If you have kids you know you cannot support, should you lose them?

Question

I know a LOT of people who chose to live low-effort, low-income lifestyles. They have nice jobs where they are basically paid to be there. They show up, perform a repetitive task or answer the phone, they can put their brains on autopilot, they don't have to use problem-solving skills, there is nothing to "get right" and nothing to "figure out" and they make no decisions (sometimes these people think that decision-making is just the act of stating what the decision is rather than the challenge of coming to the right decision and the risk of making the wrong one). And they knew when they made these choices that they would not make enough money to support children. So they didn't have children. The ones with office functionary jobs, they can afford to have dogs and many do. But it's a choice, it's a tradeoff, and they don't try to have it both ways.

I made another decision - I chose a career that involved a challenging day - I have to evaluate multi-million dollar deals, help to structure them, and make a recommendation as to whether we should provide the financing. If I'm wrong once or twice, we have reserves, we'll be OK. But I could still lose my job. If I'm wrong 3 or 4 times, my institution could have serious problems. So far, I haven't been wrong.

It's a bit different from loading a truck or answering the phone.

I don't look down on people who do those things for a living - many times I wish I'd made the same choice. But part of the reason I made the choice I made is so that I could make money, so that I could enjoy some of the finer things in life, and have kids.

When people try to have it both ways and have kids they can't afford, they then try to stick people who made the choices I made with the bill - but that's money that is now no longer available to support MY kids.

Anyone else see a problem there?

It's patently unfair to have kids you cannot afford and then prop them up, argue that "well, it's not THEIR fault, they're CHILDREN" and expect the rest of us to support them.

They ARE just children, and it's NOT their fault - so maybe they shouldn't suffer the consequences of their parents' irresponsibility.

But if their parents are irresponsible, so irresponsible as to have had children that they knew they could not afford to support, perhaps they should not get to keep them?

That would certainly change a lot of behavior - if you choose the repetitive task / get home at 4:30 and pop open a Bud lifestyle, GOOD FOR YOU - but it's a TRADEOFF and you don't get the best of both worlds. You don't get the benefits of parenthood without the challenges - at least not at the expense of everyone else.

If you're not going to pay for the kid, why should it still be your kid?

Tangerine, if you're making it work without sticking everyone else with the bill, GREAT. All I'm asking is that if you expect everyone ELSE to support your kid, should you get to keep the kid?

Shinobi, when a proposed deal comes in I'm on it, for several hours straight - in between deals I have some downtime - - - - it's a bit like a fireman's schedule.

Answer 1

people have no business having kids they cant afford just so they can go on wel-fare. in that case the children should be given up for adoption to a decent hard working family.

Answer 2

As a parent, I don't see your arguement for what you are proposing. So obviously you are very young and don't understand the emotional attachment.

I would support having those on welfare be placed on some type of mandatory birth control on a temporary basis. Children are expensive and if you are on welfare, you cannot afford what you have so why should you have more.

People on welfare are there for a reason. They are too lazy to get a job. If I were king for a day, we would not have Welfare. I would call it workfare. Basically to be on government assistance you would have to
1) report to work every day to clean streets, pick up trash, etc.
2) Go into a mandatory education program provided by the state to get your GED and trade based job skills to last you a lifetime. Teach to fish and you can feed yourself.
3) provide day care to your children while you better yourself.

Putting others kids into an orphanage or foster care is not the solution here.

Answer 3

And the flip-side of the argument...

If the government, through health-insurance programs and various welfare programs, makes it possible to have a plasma TV, cable TV, internet service, a computer, mobile phone service, two cars, a decent home, and still be able to raise several children on the "low-effort low-income" jobs you describe, who in their right mind would take on the educational burdens and job related stress of a doctor, engineer, etc?

Sure most people pursue "high-effort high-stress" careers because the field interests them and they probably have some natural ability, but usually the deciding factor that pushes them through the financial, time, and effort burdens of the additional education is the reward of a better than average life. If you take away or lessen the reward for doing difficult jobs, won't the high-tech industries of the US suffer? Will they be destroyed just like manufacturing in the US?

Answer 4

I often agree with you. These last couple of questions of yours cause concern for me. Could you state your expertise in this area?

I am a divorce attorney and I also practice criminal defense.

The societal problems facing our children are real. And mostly caused by a lack of FATHERS.

ADDING THIS, because I think you're being a jerk: I am a divorced single mom with a dead-beat ex. Because I find it so important for my son to have at least ONE parent, I work from home and only go to the office to meet with clients. I turn down thousands of dollars to be home in the afternoon when my child gets off the bus. I do not take government assistance, but was FORTUNATE enough to have been gifted enough to get through law school. Give this crap a rest, it only helps LIBERALS.

Answer 5

How many 100k a year jobs are available in your area? 50k?
In my area, that would be zero for 100k and maybe a handful of 50k. People do not " choose " a low income lifestyle. Did you ever stop to think that maybe this " great " economy is killing people? Most people? Why do you think people are losing their houses? Yeah, they should lose their kids, then you can piss and moan about your taxes paying the bill. I wish the whole country was as smart as you.

Answer 6

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who have children they can't afford, but what do you suggest that we do with the children? Are you suggesting that these children should go to the state so that the taxpayers can support them?

EDIT:I would also like to add that there are plenty of poor and working-class parents out there who aren't on public assistance. As long as they aren't taking advantage of the system, why would you advocate tearing their families apart?

Answer 7

There is something wrong with a society that sees a correlation with child rearing and the Jobs that we do as mere slaves to a corporation....

BEWARE...... like all other past civilizations, the Anglo-Saxon civilization is in danger of disappearing down the toilet pan.

Answer 8

I see a problem, if you have a job working with that much money, why do you spend so much time on Yahoo? A job like that requires so much time and effort on your part, a busy person like you should not focus your time on Yahoo as you are now but instead of your customers.

Edit: For some reason I think you're not telling the truth, but oh well.

Answer 9

Lose them where? Like in the forest or something? What if they find their way home?

You'd be better off hiring a professional to lose your kids for you, they won't make any nasty mistake like leaving breadcrumbs in their possession to make little trails out of!

Cheers :-)

Answer 10

We shouldnt take them away but just as the left has reeducated the populace to be slackers, we should start in the schools to teach children the value of hard work and pulling your weight rather than just coasting by or expecting others do everything for you.