us having more children really does come down to cost. Adoption is not cheap and we still are, and will be, paying on Olivia's adoption loan. And then there is health insurance. Right now she is under my policy and it is $200 a month just for her. Now double that and double day care costs...


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama* 
I think there is some confusion on this thread.

When people like me, Roar, Choli, Shay, etc (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting any of you) say we can't afford more children while maintaining the lifestyle we want and giving our children certain things, I think some people read that as, we really *want* more children, but, blinded by the need to live a certain way, we're forgoing them. And that if only we'd give some up some of our desires, we could have those kids.

But I don't think any of us want more children. We want the number of kids we have, and we want the lifestyle we have. At least, that's the way I feel. Yeah, I couldn't afford to give 5 kids the things I can give two. But I don't want 5 in the first place.

Yep, you pretty much summed it for me.







I know I "could" add a 3rd but really at this point in my life I can't say that I want to. As my dh & I say maybe we will revisit this issue in another 3-4 years but considering the 13.5 year gap between #1 & 2, not sure I could do it again.

Shay


----------



## Gabbi (Jan 27, 2005)

Great thread.
I haven't read the whole thread but wanted to add









I think this is a very personal view and it can be an awesome topic.

I do believe this is a very personal choice and while I voice my opinions I would hope I would be respected, as I choose to respect the decisions of others that believe differently.

I was married previously and have 2 children. One is now almost finished with high school. My husband was married while serving in the Air Force and has a daughter. When we met - I finally knew what "in love" means and WHY we have children...we have a son together and he is the light of ALL our lives (our other children included)..we struggled with the issue of having more....it was honestly one of the hardest decisions I've ever made..but we chose to not have anymore children.
We wanted perhaps different things than most...we wanted time together..someday hopefully child free...we wanted vacations..without packing a diaperbag....we wanted a savings account in case one of us want to take sky diving lessons OR ALL of our children want Karate lessons. If we had more, things would definately be "tight" financially..they already are.
I look at it like this.......having older children it is VERY difficult to see the "expense" when they are babies...people who make the choice to have 5 or 6 (great for them...I'll hold, rock and snuggle and then go home







: ) and have all these small babies...are they really SEEING the expense? I know I didn't realize the expense of things until my kids started to grow....financially it gets HARDER as they get older ..and it's not just things like Nike shoes or Nintendo games... it's getting cavities fixed, paying for childcare for other children when one of yours has cancer and needs treatment...it's "what if I am not lucky enough to live to raise my kids"...who is going to raise 6 kids????? Would end up in foster care if something happened to both of us???.....or it sure would be almost impossible to raise them on our own should one of us die....I did the single parenting..IT'S TOUGH!!!!.....
These were our decisions...IN SHORT...I don't think "affording" is always about money...financial issues..it's about "affording time"...the more you have --am I going to not spend as much time with the others..to me *affording means a lot more than money issues*.









Thanks for the thread!


----------



## Gabbi (Jan 27, 2005)

I do want to say that "affording college for our kids" never was an issue. My parents COULD afford my college ..however I had to pay for it myself..and I appreciated every moment of my schooling...I'm still paying for it too.

To me college IS a reward for hard work..and your career is a reward for your college schooling....it should NOT be handed to you..you should have to work for it!









I know other's view it differently and that's awesome







honestly...but I tell my kids to work hard and earn scholarships..they work hard.


----------



## Zach'smom (Nov 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
I think thats really the difference. For many, perhaps most of you... living with things like this (retirement, savings, college savings, etc) is a necessity and you can't imagine not having it. For others, like me... those are things we've never had and so therefore, don't put much importance on personally. Some people simply don't have the money to have things like that, and choose not to put their life and children on hold until they get it.

Necessities to me are literally food, shelter, clothing. Everything else is an extra. .


Retirement savings is a necessity. You need money to pay for food and shelter and clothing when you are old and retired.

An emergeny $ fund is also important to us. That way we can pay for food, housing and clothing in the event my dh would lose his job or something would happen to him that he couldn't work for an extended amount of time.

I am happy with my family size and happy that I can stay home and that we don't have to struggle. I am happy that we have everything we need and some of what we want.

We all have different comfort levels.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
. Having enough money is relative. It really is. With my three things I listed as the important things, that actually leaves quite a bit left over. But my quite a bit would seem like a very tiny amount to most of you. It all comes down to what YOU think are YOUR priorities and having enough money for that, but not coming down on others who don't have those same priorities, or who have alternate means of meeting goals that don't take a lot of money..

Well then, I think we all agree. Because this is exactly what I (and others) have been saying all along. How many children someone can "afford" is never going to be anything *but* relative. Personal priorities will color everything.

It's unacceptable to me to be unable to save for retirement. It's not a priority for you. But I don't fault you for having different priorities than I do. I don't think anyone on this thread has said anything like that. People have stated what their *own* priorities are, and I think some readers have taken that as criticism of their choices, when in fact, it's simply a statement about our lives, personally. Just because some of the choices you make would be unacceptable to me does not make your choices wrong in my eyes.


----------



## CheapPearls (Aug 7, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Zach'smom* 
Retirement savings is a necessity. You need money to pay for food and shelter and clothing when you are old and retired.

An emergeny $ fund is also important to us. That way we can pay for food, housing and clothing in the event my dh would lose his job or something would happen to him that he couldn't work for an extended amount of time.

I am happy with my family size and happy that I can stay home and that we don't have to struggle. I am happy that we have everything we need and some of what we want.

We all have different comfort levels.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama* 
How many children someone can "afford" is never going to be anything *but* relative. Personal priorities will color everything.

This is very true - my definition of being able to afford to buy something material is being able to afford to buy it without resorting to credit (except house mortgage), whereas I know many people whose criteria for being able to afford something is to be able to afford to make the credit payments for it. Neither is wrong, they are just different approaches.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama* 
But I don't fault you for having different priorities than I do. I don't think anyone on this thread has said anything like that.

I don't think _you_ have, nor have some others who talked about why limiting family size is better for them (and their families) personally. But a couple of others made references to "couples with more kids than they could afford" or the idea that if you use WIC or other assistance you shouldn't have more kids.

Quote:

People have stated what their *own* priorities are, and I think some readers have taken that as criticism of their choices, when in fact, it's simply a statement about our lives, personally. Just because some of the choices you make would be unacceptable to me does not make your choices wrong in my eyes.
Thank you. The main difference between people who limit family size and those who don't, is that those who limit are rarely subjected to criticism for their choice. In contrast, people with large families are often criticized by complete strangers when they take their children out in public. People say things like, "Haven't you figured out what causes that yet?"


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

mammal_mama said:


> I
> Thank you. The main difference between people who limit family size and those who don't, is that those who limit are rarely subjected to criticism for their choice. QUOTE]
> 
> I beg to differ. We have one daughter, and we don't want anymore children. You would not believe the comments we receive from family, friends, and strangers. Some comments are just a sense of incredulity on their part (I have a couple of friends with 3 (maybe more coming) and 6 kids apiece). Others are just downright rude, condescending, and obnoxious. I have had LITERALLY one positive comment from someone regarding Katie being an only, and the rest were "Oh, she'll be spoiled...oh, she'll NEED a sibling...oh, *you'll* change your mind...how can you do that to her?, etc. etc. etc"...ad nauseum
> ...


----------



## Juliacat (May 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katheek77* 
It's the same at both ends..if you're outside the 2-3 children scope, well, you're just abnormal, and people feel free to give their "advice" about it.

I couldn't agree more! It's like 2 or 3 (preferably spaced 2 or 3 years apart) are the ONLY ACCEPTABLE CHOICES; more or fewer than that will get you all kinds of grief.

It doesn't bother me if other people have different priorities for their finances than I do for mine. Having more children is not as important to me as it is to them. Fine. The only thing that bothers me is the insinuation that I am materialistic, because it quite simply is not true.


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama* 
Well then, I think we all agree. Because this is exactly what I (and others) have been saying all along. How many children someone can "afford" is never going to be anything *but* relative. Personal priorities will color everything.

It's unacceptable to me to be unable to save for retirement. It's not a priority for you. But I don't fault you for having different priorities than I do. I don't think anyone on this thread has said anything like that. People have stated what their *own* priorities are, and I think some readers have taken that as criticism of their choices, when in fact, it's simply a statement about our lives, personally. Just because some of the choices you make would be unacceptable to me does not make your choices wrong in my eyes.

Perhaps if my financial situation was different, then I would save for retirement. However, its not possible to save much of anything living off Social Security. And I don't see when I'll ever be able to get off SSDI in the near future. If I return to the workforce, then I'm sure saving money will be something that I decide to do... until then, you can't really save what you don't have.

That said, I can see why its a priority for others. I just personally have not been in the position to have it be a priority.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

Retirement savings is a necessity. You need money to pay for food and shelter and clothing when you are old and retired.
Absolutely. Not to mention that us saving for our retirement frees our kids from having to worry about providing for us financially like many people end up doing for their parents.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katheek77* 

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Thank you. The main difference between people who limit family size and those who don't, is that those who limit are rarely subjected to criticism for their choice.

I beg to differ. We have one daughter, and we don't want anymore children. You would not believe the comments we receive from family, friends, and strangers. Some comments are just a sense of incredulity on their part (I have a couple of friends with 3 (maybe more coming) and 6 kids apiece). Others are just downright rude, condescending, and obnoxious.

Wow! I'm sorry you've had to deal with that. Maybe it's just my age. I'm 43, and was almost 36 when I had my first. Some people kinda thought I should be happy to get one (I was, of course), and shouldn't "tempt fate" by having another.

When dd2 was born (I was almost 41), one of the ladies from church was just absolutely shocked. She hadn't realized I was pregnant because she hadn't seen me lately, and she said, "I didn't even know you were _wanting_ another," as if it was weird for dh and me to be having sex at our ages, or something.


----------



## RainCoastMama (Oct 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
That said, I can see why its a priority for others. I just personally have not been in the position to have it be a priority.

I guess that this perhaps illustrates the difference between limiting the size of a family to get into a position to make it a priority, vs having more children so that you're NOT in a position to make it a priority, KWIM?

Some people choose one or the other. Not bad, not good, just a choice.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
What it would mean for me is that I'm choosing to put saving money over my child's comfort and health. He has difficulty with dental treatments (due to apparently terrible genetics and anxiety) and my goal is to get him the best treatment I can with as little pain from him as possible.

You know...I had the same dentist from the time I was about 5 or 6 until I was about 30. He was very experienced and very good. He was also getting really sick of his profession by the time he took on a new partner...and getting work done by him _hurt_. OTOH, his new partner, fresh out of dental school, is a dream. He does the most incredibly painless work.

I certainly have no objection to not going the dental school route. I've never seen anything but a graduated dentist, myself. But, I think it's a little off base to assume that by going with a full-fledged dentist, you're ensuring a better experience for your kids.


----------



## 2Sweeties1Angel (Jan 30, 2006)

Quote:

But a couple of others made references to "couples with more kids than they could afford" or the idea that if you use WIC or other assistance you shouldn't have more kids.
I don't remember what I said earlier and I'm too lazy to go back and look, but I have more kids than I can currently afford. We get foodstamps, the kids get Medicaid, and while our bills are paid we have no savings whatsoever. This is not how I want to live! Hopefully after I finish school I'll be able to find a job that pays enough to build up a savings account and get us off of the assistance.

I don't actually care what other people do, though. If you want to keep on having babies while getting assistance, go right ahead







It doesn't matter to me.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama* 
I think there is some confusion on this thread.

When people like me, Roar, Choli, Shay, etc (and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting any of you) say we can't afford more children while maintaining the lifestyle we want and giving our children certain things, I think some people read that as, we really *want* more children, but, blinded by the need to live a certain way, we're forgoing them. And that if only we'd give some up some of our desires, we could have those kids.

But I don't think any of us want more children. We want the number of kids we have, and we want the lifestyle we have. At least, that's the way I feel. Yeah, I couldn't afford to give 5 kids the things I can give two. But I don't want 5 in the first place.

You explained my POV quite well.

It's not like I'm pining away for another child but won't do it because it would mean no more french manicures or something.

Right now I have a beautiful child, and I can afford to buy organic food, fair trade coffee, have a mattress made with no flame retardants in it (although I couldn't afford the organic cotton), and take small scale vacations now and then. Ds will have music and sports in his life, and a good education.

These things are important to me, and I could not afford them if we had a second child. So for _my_ family, we cannot afford another without some lifestyle changes that would make me unhappy.

I don't see that as being materialistic. It is important to me that I am not forced to shop at Wal Mart for basic needs (like food and a bed).


----------



## Roar (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 

I certainly have no objection to not going the dental school route. I've never seen anything but a graduated dentist, myself. But, I think it's a little off base to assume that by going with a full-fledged dentist, you're ensuring a better experience for your kids.

Orthodontia isn't the same as seeing the dentist. During the height of braces we are often in the office once or twice a week. We've gotten to know our orthodontist well and we chose someone who would do a good job. He's come in more than once to fix an emergency on the weekend. We interviewed several before we chose. At the dental school you are assigned who ever happens to be available that day and they may be just beginning to learn a skill so it can take hours. A friend is currently getting braces at the dental school and her appointments often take two or three times as long as they would with someone experienced. She advised absolutely that no one consider this route for a kid because it is often more painful and time consuming. And again, the point is that it is one thing to choose this as an adult, but as a parent my hope was to be able to provide medical care for my child without having to put them through extra crap to get it.


----------



## Juliacat (May 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hoopin' Mama* 
I don't see that as being materialistic. It is important to me that I am not forced to shop at Wal Mart for basic needs (like food and a bed).

Amen, sister!


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

I want a small family for many reasons. Money is just one of them. I do believe that it is my responsibility to send my kids to college (with some limitations). I'm not making that decision for anyone else, btw. I also want to be able to not worry about every penny. We are comfortable, but not wealthy--dh is a teacher and I'm a librarian, so no big incomes here, but we do fine. We aren't materialistic and have far less "stuff" than most people I know in our income bracket.

My parents had a huge family as did dh's, and even though both sets of parents did well financially, money was always very tight. It added a huge amount of stress, which I don't need.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

I think there's a difference between someone saying "I can't afford anymore children" from someone who doesn't actually want anymore children and those that do actually want more children.

1. I use the can't afford excuse to get people to stop asking me when my onlie is going to finally have a sibling. There are several other reasons why she's not getting a sibling, maintaining our lifestyle and providing things for her that either our parents gave us or couldn't give us is just one.

2. I find the people who say they can't afford children but want them usually somehow manage to find a way and perhaps are people who just want to kvetch.

3. And I'm sure there are those who can't afford more but want more who are just realistic about how big of a family they can afford and just want some sympathy for not being able to have something they want.

If the OP is really talking about the 2nd one up there then you have my sympathies. I find these people tiresome as well.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

What does "kvetch" mean? And why is it "tiresome" for people who want more children to find a way to have them?


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
What does "kvetch" mean? And why is it "tiresome" for people who want more children to find a way to have them?

Complain. It's tiresome to hear people complain about things that aren't really a problem. ie if you're going to find a way to have more kids anyway don't complain that you can't afford them and go on and on about it.


----------



## AlpineMama (Aug 16, 2007)

We're poor as dirt. I don't feel like our children (well, soon to be two) are lacking in anything. We're not planning on having more than two but that has nothing to do with finances. Sure, they get "gently used" clothes etc. So... yeah.

I suppose I have somewhat different standards of affordability though. I don't consider a huge house with separate bedrooms for each child etc to be a requirement for having kids. And I definitely don't see why Baby's R Us etc make parents think that they have to afford all of the "essentials" for their kids, everything from $200 diaper pails to whatever else, deluxe portable formula bottle heaters or whatever.

We do accept state aid but ONLY in the form in health insurance. That's more or less a principle of my belief, I believe everyone should be entitled to free or affordable health care, so it's kind of a moral thing for me to accept it. We qualify for other state aid too but I don't think it's the state's responsibility to feed the children we chose to have. We don't really need that aid.

The only thing where I feel somewhat guilty is that we can't afford to move to a better neighborhood just now. But I know that if we had waited to be able to "afford" the IDEAL financial situation to bring kids into the world, well it'd be at least ten years or so from now, and I'd rather be a young parent than an older one. That was an important point for both my husband and myself. We both had older parents and wanted to do it differently with our own family.


----------



## AlpineMama (Aug 16, 2007)

You know, reading all the replies makes me a little sad inside. I was an only child, and my parents were WELL off. I mean several yearly vacations to the Caribbean, Europe, etc., three or four luxury cars at a time (and only my father drove), etc. I remember my dad coming home on a regular basis from some exclusive Italian leather shop with bags and bags full of shoes, costing hundreds each. Or them going to the opera and my mom in fur coats and thousands of dollars worth of jewelry.

And I never got to do music lessons, sports, (I wanted to do all of these), never got "brand name" clothes (wore my dad's hand-me-down sweatshirts to school), never got a new TV (got my dad's 20 year old TV when he upgraded to a big-screen TV) and the like. I never got braces either. Why? "They couldn't afford it." Just like we never went any kid-friendly places; I'd sit in the car while they went antique shopping. I guess it's a little telling in retrospect where their priorities lay.

Priorities, I guess, are the key.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
Complain. It's tiresome to hear people complain about things that aren't really a problem. ie if you're going to find a way to have more kids anyway don't complain that you can't afford them and go on and on about it.

I agree that complaining is tiresome -- but I think it's up to each individual to decide whether their problems are really problems or not (I think complaining can be tiresome even when I agree that the problems are problems).

It's not up to me to say someone else's problem isn't a problem, just because it wouldn't be a problem _to me_.

Of course, it *is* up to me to decide how much time I want to spend listening to complaints -- and either say something to the person, or limit the time I spend with that person if s/he persists in griping all the time.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Roar* 
Orthodontia isn't the same as seeing the dentist. During the height of braces we are often in the office once or twice a week. We've gotten to know our orthodontist well and we chose someone who would do a good job. He's come in more than once to fix an emergency on the weekend. We interviewed several before we chose. At the dental school you are assigned who ever happens to be available that day and they may be just beginning to learn a skill so it can take hours. A friend is currently getting braces at the dental school and her appointments often take two or three times as long as they would with someone experienced. She advised absolutely that no one consider this route for a kid because it is often more painful and time consuming. And again, the point is that it is one thing to choose this as an adult, but as a parent my hope was to be able to provide medical care for my child without having to put them through extra crap to get it.

Ah - gotcha...hadn't thought about the "random stranger" aspect of it.


----------



## Upside (Jun 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 
If the OP is really talking about the 2nd one up there then you have my sympathies. I find these people tiresome as well.


Hi, it's me, the OP







:. This thread has really taken on another life. I guess when I originally posted it was kind of off the cuff. I had just read the other thread where a couple of mothers were jealous of other women having babies they (the other women) couldn't afford. That sentiment took me off guard because in my PC mind it just seemed really judgemental. That being said, I was being a voyeur reading that thread to begin with because DH and I are in agreement about how many kids we want and I didn't have problems conceiving, so I probably don't "get" what those women are going through.

I DO want to emphasize, in spite of some of the hostility that has surfaced here, that all of the opinions expressed have given me alot to think about. Though I'm not a "young mother," I am a new mother







so I'm pretty willing to listen to what everyone has to say (except my MIL) and take from that the tips and ideas that fit into our family's life. I think the fact that we're all here on MDC means that we all have at least a few things in common, maybe more than we don't, who knows?


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Upside* 
I had just read the other thread where a couple of mothers were jealous of other women having babies they (the other women) couldn't afford. That sentiment took me off guard because in my PC mind it just seemed really judgemental.

That's what I read in your earlier post -- and I must say I usually see more judgment directed at mothers of many, than I do at mothers who stop with one or two.

That said, participating in this thread has made me more aware that some moms really do get hassled for just having one child ... I don't know so much about two. I was never hassled, even though it took me almost five years to conceive dd2 -- but maybe my older age has something to do with it.

I have a feeling I might get hassled if at some point I conceive #3 (I'm 43, and our finances are not great). But, having read some of the accusations of "materialism" being thrown at parents of smaller families -- I'm finally seeing the hassling goes both ways.

Again, I think the criticism is rooted in the criticizer's basic unhappiness with her own life and choices (or, in the case of the other thread, her husband's choices). I realize many of us just shared our personal preferences without saying anything derogatory about others with different preferences.

But some, on both sides, stepped over the line and attacked the choices of others. That's sad, and I don't think happy people act this way --

I'm reminded of that movie _Legally Blonde_, where Reese Witherspoon's character says something like, "Exercise gives you endorphins, endorphins make you happy, happy people don't kill their husbands."







Are we happy yet?


----------



## madskye (Feb 20, 2006)

I would like another, and I'm not sure we can afford it!

We have a comfortable lifestyle right now, not lavish, not stringent. I left my job in May and I'm working pt from home. I am not making enough $$, not contributing half of what I was when I was working full time, and my husband and I had a serious talk last night about savings, taxes, credit card debt, 401K, the septic tank that needs to be redone (10K+) some time in the next few years, etc...etc...so, it's not particularly a matter of "do I buy the used car or a brand new Mercedes?" It's more the big scary things that make me worry about having another. So, I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to stay home, or if having another is really an option now.

I grew up with a lot of financial uncertainty--parents divorced, alimony checks never came, utilities were turned off, some times food was scarce. I still have a lot of stress issues related to money. I would like for my child not to feel that stress. I don't particularly care about high end clothes or things at all, to be honest, for me it is really about having a solid financial base that equals security for me and my family.

Also, maybe an aside, but we are older, closer to 40--so maybe that makes things like retirement and college and debt seem more immediate than to those in their twenties? Generalization, I know, but I thought I'd throw it out there.


----------



## Upside (Jun 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *madskye* 
Also, maybe an aside, but we are older, closer to 40--so maybe that makes things like retirement and college and debt seem more immediate than to those in their twenties?

I wish! My husband is 43 and he still has his head in the clouds about finances







. I see your point though.


----------



## Upside (Jun 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
and I must say I usually see more judgment directed at mothers of many, than I do at mothers who stop with one or two.

Maybe so, I know before I started hanging around on SAHM boards, 4 kids would make my jaw drop. I don't think it was out of any subconscious judgement, just plain surprise because I didn't know of anyone with large families.

But just so you don't think I only freak about large families, when one of my best friends decided last year that she and her husband weren't going to have any children (he had the big V), all I could manage in my shock was an Oh,wow! We've talked about it a lot since then and I totally support her decision and realize that people really do stereotype childless by choicers as selfish. My friend is so not selfish and she is a teacher, so she has tons of kids in her life.

I do like the distinctions that have been made between those who can't afford more kids AND want more, and those who can't afford more and don't want more (regardless of the definition of "afford.") I think if that had come out earlier in the thread there would have been less reading between the lines.

The plan for us is that our second child (bun currently roasting) will complete our immediate family. I'm sure I'll have fleeting thoughts of more babies just as I will have fleeting thoughts of running away and taking a new identity. I think if we changed our minds and really wanted a third child, we could afford it, but it's not part of our plan, and I'm a plans and checklists kinda gal







.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
That said, participating in this thread has made me more aware that some moms really do get hassled for just having one child ... I don't know so much about two. I was never hassled, even though it took me almost five years to conceive dd2 -- but maybe my older age has something to do with it.

I?


As an observation of people...I mainly see criticism leveled at

1) Moms of Many. And the younger and more closely together you have them, the more criticism. Rarely will people bat an eye at a 35 year old with three or four kids, spaced 2-3 years apart. That's just good planning...maybe not everyone's choice to have three-four kids, but, they obviously thought about it. But God help the 23 year old with three kids under the age of four. Obviously, she's an idiot who doesn't know how to keep her legs shut

2) Moms of onlies - exceptions are those who had their first child at an "advanced" age (read: 35 or older). People tend to not want to pry into why there's only one child because, you know, they could have trouble conceiving or something, what with Mom's eggs getting all shriveled and what not. DON'T, however, have ANY children after the age of 45. That's just selfishness on your part, and you'll be dead by the time your kid graduates high school. It's an inverse ratio, you know...the later you have your kid, the sooner you'll die. Why do that to a kid??? God forbid you had your only at 25 and decided not to have any more. You're a selfish, materialistic bee-otch, and your child will be the King or Queen of Entitlement. (Exception include the poor widow whose husband died soon after birth, divorced moms of one (they get pity), and those who have a child with horrible birth defects (although, you know, they might want to try for a "normal" baby).

3) Those couples who have been married for more than a couple of years and admit they are *gasp* WAITING to have their children later in life. How selfish can you get? Really, Gram and Grampa only had you so that you could give them grandchildren. And what if something goes horribly wrong tomorrow and your uterus implodes??? Or your husband DIES (I actually get this a LOT being married to the military)? THEN you'll be sorry, woncha?

4) Childfree couples. This has been covered. The epitome of selfish. It is your DUTY to bring more children into this world, whether you like it or not. Also see: Gram and Grampa's RIGHT to grandchildren. Exceptions: Infertility issues...again, you get pity. Also, those who married at an advanced age...namely because people assume you have infertility issues and missed your opportunity...it's not really your choice, you're just playing "Fox and the Grapes" to assauge your sense of incompleteness and lack of foresight in not finding the right man early enough in life.

5) Single moms...especially those who KEEP on having children. The chutzpah! Why, that's even worse than the young MARRIED mom of many...at least she's in a good, god-fearing marriage. Related: Homosexual couples with kids.

If you would like judgment to not be passed at you, please be:

A married (HETEROsexual couples only) woman, aged 30-35, with two-three kids, spaced two-three years apart. Please be a WAHM, or, if necessary, a part-time WOHM whose schedule is arranged around her children's schedules. Your interests should include organizing a local book club, being on the committe of one or two "educational" programs (museums, PTOs, libraries, etc. are acceptable), and one fund-raising committee (preferably with a cause that has "touched" your family in some tangential, but not direct, way - we don't want to feel like you're looking for pity). No more than this is acceptable as you must always be "there" for your children. Your husband should have a steady job, which affords you the opportunity to travel yearly, but not to TOO nice of places (an overseas trip every 4-5 years is permissible...all others should be "family" vacations). All children should be presented with the opportunity and finances for one sport and one other lesson/club each year (Girl Scouts, Kindermusik, Chorus, etc.) More than this will make you seem too "scheduled". Prefer a woman who gets along with her mother-in-law, never opens the door in her bathrobe or towel, and hosts FABULOUS, kid-friendly open houses each holiday season. Those with children who have birth defects, learning disabilities, developmental delays, and/or just plain ugly kids need not apply.


----------



## Upside (Jun 27, 2007)

HI-larious Kathee....


----------



## snuggly mama (Mar 29, 2004)

Kathee,

Why didn't you post that BEFORE I went and had kids, inappropriately spaced, at much too young of an age, and (gasp!) one with both birth defects AND developmental delays?










Maybe you should make this a nice little public service announcement?







:


----------



## boatbaby (Aug 30, 2004)

I fall in the "can't afford" because of the sort of life experiences we strive to give our son and because we plan on paying for his college education should he decide to pursue one.

But I also want to talk about *emotionally* affording more kids. Over the past 3 years with my son I have often done the "where's the baby" test.

Let's say he's having a bad day and he doesn't feel well and it takes me 90 minutes to get him to nurse down to a nap - coaxing and nursing and reading and so on.

Where's the baby in that scenario? How is that possible?

Homeschooling -- what is an infant/ toddler doing while you homeschool your 4-5-6-7 year old? Again I know people pull this off, I just don't think I could.

Let's say we're having one of those spontaneous days where we spend 4 straight hours in the pool playing and then sit outside and eat dinner in our skivvies.

Where's the baby there? Would I have to cut the pool time short? Yes, I know it wouldn't kill my son to have to alter his life for that of a sibling, but it's ME that would have a hard time being the sort of parent I want to be with two different humans who have different needs pulling me in different directions.

I just don't get how it is possible -- financially, emotionally, physically, etc?


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boatbaby* 
I fall in the "can't afford" because of the sort of life experiences we strive to give our son and because we plan on paying for his college education should he decide to pursue one.

But I also want to talk about *emotionally* affording more kids. Over the past 3 years with my son I have often done the "where's the baby" test.

Let's say he's having a bad day and he doesn't feel well and it takes me 90 minutes to get him to nurse down to a nap - coaxing and nursing and reading and so on.

Where's the baby in that scenario? How is that possible?

Homeschooling -- what is an infant/ toddler doing while you homeschool your 4-5-6-7 year old? Again I know people pull this off, I just don't think I could.

Let's say we're having one of those spontaneous days where we spend 4 straight hours in the pool playing and then sit outside and eat dinner in our skivvies.

Where's the baby there? Would I have to cut the pool time short? Yes, I know it wouldn't kill my son to have to alter his life for that of a sibling, but it's ME that would have a hard time being the sort of parent I want to be with two different humans who have different needs pulling me in different directions.

I just don't get how it is possible -- financially, emotionally, physically, etc?

This is why my kids are 13.5 years apart, I admire women who juggle multiple small kids but I am not that woman.







There are days when juggling the needs of a toddler and teen challenge me (totally different activities, etc).

I absolutely agree there is an emotional costs that few people speak of, I know for dh & I now that dd is starting to grow up and with the use of daycare we can still some moments together sans kids, I realize how much I miss that. Yes, more kids is more folks to love but it would also mean less time for my dh and I just don't that I can do that.







:

Shay


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shayinme* 
Yes, more kids is more folks to love but it would also mean less time for my dh and I just don't that I can do that.







:

Shay

I dunno... sneaking rare time away and having relations on the closet floor because all the beds were full.. was really kinda exciting last night.







:







It made me feel 17 again.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama* 
I limited the size of my family because I want to provide my children with certain things (college, music, travel) that are important to me. But I don't fault anyone for whom these are not priorities. I don't expect everyone to have the same priorities. I fully understand that bartering produce for music lessons and raising kids with the expectation that college is their own responsibility reflects some families values. Not everyone values the things I do, and I don't think they're making bad choices or giving their children less.

That's why I said (and I'll repeat it) that how many kids a family can "afford" is not going to be a cut and dried affair. It's going to be a complex calculation revolving around what we want to, need to, and can affford to give our children. Acknowledging that is not offensive, imo.

I agree with all that zinemama has written so far.


----------



## marybethorama (Jun 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RainCoastMama* 
Your POV is clear.

However I still think that you are making an unfair blanket generalization - that rich = spoiled/uncharitable/selfish and not rich = caring/loving/etc. It may be in your situation, but it isn't in mine.

snip

No one is saying that spending money diametrically inverse to expressing non-materialistic love - you are.

It's all about the values you pass onto your kids.









:


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RainCoastMama* 
I guess that this perhaps illustrates the difference between limiting the size of a family to get into a position to make it a priority, vs having more children so that you're NOT in a position to make it a priority, KWIM?

I didn't see where the pp you quoted said her purpose for having more children, was so she wouldn't be "in a position to make it a priority" ("it" being saving for retirement). I didn't see where anyone on this thread said they were having more children in order to not be able to save for retirement.

Quote:

Some people choose one or the other. Not bad, not good, just a choice.








You're really sincere? You honestly don't see one choice as better than the other?


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
I dunno... sneaking rare time away and having relations on the closet floor because all the beds were full.. was really kinda exciting last night.







:







It made me feel 17 again.

















Also, katheek, I loooved your essay about how to prevent being criticized.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shayinme* 
This is why my kids are 13.5 years apart, I admire women who juggle multiple small kids but I am not that woman.







There are days when juggling the needs of a toddler and teen challenge me (totally different activities, etc).

FWIW, I frequently find the difficulties of dealing with a teen and younger kids to far exceed the difficulties of dealing with two younger kids. While dd (4) and ds2 (2) present their challenges in terms of competing needs, particularly at bedtime, they don't present the same kind of challenges in terms of structuring my day that the "ds1 vs. dd" situation does. Most family outings that will interest dd will also interest ds2. That doesn't apply with ds1 and dd or ds1 and ds2. I also find it difficult dealing with the school stuff - parents nights and such - at the high school, when I have a preschooler and a toddler in tow.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nature* 
I dunno... sneaking rare time away and having relations on the closet floor because all the beds were full.. was really kinda exciting last night.







:







It made me feel 17 again.









Yeah - and that's the other downside to having a teen and little ones. DH and I really can't use the closet (too small) and the classic option of the living room is _out_ when you have a teenager who may wander in, and be traumatized. (I'm guessing, based on the way he goes "my ears! my ears!" and crumples in a heap if I say something nice about dh's bod.)


----------



## Nature (Mar 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
Yeah - and that's the other downside to having a teen and little ones. DH and I really can't use the closet (too small) and the classic option of the living room is _out_ when you have a teenager who may wander in, and be traumatized. (I'm guessing, based on the way he goes "my ears! my ears!" and crumples in a heap if I say something nice about dh's bod.)









My 9 yo dd has started the "Ewwww! Gross Mom!" if she sees any affection between us at all.


----------



## RainCoastMama (Oct 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I didn't see where the pp you quoted said her purpose for having more children, was so she wouldn't be "in a position to make it a priority" ("it" being saving for retirement). I didn't see where anyone on this thread said they were having more children in order to not be able to save for retirement.

You're really sincere? You honestly don't see one choice as better than the other?

I can't remember (too lazy to go find it honestly







) re the first issue.

Second issue - yeah, I honestly don't see one choice as better than the other for anyone outside of me. For me - it is better to be able to save. I really could give a flying hoot what someone else does for their own families. I'm far from perfect and have little expectation that anyone else be, so why could I ever be in a decision to judge someone else?







Why is it so hard to believe that I'm sincere? (Oh yeah...cuz everything comes across as snarky when you're typing







)


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

God forbid you had your only at 25 and decided not to have any more. You're a selfish, materialistic bee-otch, and your child will be the King or Queen of Entitlement.










Too true. Only you can mitigate that criticism by getting divorced. Of course, then you get the single mom judgment, so I'm not sure it's exactly a winning situation.









boatbaby - I do the "where's the baby?" test, too. And I completely agree about "affording" having many different meanings. Of course, I can't financially afford another child right now (even though I can pay for extra-curriculars for my son and I can put some money in retirement/savings every pay period, having another baby would be financially stupid for me). But even when I can, I'm not sure that I'll be able to emotionally afford one. I'm of the opinion that your first responsibility is to the children you already have and they deserve more than just food, shelter, and clothing. Children need a lot from their parents emotionally and in terms of time and thought. It seems like some people trick themselves into believing that there is enough of them to go around, to fulfill their children's need of them. IMO, they're often wrong (note I don't say "always wrong"). I don't think that's particularly fair.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

My partner & I decided to have only two children as an environmental choice. So I guess you could say that we felt that the planet could only afford human children at a species replacement level ie. two children per reproductive couple.









Going back to read the rest of the thread now.....


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RainCoastMama* 
Second issue - yeah, I honestly don't see one choice as better than the other for anyone outside of me. For me - it is better to be able to save. I really could give a flying hoot what someone else does for their own families. I'm far from perfect and have little expectation that anyone else be, so why could I ever be in a decision to judge someone else?







Why is it so hard to believe that I'm sincere? (Oh yeah...cuz everything comes across as snarky when you're typing







)

Okay, I believe you now!







I'm sorry I thought you were being sarcastic when I first read it.


----------



## RainCoastMama (Oct 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
Okay, I believe you now!







I'm sorry I thought you were being sarcastic when I first read it.


...imagine the flame-wars that could be prevented if email/typing came with some sort of...inflection?







(but then again, that wouldn't be fun would it







)


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RainCoastMama* 
...imagine the flame-wars that could be prevented if email/typing came with some sort of...inflection?







(but then again, that wouldn't be fun would it







)









I guess not!


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
I find it interesting that contraception was supposed to expand choices for everyone -- but it seems like it actually makes some feel more constricted. We now "have the choice" to control family size -- but it can feel more like a mandate to those of us who choose _not_ to take control, and to let God decide.

...

I realize this isn't a discussion about contraception, and am not trying to hi-jack this thread. I just think the tendency to judge for *someone else* whether they "have enough children,"

- just to add that I hadn't read the rest of the thread when I posted -or could you tell?

Very interesting points and I have to say I agree 100%, even though it seems we differ on our own personal usage/approach to contraception, and possibly where we base our opinions too.

I am DEEPLY skeptical of all population programs and efforts that are not centered in human/women's rights - i.e. the conversation needs to be about helping women (and men too) have more choices to have the number and spacing of children they want, and raise those children with all the basic needs met.

If these programs are not based in women's rights, the conversation quickly turns into rich and powerful people telling not rich and not powerful people how many children they are "allowed" to have.

And this goes straight at the heart of human rights- the right of every human to reproduce if they wish. Anything curtailing that right, in my opinion, is eugenics.

In addition, since pregnancy has a substantial impact on the health and wellbeing of women exclusively, it is every woman's right to determine how and whether to control her fertility. Anything curtailing that right denies a woman her human rights over her own body.

The technology we have today makes fertility control extremely effective. I agree, however, that a result of its effectiveness leads to the blanket assumption that every woman SHOULD or CAN control her fertility - that not controlling it is "irresponsible" or that mistakes never happen.

There are many real world challenges to this ethical stance - especially in cases where parents clearly are negligent or irresponsible with their children or where circumstances beyond the control of the parents prevents them from having full choices they deserve. But ethics are not meant to bow to pragmatism, of course.

My 2 cents.

Siobhan


----------



## Softheart (Jul 20, 2002)

I know this is obsessive, but I worry even more about affording more than 2 kids 20 or 30 years from now then in the next few years, when I know we could scrape by on love. But what will the world be like when they are adults--will they really be able to make a decent living? Too much worrying, huh?


----------



## elanorh (Feb 1, 2006)

Interesting thread. I think people really get emotional about this - so very much *stuff* is wrapped up in family size.

I'm from a family of 7. Three of us loved it and would love to have large families; two don't ever intend to have children (one an environmental choice, the other a prudent mental health choice); and two think that 2 children is the Golden Mean [I note that they are both married to "two child" spouses and fit Kathee's description of how not to be criticized, very well







].

My older sister and her dh would like more children but know they can't afford it (and yes, they could make lifestyle changes to afford it - but they would like to have more kids WITHOUT making those changes and I don't see anything wrong with that). The school system where they are is abysmal; they will be paying private school tuition for their three children just to keep them literate. They aren't blowing $$ on things - they are scrupulous about not going into debt, and they live in a remodeled mobile home so obviously their money isn't going to fripperies.







They are great parents. I wish they could figure out a way to afford more children but they just can't.

DH and I agreed to "Three with an option to upgrade" before we married. He's from a long line of "just two, thanks" -- so the idea of more than two was a huge, huge stumbling block for him. We have two now, and it's a given that we'll have a third. He loves parenting, loves time with the girls .... If he felt we could afford it, I know we'd have four or even five children. But, he doesn't feel we can afford it and honestly I think he's right. If we manage to have a fourth child, it will probably be via foster adoption .... And we will need to have had some changes in our lives. I've read that in some states, foster adoptees are given free instate tuition, and that would level one of our huge stumbling blocks for having more children (being able to help with college expenses).

I think that it's a given that for many people who say that they "can't afford" more children but would like to have more, the unspoken phrase is, "without changes to our lifestyle which would be unacceptable." For my sister and her dh, that would mean putting their kids in a school system which is awful (or she would need to homeschool, but frankly it's in their best interests that she not be their teacher and she knows that








). For dh and me, it would mean that we wouldn't have enough saved for retirement. Realistically speaking the time will come that we aren't able to work anymore. DH is self-employed and we want me to be able to SAHP at least 'til our children are all in school. We are self-insured; it costs about $10,000 just to have a baby at the hospital in my area (and no homebirths unless you're UCing).

My memories of growing up in a large family are wonderful and I wish, wish, wish I could provide that for my children. I won't lie - I do remember taking swimming lessons in a leotard and feeling awful.







And every guy who's married into our family, knows that he and his wife will be helping care for the ILs in their old age. I don't want that burden for my kids. We are also saving for college - I've got about $45,000 in student loans still (grad school) - we don't plan to pay for "all" of college cart blanche. But if we can help our kids graduate with a minimum of debt, then that'd be wonderful. Maybe *they* would be able to afford to have 4-5 kids according to a criteria that feels comfortable for them!


----------



## InaX5 (Aug 8, 2007)

I am about to have child # 5. We are classed working poor, yet through smart spending & an ability to know how to make extra money when needed / wanted. We do OK. We even have a few extras. I feel more prepared financially then ever before.

I believe there are 2 reasons you hear people comment on not being able to afford more children.
1. poor spending habits.
2. an unwillingness to give up regular extravagances.

You love your children enough you will find away, no matter how tough things are financially, or how tough they get. Plus, if you don't feel that an additional child is an expense you can't figure out, then your better prepared if harder times hit.

Oh and somehow we even have a savings account.


----------



## 2Sweeties1Angel (Jan 30, 2006)

Quote:

I believe there are 2 reasons you hear people comment on not being able to afford more children.
1. poor spending habits.
2. an unwillingness to give up regular extravagances.
I guess my poor spending habits and unwillingness to give up regular extravagances are the reason I can't afford more children then







. I guess I'll have to quit buying things like food, electricity, toilet paper and other extravangances so I can afford #4.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2Sweeties1Angel* 
I guess my poor spending habits and unwillingness to give up regular extravagances are the reason I can't afford more children then







. I guess I'll have to quit buying things like food, electricity, toilet paper and other extravangances so I can afford #4.

Well, you know, you _could_ substitute junk mail for toilet paper -- but then, there's that anthrax scare to think about!


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InaX5* 

I believe there are 2 reasons you hear people comment on not being able to afford more children.
1. poor spending habits.
2. an unwillingness to give up regular extravagances.

You love your children enough you will find away, no matter how tough things are financially, or how tough they get.

One thing I was absolutely unwilling to compromise on was raising my children near their extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, great-aunts, great-uncles, great-grandparents!). Unfortunately, we live in the super-expensive northeast USA. I don't consider living near extended family a regular extravagance. I think it's pretty darn judgmental to tell me that I'm unable to afford a large family because it's expensive to live where I live. DH and I are working hard to get into a position to afford child #2. Until you walk in my shoes, please leave your judgment at home.







:


----------



## lanamommyphd07 (Feb 14, 2007)

I got steamed reading this thread and then realized, "oh, I don't think I count!", as it seems the debate became about two-parent households and a SAHP who want more kids but have a materialistic lifestyle that is preventing it. Although this wasn't the initial question, there are a lot of narrow world-views going on here. A single parent who wants 10 kids, but can't afford it, is obviously not persuing a materialistic lifestyle. A parent who makes 3000/month, for example, is obviously limited in the number of kids he or she can have in daycare at a time. That parent is quite accurate in saying "I wish I could have more but can't afford it." If there were no daycare need, I would think it could be done very easily.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InaX5* 
I believe there are 2 reasons you hear people comment on not being able to afford more children.
1. poor spending habits.
2. an unwillingness to give up regular extravagances.

*You love your children enough you will find away*, no matter how tough things are financially, or how tough they get.

That's a really mean judgment to make. This is a parenting board we come to to support one another, not make comments about how much one person loves their child over another.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InaX5* 
I believe there are 2 reasons you hear people comment on not being able to afford more children.
1. poor spending habits.
2. an unwillingness to give up regular extravagances.

You love your children enough you will find away, no matter how tough things are financially, or how tough they get. Plus, if you don't feel that an additional child is an expense you can't figure out, then your better prepared if harder times hit.
.


Wow. That's the most ridiculous thing I've read on here in a while.


----------



## offwing (Aug 17, 2006)

Quote:

You love your children enough you will find away [...]
For me, it was important that both my daughers had a chance to go to college and get degrees. Having more children would have decreased my ability to make sure that happened.

For me, not being a financial burden to my children in my old age is important. Having more children would have made it more difficult for me have a solid and well-funded retirement plan.

For me, protecting my children from the effects of financial instability was more important than gratifying my personal desire for more babies.

For me, those were the things I found a way to do because I love my children enough.


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InaX5* 
I believe there are 2 reasons you hear people comment on not being able to afford more children.
1. poor spending habits.
2. an unwillingness to give up regular extravagances.

You love your children enough you will find away, no matter how tough things are financially, or how tough they get. Plus, if you don't feel that an additional child is an expense you can't figure out, then your better prepared if harder times hit.

Oh and somehow we even have a savings account.

This is not true at all. I wish it were a matter of giving up a few things, I suppose if I gave back my degrees maybe I could afford a few more kids, but wait then I would lose my ability to support the 2 I already have.









Shay


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InaX5* 
I am about to have child # 5. We are classed working poor, yet through smart spending & an ability to know how to make extra money when needed / wanted. We do OK. We even have a few extras. I feel more prepared financially then ever before.

I believe there are 2 reasons you hear people comment on not being able to afford more children.
1. poor spending habits.
2. an unwillingness to give up regular extravagances.

You love your children enough you will find away, no matter how tough things are financially, or how tough they get. Plus, if you don't feel that an additional child is an expense you can't figure out, then your better prepared if harder times hit.

This reminds me of the classic slam on WMs - "you could afford to if you just wanted it badly enough."

On one level, sure, if i suddenly became pregnant with quadruplets, we wouldn't starve to death. But many of the things we want for our children would have to be sacrificed.

Much of what people are posting is the Quality vs Quantity debate (this is an oversimplication, of course). People who say they cannot afford adding another child or four to their families, are saying it would diminish the quality of their parenting. Others (often with big families) argue that the quality of their parenting is not negatively impacted, and possibly enhanced by having a larger family.

I believe both are true. A big family is a completely different dynamic, lifestyle, structure, etc than a small family - even if each child receives equal amounts of financial coverage as a smaller family.

I personally do not enjoy nor want that dynamic for my family - I fully respect the families who do, I just don't need nor want it for myself.

And adding money back into the equation, children do cost on average in the US $120K for 18 years, not including college education, private schools, fancy lessons, nintendo game systems, etc.

http://www.moneycentral.msn.com/arti...tlkidscost.asp

This article breaks it out by income level - under $40K vs over, etc. The number is an average for a two kid family - onlies cost more per kid than the third or fourth kid, etc. But the fact is that there are some per child costs that can't be dispensed with, such as dentistry or food.

There are many things we do spend our money on, such as membership in our community pool, tithing at church, preschool, an au pair for our boys, a larger house in a great neighborhood that we could do without if needed. But they are expenditures made in the best interest of our kids and to do without them would in my estimation for my family, negatively impact my kids.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Juliacat (May 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InaX5* 
You love your children enough you will find away, no matter how tough things are financially, or how tough they get.

I am going to hope that what you mean is, you will find a way to adequately support the children you already have, not that you're required to have more children in order to prove that you love the ones you already have.

Anyway, I am 100% in agreement with offwing.


----------



## sonrisaa29 (Feb 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InaX5* 
I am about to have child # 5. We are classed working poor, yet through smart spending & an ability to know how to make extra money when needed / wanted. We do OK. We even have a few extras. I feel more prepared financially then ever before.

I believe there are 2 reasons you hear people comment on not being able to afford more children.
1. poor spending habits.
2. an unwillingness to give up regular extravagances.

You love your children enough you will find away, no matter how tough things are financially, or how tough they get. Plus, if you don't feel that an additional child is an expense you can't figure out, then your better prepared if harder times hit.

Oh and somehow we even have a savings account.


For us an extravangence is food, shelter and clothing. I believe that parents have a moral duty to provide their children with these things, the clothing and food can be skimped on, housing is one where I will not sacrifice my childs safety to live in a cheaper neighborhood which has more violence just so I can have another child.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

I agree with siobhang that the dynamic is totally different in larger families. There's also a different dynamic when the children are closer in ages than mine.

MY experience, with having my 2 girls almost 5 years apart, is that I'm strongly needed for companionship. I love this -- but then, it's hard to imagine how I could be this connected with each child, if I'd had a little one every 1 1/2 or 2 years.

I'm kind of different in that I always dreamed of having a bunch of little "stairsteps" not more than 2 years apart in age -- but my reality is I married later in life, and breastfeeding has a powerful impact on my fertility. I'd love a big family, but I still don't feel led to wean my children before they're ready, just so I can hypothetically get pregnant sooner.

I guess, in a way, I can't "afford" more, because my fertility pretty much shuts down while I have a child who still wants to nurse a few times a day. I guess my biological "bank" is very limited.

Of course, I feel very blessed and don't want to sound like I'm complaining. Sometimes our bodies know what's best when we don't -- and in my case, I believe God's the one directing my body.


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Upside* 
I'm trying to figure out what this statement means to me right now. We're currently expecting baby #2, just as planned. I don't know at this point if I want more than 2 children, but something I hear and read often is that people say that can't afford more children. In what way? We have a 3 bedroom house, 2 bedrooms for kids, someone bunks up so I don't think we need more space. Is it the basics people can't afford, extra health and food costs? Those seem like something we could handle IF we decided on more kids.

Is it that people feel public schools aren't good and need to send their little ones to private schools? Are parents worried about paying for college? My parents were not able to help me through college but I'm fine with paying off my own student loans, so I don't feel like that's an issue for me, I'm glad they had me even though they didn't have a lot of money.

Here's what I'm really saying, I feel like middle and upper middle class parents have a certain expectation for what they need to provide for their children, and I can't figure out quite yet where I come down on this issue. It seems like if I give my kids love, warmth, food, clothes, make sure they go to school (public for us), then am I really limited by whether or not 20 years down the road i can pay for them to go to college or help them buy a house? Is the tendency to materialize our lives the real issue? I'm not sure how well I'm expressing myself, I do come down on the side of more kids, less stuff, but any thoughts?


It totally is the real issue with our family. When I was in India I heard this story, told by a family who chose to only have one child because that's all they could afford: "Every day mommy had enough money to buy flour to make three chapattis: one for mommy, one for daddy, and one for baby. We have all we need. If we have another baby we will have to break our son's chapatti in half and share it with his brother or sister. Both would suffer."

While this is oversimplified, it's true for many families. It's not just about quality of life. It's about putting food on the table and giving people just the basics. My dh makes a decent (not too bad, not wealthy) salary. We have a low mortagage payment that is about the same as a good apt. in our area. We have enough room in our 3BR house, theoretically, for two more kids since our girls share one of the rooms. My oldest attends a public charter school that's free. The big factor right now is my youngest has long-term medical needs that are costing us hundreds of dollars per month. Without insurance that would be in the thousands. Since the condition is inherited (we didn't know that before we had kids) we have a good chance of having another child with the same condition.

But even if we didn't have the medical issues-- I look ahead to music lessons, vacations (# of plane tickets), a bigger car to cart all the kids around in, helping them with college, giving them good quality food and keeping them clothed (and I'm not talking designer clothes-- just clothes). We would struggle a lot on one income. If I went back to work and had more children I'd basically be paying my whole salary in childcare. And what about putting away for our own retirement?? That doesn't seem important now but it will in a few years. I'm actually going back to school to become a nurse so I can get more income for our family-- not only to pay med bills but to contribute to our retirement nest egg.

Emotionally we don't want more children even if we could afford them. Two is plenty for us. We are enjoying sleeping through the night again (most of the time) and being able to do bigger kid things. No more PPD to look forward to. Life is getting easier. I love babies but I am done.


----------



## holly6737 (Dec 21, 2006)

Personally, I would never stop having kids just because I couldn't pay for their college educations. Both DH and I paid for our educations completely out of pocket. Neither of our parents paid for any of their kids educations, and couldn't afford to. I guess if you're looking at it that way, neither of us would have been born! I'd much rather be born, and have to pay for my own college than not be born at all! I think helping to pay for your child's education is a wonderful idea. But, I would never use that as a basis for not having any more kids. We want 7 or 8.







Hopefully we'll be able to chip in and help with costs for college. Lack of money or resources didn't stop us from getting our degrees (and getting married and having kids IN college). They'll survive. We did.

ETA: I went to college with a bunch of stuck-up, snob sorority girls and frat guys. Spoiled brats. Parents were completely paying for their kids educations and they were just drinking their parents money away. No concept of responsibility or maturity at all. That's NOT going to be my kids, let me tell you. I made excellent grades because I knew I was paying for them! No mommy or daddy to bail me out. Our plan right now is to have our kids completely pay for their own college out of federal loans and grants (scholarships are ideal...). IF they graduate with a minimum GPA (3.0 for a science/math/engineering degree and maybe 3.5 for a liberal arts degree) we'll assume the loans and pay for them. If not, they better budget for the 300$ a month or marry someone rich! Eating ramen noodles 4 times a week never killed anyone. Also, if someone *doesn't* go to college just because they didn't have parents to pay for it, they didn't deserve to go anyway. The government has wonderful grant/loan programs to help people pay for their own college. College is no longer a luxury for the well-to-do families. Everyone can go to college now. Money is available and if you get a degree in the right field, jobs are available also immediately to help pay those student loan debts.

Has anyone ever read that book "The Color of Water"? That woman raised 12 kids in Harlem on absolutely no money. The kids had to grow up a bit faster, but all of them ended up going to college, several went off to become doctors, lawyers, PhD's, etc. The idea that low-income families can't produce college-educated, high income, musically gifted people is degrading. You just make sacrifices. As a woman who got married and had a baby while DH and I were full-time students, who both graduated with exceptional GPAs in difficult fields (I have a Bio degree and DH was mechanical engineering), I'm familiar with making financial sacrifices to get what you want. It is possible. Don't think just because you can't pay for your child's education they won't or can't go AND be successful. That idea is ridiculous. BIL is exceptionally gifted musically. He's on a full scholarship to USC for french horn. They have no money at all. He played his entire musical career on a borrowed french horn. MIL paid for his lessons by bartering artwork (she's an artist). You make it work.


----------



## Juliacat (May 8, 2002)

I've been out of school 6 years and I'm still $25,000 in debt from student loans. Given that college is probably going to cost twice as much as it does now by the time dd is in school...I'd like to spare her as much of that burden as I can. I don't plan on raising a spoiled or irresponsible child either way.

That said, college savings is certainly not the ONLY reason I'm not having more children!


----------



## Upside (Jun 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *holly6737* 
IF they graduate with a minimum GPA (3.0 for a science/math/engineering degree and maybe 3.5 for a liberal arts degree) we'll assume the loans and pay for them.

Hey! You are discriminating against the liberal arts! I worked hard for my, read it, summa cum laude in English Lit







.

As for the college thing, I don't feel upset with my parents for not paying for my education. I guess if they had, I wouldn't be complaining, but I'm not complaining about it now because I feel like I got my money's worth from my college years...


----------



## 2Sweeties1Angel (Jan 30, 2006)

Quote:

Eating ramen noodles 4 times a week never killed anyone.
If you look at the long term effects of consuming all that sodium, yeah it has.


----------



## holly6737 (Dec 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Juliacat* 
I've been out of school 6 years and I'm still $25,000 in debt from student loans. Given that college is probably going to cost twice as much as it does now by the time dd is in school...I'd like to spare her as much of that burden as I can. I don't plan on raising a spoiled or irresponsible child either way.

That said, college savings is certainly not the ONLY reason I'm not having more children!

Oh definitely! I'm just saying not being able to pay for college is a ridiculous reason to not have any more kids if that's your only reason IMO. And some posters were implying that if you dont pay for your child's education you're either a bad parent or are going to raise kids who are going to be stuck in minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives and I don't think that's accurate at all. Hey, if you don't want more kids, don't have more kids! If you're done, you're done, you know?


----------



## holly6737 (Dec 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2Sweeties1Angel* 
If you look at the long term effects of consuming all that sodium, yeah it has.

Oh please. I guess I'm a gonner then and so is DH, cause I totally lived off of kraft mac and cheese my freshman year and DH definitely lived off of ramen noodles. Now we don't have to worry about saving for retirement!


----------



## holly6737 (Dec 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Upside* 
Hey! You are discriminating against the liberal arts! I worked hard for my, read it, summa cum laude in English Lit







.
.

That's a real accomplishment! We'd pay for yours though, see? It passes.


----------



## shayinme (Jan 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *holly6737* 
Has anyone ever read that book "The Color of Water"? That woman raised 12 kids in Harlem on absolutely no money. The kids had to grow up a bit faster, but all of them ended up going to college, several went off to become doctors, lawyers, PhD's, etc. The idea that low-income families can't produce college-educated, high income, musically gifted people is degrading. You just make sacrifices. As a woman who got married and had a baby while DH and I were full-time students, who both graduated with exceptional GPAs in difficult fields (I have a Bio degree and DH was mechanical engineering), I'm familiar with making financial sacrifices to get what you want. It is possible. Don't think just because you can't pay for your child's education they won't or can't go AND be successful. That idea is ridiculous. BIL is exceptionally gifted musically. He's on a full scholarship to USC for french horn. They have no money at all. He played his entire musical career on a borrowed french horn. MIL paid for his lessons by bartering artwork (she's an artist). You make it work.

I did read this book. However I wanted to say as the costs of college rises, its just not that easy to work your way through and pay..

I went to college in my mid 20's and had to foot the bill myself, now I have a 100K in student loans between undegrad and grad school.. lets just say that this level of debt greatly limits my family size. I am scared because my eldest is 15 and 3 years away from college and at present I have no $$ to contribute to his schooling though I will do what I can.

No, its not necessary to pay for your kids college but in this ever-changing world gone are the good ole days where you can you can expect to get a good job without some education.

Also as more people go to college it seems there is less financial assistance available.. I remember 15 years ago when a Pell Grant was actually worth enough to pay for community college. Its just not the case these days. Especially if you are not flat broke, but somewhat in the middle, I know in a couple of years when ds starts applying to college they will look at our income and assume we can pay yet my own debts greatly limit me.

Shay


----------



## holly6737 (Dec 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shayinme* 
I did read this book. However I wanted to say as the costs of college rises, its just not that easy to work your way through and pay..

I went to college in my mid 20's and had to foot the bill myself, now I have a 100K in student loans between undegrad and grad school.. lets just say that this level of debt greatly limits my family size. I am scared because my eldest is 15 and 3 years away from college and at present I have no $$ to contribute to his schooling though I will do what I can.

No, its not necessary to pay for your kids college but in this ever-changing world gone are the good ole days where you can you can expect to get a good job without some education.

Also as more people go to college it seems there is less financial assistance available.. I remember 15 years ago when a Pell Grant was actually worth enough to pay for community college. Its just not the case these days. Especially if you are not flat broke, but somewhat in the middle, I know in a couple of years when ds starts applying to college they will look at our income and assume we can pay yet my own debts greatly limit me.

Shay

I just graduated college in 2006, DH in 2005, so I have an idea of how much college costs now-a-days, especially since I footed the bill myself. I'm in about 30k just for me, DH is in about the same. Yes, it is becoming necessary to go to college to get a good degree, but my point was that whether or not someone else is paying for your college should have no bearing on whether you go or not. No, your DS probably won't be eligible for many grants, BUT he will be eligible for federal loans, some of which he won't have to pay interest on. I believe you can max out at 26k for subsidized and 26k for unsubsidized for your undergrad. and for grad. it's more. Even the federal loans you DO have to pay interest on, the interest is pretty low and if you consolidate, it's really not a hardship at all if you know how to budget correctly. You can also get a work/study job. I had a job my freshman year in a lab. Spring semester I actually got paid to do independent research which was presented at the undergraduate research symposium and looks really great on my curriculum vitae. Where you get into trouble is if you take out private loans. If you go to a public college and make sacrifices, there really is no reason you should have to take out private loans, although we did just because we had a baby and costs were more. I totally agree everyone should go to college, if not just for the experience, I just don't agree that having your parents pay is the only, or best in some circumstances, way to go. College costs DO continue to rise and federal funding IS getting less for those in the middle-class (thanks, pres. Bush). THIS is why it's important to vote democratic! (my shameless plug)- Am I allowed to say that? When it comes to paying for college, where there's a will, there's a way. I think the media hypes it up alot more than it is, though.


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

I guess I should clarify the college thing-- we cannot afford to pay fully for their college nor would I want to. I too earned my way through the first time and am doing it again now. However they will be allowed to live with us for free as long as they attend college full time and work summers. I think we will be able to cover 1/2 their expenses but they will have to pay for the other 1/2. I used to go to school with the spoiled kids who basically drank themselves right out of college and I was so resentful of them, when I was working hard and surviving on $20 food allowance per week.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *holly6737* 

ETA: I went to college with a bunch of stuck-up, snob sorority girls and frat guys. Spoiled brats. Parents were completely paying for their kids educations and they were just drinking their parents money away. No concept of responsibility or maturity at all. That's NOT going to be my kids, let me tell you. I made excellent grades because I knew I was paying for them! No mommy or daddy to bail me out. Our plan right now is to have our kids completely pay for their own college out of federal loans and grants (scholarships are ideal...). IF they graduate with a minimum GPA (3.0 for a science/math/engineering degree and maybe 3.5 for a liberal arts degree) we'll assume the loans and pay for them. If not, they better budget for the 300$ a month or marry someone rich! Eating ramen noodles 4 times a week never killed anyone. Also, if someone *doesn't* go to college just because they didn't have parents to pay for it, they didn't deserve to go anyway. The government has wonderful grant/loan programs to help people pay for their own college. College is no longer a luxury for the well-to-do families. Everyone can go to college now. Money is available and if you get a degree in the right field, jobs are available also immediately to help pay those student loan debts.

I just couldn't leave this alone....

I believe Ramen WILL kill you over time. I ate plenty of it in college and am still alive to tell about it, but I am seriously hoping we will have enough cash to help dd buy better food







In fact, that is FAR more important to me than a college education.

And, as a former beer-loving sorority girl who paid her own way through school and got two engineering degrees that would have been paid for by my parents if they had the same GPA rules as you do, I resent some of the stereotypes you are flinging around here. I know plenty of people that bombed their way out of school that were footing the bill. And I also know plenty of people that graduated with top honors on their parent's dime. But whether or not that even matters, the fact is, college is going to cost a buttload more when my dd is that age than it did when I went. I *barely* scraped by, even with my strict Ramen diet. I am not going to pretend it might not actually be impossible to do it on your own in 15 years. This is not at all a factor in my own family size, other factors weigh more heavily in our decision to have only one, but it is something I think about. I have no idea if dd will even want to go to school, but I am facing the reality that if she does, the only way it may happen is if we help. And she can even be in a sorority if she wants









I would also like to point out that my sorority's average GPA was far higher than the average for all women (or men for that matter) on campus. And *gasp* some even had parents that paid their tuition!


----------



## holly6737 (Dec 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Yooper* 
I just couldn't leave this alone....

I believe Ramen WILL kill you over time. I ate plenty of it in college and am still alive to tell about it, but I am seriously hoping we will have enough cash to help dd buy better food







In fact, that is FAR more important to me than a college education.

And, as a former beer-loving sorority girl who paid her own way through school and got two engineering degrees that would have been paid for by my parents if they had the same GPA rules as you do, I resent some of the stereotypes you are flinging around here. I know plenty of people that bombed their way out of school that were footing the bill. And I also know plenty of people that graduated with top honors on their parent's dime. But whether or not that even matters, the fact is, college is going to cost a buttload more when my dd is that age than it did when I went. I *barely* scraped by, even with my strict Ramen diet. I am not going to pretend it might not actually be impossible to do it on your own in 15 years. This is not at all a factor in my own family size, other factors weigh more heavily in our decision to have only one, but it is something I think about. I have no idea if dd will even want to go to school, but I am facing the reality that if she does, the only way it may happen is if we help. And she can even be in a sorority if she wants









I would also like to point out that my sorority's average GPA was far higher than the average for all women (or men for that matter) on campus. And *gasp* some even had parents that paid their tuition!

Well, obviously you are a very intelligent person and have defied several stereotypes, the sorority girl stereotype being just one. Men dominate, unfortunately, the engineering field, and so it's not surprising to me that you would be the exception to the rule in more than one area. I also think it depends on what college you go to. Some universities have more down to earth sororities/fraternities (NC State being one, for example) and sororities differ from each other as well. From my experience on an "old money" southern campus, the majority of sorority and fraternity people came from very wealthy families who were footing the bill. Oh, and they were ALL white. In fact, ZTA at my school even got in alot of trouble because they put on a fundraiser for the parents with the girls wearing "black face". A black frat built a big house on frat court, and several of the frats said they were going to do things like dump a bunch of corn husks on their lawn when the house was finished just so they could watch them pick it up like slaves (this was found on a frat/soro. forum for our school and even had the frat names attached- several guys were kicked out, but it's obvious if they hadn't of been caught they wouldn't have gotten in trouble). Every week in our paper we had articles about this fraternity was suspended for this, or that, or whatever that had to do with drinking, hazing, more racist issues, whatever. They never got in trouble, though, because there's so much money involved. I never met a sorority girl who was paying for herself to be in the sorority. I HAVE met girls who's parents STOPPED paying for the sorority because the girl's GPA was below 3.0, and I thought that was a good move. Obviously greek people can be smart, but from my experience the majority of them are also stuck-up, racist snobs who think they don't have to live by anyone's rules but their own. I wouldn't pay for my child to be in a greek organization if they went to the same college as I went to. That's just me. Like I said, every campus is probably different.

ETA: I did have one friend who was really nice and in a sorority. Not a snob at all and very smart. I guess she's in medical school now. So, anyway, not everyone is like that, but I think on my campus, she was more the exception than the rule. Just thought of 3 more girls who I knew who were also nice, smart and in sororities.


----------



## lisalou (May 20, 2005)

For, the greek system it really depends on what school you go to. For Northwestern or Purdue (2 schools I considered) you had no social life unless you belonged to a sorority or fraternity. As a result there were houses that catered to all sorts of lifestyles so the sweeping generalization you are painting wasn't true. At the school I did end up at, I would agree with your sweeping generalization most fraternities and sororities were little more than social clubs designed to get a woman married. I still remember vividly the one fraternity party I did go to where we had to basically drag a friend out as fraternity guys were circling around her once they realized she was drunk. Their reassurances that she'd get home ok didn't seem sincere to us. But there were alternatives for developing a social group and not everyone whose parents paid for college were in the greek system and not everyone whose parents didn't pay for college weren't in the greek system.

I had plenty of non-sorority friends who had their parents pay for college and didn't waste their parent's money. Heck even my dh went to a college with no greek system and his parents paid for it and he turned out fine. I think it really more boils down to how you teach your children about money, the worth of things and respect for things more than whether you pay for it all or not. I know plenty of people whose parents gave and paid for quite a lot but who also know the value of it and appreciate it. I also know people whose parents didn't pay for anything who are bitter and unable to manage finances. So I think it boils down to something else besides simply your parents paying for things.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *USAmma* 
I used to go to school with the spoiled kids who basically drank themselves right out of college and I was so resentful of them, when I was working hard and surviving on $20 food allowance per week.

Why resentful? Did you really want to be in their shoes? To have the funding, but not have the ability to make good use of it, seems the worse handicap to me.

If you lack funding, but DO have the inner resources to make good use of opportunities, in my opinion you're going to get a whole lot more out of life than the wasters.


----------



## RainCoastMama (Oct 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lisalou* 

So I think it boils down to something else besides simply your parents paying for things.


Yeah, totally. If you weren't given some sort of ethical or moral guidance early on in life...rich OR not-rich, it does. not. matter. You will f* it up, rich or not, if you're a spoiled, self-centred brat. Money is one of MANY influences to shape a person.

ETA: Also, when you talk about totally economically disadvantaged people making it 'big' in the world...yeah, it makes news and writes books because statistically the odds are stacked AGAINST that happening. Obviously this is not the case for everyone, but it is for a majority. When you reflexively compare the future outcomes for say, a rich southerner who has all the ties to country clubs, sororities/frats, tutors, private schools, etc. ad nauseum, do you immediately think that they are on an even playing field with a poor kid from the ghetto who grew up with nothing more than the basics in life? The majority of the time, one outcome will be better than the other. OBVIOUSLY this is an extreme comparison, but when you're dithering somewhere around the middle ground you'll hit the argument for people limiting their family sizes based on affordibilty.


----------



## dallaschildren (Jun 14, 2003)

The ability for people to pay for BASIC necessities; food, clothing, safe shelter, and health care are at the crux of this issue for me. It isn't about college, trips, or extracurricular activities. When we, as a nation, become as concerned with our fellow human beings BASIC needs as we appear to be with their additional lifestyle choices, then the rest is gravy. Who makes up the highest percentage of homeless in our country? Women and children.


----------



## mammal_mama (Aug 27, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RainCoastMama* 
When you reflexively compare the future outcomes for say, a rich southerner who has all the ties to country clubs, sororities/frats, tutors, private schools, etc. ad nauseum, do you immediately think that they are on an even playing field with a poor kid from the ghetto who grew up with nothing more than the basics in life? The majority of the time, one outcome will be better than the other.

And what outcomes are we talking about -- purely financial, or do we include things like character development, concern for others, and the ability to relate empathetically with all kinds of people? If we're talking about the whole person, I'm not at all sure the rich southerner will have a better outcome from the poor child who grew up in the diverse inner city.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
And what outcomes are we talking about -- purely financial, or do we include things like character development, concern for others, and the ability to relate empathetically with all kinds of people? If we're talking about the whole person, I'm not at all sure the rich southerner will have a better outcome from the poor child who grew up in the diverse inner city.

I think you underestimate the considerable psychological damage that can come from being part of a discriminated underclass.

While you can argue about character and empathy, the fact is that it wasn't rich southerners who drowned in their attics in New Orleans - it was poor blacks. And it isn't rich southerers whose kids were homeless and without schooling for months and years on end - their houses and schools were rebuilt first.

I am not saying that only the poor were impacted by Katrina and other disasters - but the poor were disproportionately impacted AND the poor have a MUCH harder time bouncing back from such devastating loss. And their kids are the ones who pay the price.

Interestingly, those who are the worst off post Katrina were economically disadvantaged with few family and community resources. They literally have no one to turn to.

So better economic, social, and community status, even a marginally, absolutely has a positive impact on your kids ability to survive and thrive in times of crisis. And those times can come at any time with no warning.


----------



## offwing (Aug 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang* 
So better economic, social, and community status, even a marginally, absolutely has a positive impact on your kids ability to survive and thrive in times of crisis. And those times can come at any time with no warning.

Absolutely.

Living on the edge is a gamble ... you have to hope every day that some small thing doesn't occur that pushes you past your resources. Anything a person does to increase their resources decreases their odds of being pushed over the line. In the context of this conversation, every additional child that is brought into the world lowers the amount of available resources unless the resources are increased too.


----------



## madskye (Feb 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *offwing* 
And to get back on topic, being homeless is probably a pretty good indicator that you can't afford another child.

But don't you think if they were willing to make sacrifices they could make it work?

That is a joke! Don't flame me.


----------



## astrophe27 (Aug 27, 2007)

Quote:

I'm trying to figure out what this statement means to me right now. We're currently expecting baby #2, just as planned. I don't know at this point if I want more than 2 children, but something I hear and read often is that people say that can't afford more children. In what way?
We're at 1 child, debating #2. We chronically discuss how many children we can afford to have on many levels because we feel responsible family planning involves more than just thinking inside the family domain. I'm not a citizen of only my house. I'm a citizen of the world too.

It is more than real estate or money concerns. We could afford another child in terms of house space or money type resources.

We aren't sure that we can afford it in terms of emotional, mental, health or relationship resources though. I have fertility hurdles and had a high risk pregnancy. I'm not esp. keen to revisit that scene or leave my husband a widower.

Also, if I can't be as good a parent to all children I bring into my home, then I best stop before I hit that point. There's only so much of me to go around, and I need time on my own, and time with my husband. And the plain fact is the more family members using up the family resource pie, the smaller piece of overall pie they get. Yes, love is endless. But the days only have 24 hrs, and the paychecks are only so big.

Then there is our family's place within our town's resources. If one of us dies, then how will the other parent move on with raising the kids? If public school turns out to be a bust, can we afford to cost of private/homeschool options here? What about feeding all this family if jobs get lost? Just being a good worker is not enough. I was downsized -- the company simply couldn't make it. That wasn't my fault, but I had to deal with the loss of income just the same.

Yes, there is aid, but one of the considerations of family planning to us is to make it _without_ aid. I don't plan my family counting on aid to fill the gaps. If everyone did that, all the aid would get used up fast!

Then there's the view of being a global citizen -- there's more than enough people in the world as is, many of them unwanted kids. Do I HAVE to grow my family with bio children? It is natural enough to want one bio child with your beloved.

But how ethical is it to make another new biological child from scratch 9 mos from now when so many _already existing children_ need homes via adoption TODAY! ASAP!

I'm not helping to relieve anything with another bio kid instead of adopting one who is already here... I've just added another person consuming Earth resources over a lifetime and thus cut every other citizen's pie smaller without asking them. The earth is a large but CLOSED ecosystem. More people on earth using up the earth family pie resources, less slice of pie overall all around.

What about future generations? Space in my country is as limited as space in the home. If I have a lot of kids, and then my kids have a lot of kids... does that mean my grandaughter or great grandaughter might not get to pick for herself how many SHE wants? Will the govt. make a rule about how you can reproduce?

China has had a One Child policy for yonks for population control. I'm half Chinese, I'm well aware of it all throughout my maternal line. I live in the US, but that sort of problem is close enough to touch my life through my maternal line... and through friends.

It'd be foolish to think it would _never_ touch me or my descendants here in the US.

It's not totally out there for me to imagine my grandkid telling me "Thanks a lot Grandma! You selfishly went and had your brood of kids however you wanted, and now _I_ only get to have one. Swell family planning there!"

So... those are the kinds of things I think about as I deliberate whether or not I can "afford" to have another.

HTH!
A.


----------



## RainCoastMama (Oct 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mammal_mama* 
And what outcomes are we talking about -- purely financial, or do we include things like character development, concern for others, and the ability to relate empathetically with all kinds of people? If we're talking about the whole person, I'm not at all sure the rich southerner will have a better outcome from the poor child who grew up in the diverse inner city.

No, I'm not talking about purely financial outcomes. Siobhang put it so eloquently.

One thing that I continually notice, in my professional life as well, is that there is a lot of romanticization of poverty, the downtrodden, the disaffected. I had a client from a First Nations (native) reservation once vent to me that everyone thinks it's so great and poetic and noble, how every non-native thinks that natives (her word) take care of the land and are so spiritual with sweatlodges and their traditions, etc. etc. but they forget how miserable some of these living situations are and how damaged communities become because of the insidious experience of poverty over generations.

And as a social worker I'll say that sometimes...believe it or not...(hold onto your hats)...love is NOT enough to grow a whole child. I personally think that that's a shortsighted (somewhat selfish) way of looking at the world.


----------

