Fair to complain?

CyclingBantam

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13765820

Just read this story and, whilst I really do feel for them struggling for food, I feel a little angry that the parents have put themselves in this position.

Is it reasonable to have Seven children then complain you struggle to feed them when prices of food etc go up? Whatever happened to thinking ahead and considering is it reasonable to actually have 7 children. Can you reasonably afford/provide for them.

I really don't like it when people get themselves in positions where they can't support themselves through little foresight. I guess it also riles me a little that they have had seven kids. Is that really socially responsible?

I'm not always angry, honest.

MonkeyMonster

heh, I too read that and thought wtf with the 7 kids in that situation.

It's going to be speakers corner box tastic.

MrChuck

I also found that a lot of my sympathy evaporated when I got to the part where it said they had 7 kids.

To be fair though they sound like decent people so good luck to them.

mudcow007

true story -

there is a couple the my mrs knows (not friends!!) that were talking a while back.

they had just recently had a baby an they mother was said "i'm not going to go back to work when the baby is old enough, im going to have a few more babies as we can get more money in benefits than i can from my job"

me an my mrs cant afford to have a brood of kids, i would really like to have one, but my mrs wants 3 but at the moment we cant afford to.....[/quote]

CyclingBantam

MrChuck wrote:

I also found that a lot of my sympathy evaporated when I got to the part where it said they had 7 kids.

To be fair though they sound like decent people so good luck to them.

They do sound reasonable, and I really feel for them struggling for food (I really can't imagine how tough that must be) so I hope for the best for them but like I say, they muist accept the responsibility for putting themselves in that position. I think it is totally unfair on their children and in effect, very poor parenting.

rolf_f

Are they complaining that much - as far as I can see she is just commenting on their situation. I don't think it is right that anyone should have 7 kids and expect any state money for more than three of them.

The comment that 'Everything's gone up, but our incomes haven't, I just don't understand the logic' is a bit dense though. The logic is that people like her live beyond their means and screw the economy up. It isn't very complicated.

The Rookie

The trouble is, with 9 mouths to feed, even cooking frugally (that is eating real food, not processed rubbish) is going to cost a tenner a meal, for 2 low income earners that is always going to be tough, however they chose to have 7 kids, they have to plan and and budget for them.

Simon

rubertoe

both my mrs and i work full time - luckily

We both want kids - but we cant afford them - so i feel no sympathy for these people and they are clearly socially irresponsible - although saying that at least they are making the effort to work - which is mor than can be said for a lot of large families.

maybe they will have to sell their bikes...

Cleat Eastwood

Insecurity and jealousy is a terrible thing you know. If only we were all as perfect as the posters above.

rolf_f

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Insecurity and jealousy is a terrible thing you know.

As is sanctimoniousness

Seriously, what has being perfect got to do with this. OK, you can end up with more kids than maybe you ideally want but how many do you need to have before you think maybe it's time to put a knot in it?

CyclingBantam

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Insecurity and jealousy is a terrible thing you know. If only we were all as perfect as the posters above.

?? Far from it. It was a conscious choice to have seven kids. It wasn't an unfortunate circumstance to find themselves in that we are jumping on. Why shouldn't they have some responsibility for their own children.

I'm far from perfect.

Well, not very far admittedly but not quite there yet.

CyclingBantam

Also, what on earth has insecurity OR jealousy got to do with it? I'm confused... and I think I have just bitten! :oops:

shm_uk

i feel no sympathy for these people and they are clearly socially irresponsible

Que?

If I read the article correctly, the family were managing to live within their means before the whole world went wrong, i.e. they could afford 7 children.

They've never taken the soft option and resorted to claiming benefits.

There are thousands of UK citizens across the whole spectrum of circumstances who are now struggling, including individuals & couples without children, due to wages stagnating & cost of living driving up inflation.

You can't blame the family for the global economy going so massively wrong in 2008.
Nobody really saw that coming.

dhope

Caveat: I've not read the BBC news story, anecdotal evidence isn't much use.

Yes, the parents with no jobs and too many children are irresponsible. Still, the benefits aren't provided for them, they're provided for the children.

There are a hundred variations on the 'you measure the degree of civilisation of a society by how it treats its weakest members' quote and it's correct. The point is not to punish the children for their parents lack of thought.

Not saying the implementation is anywhere close to perfect, but the intention is sound.

rick_chasey

The state can't and shouldn't stop people having children, and the state should do all it can to prevent children falling into poverty, so what's the alternative?

In the scheme of things it's a small problem. Let them have a bit of state cash. I'd rather that than 7 kids under the poverty line.

shm_uk

Rolf F wrote:

Are they complaining that much - as far as I can see she is just commenting on their situation.

Bang on.

DonDaddyD

Firstly, I don't think anyone should have the right to make a judgement on the number of children people decide to have.

I know a few on here who have more than 3 children.

If the judgement of having multiple children (or even one child) is found to be poor because the parents cannot provide, support or raise the child (in this Countries socially accepted way). Then as a society we have collectively accepted systems in place to protect children. I however, do not think it is a judgement for one singular person to make.

Secondly, I think it's down to the parents own judgement as to whether they can financially support a child or more than one children.

Things we could afford over the last decade have, quite sharply, become more expensive and price increases are happening all over the place - some completely unexpected (like my car insurance went up from £48 - £53, outrageous). It is unfair to criticise a parent who could worked out they could afford to support their child or children two years ago and now are struggling or living beyond their means.

We've all felt the pinch and some of it unexpectedly. Parents aren't somehow immune.

Lastly, I absolutely detest the notion that a having a child is something you can or can't afford. Sky TV, comics, Star Trek Online, spending £50 on a Saturday night out or £100 in a restaurant is something I can or cannot afford. Having a child is something wonderful and precious, you make do and get by and give them the best of what you can give.

Countries lost it's sense of values, I'm sure of it.

rolf_f

shm_uk wrote:

You can't blame the family for the global economy going so massively wrong in 2008.
Nobody really saw that coming.

Eh? It was blindingly obvious what was coming years ago - certainly with regard to the UK economy. The only thing that surprised me was that it took so long. If you have a population addicted to consumption that doesn't make anything and has a wealth entirely based on property inflation things are going to go spectacularly wrong at some point. The people suffering now are not those who lived within their means and saved. I'm not saying that was an option for all but there are plenty of people now who earn a lot of money but are in financial difficulties because of their recklessness.

CyclingBantam

I guess the thread wasn't intended to remain focused directly on this scenario (although completely understandable it did due to my poor wording in the OP). This family, like people have said ARE managing although do apear to be in a precarious position, which is self inflicted.

I gues my frustration was with people, through no responsibility, putting themselves in a position where the state then have to intervene. I'm not saying they should be left, far from it, but it is just something that annoys me.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

The state can't and shouldn't stop people having children, and the state should do all it can to prevent children falling into poverty, so what's the alternative?

In the scheme of things it's a small problem. Let them have a bit of state cash. I'd rather that than 7 kids under the poverty line.

This, absolutely this!

HamishD

dhope wrote:

Caveat: I've not read the BBC news story, anecdotal evidence isn't much use.

Yes, the parents with no jobs and too many children are irresponsible. Still, the benefits aren't provided for them, they're provided for the children.

There are a hundred variations on the 'you measure the degree of civilisation of a society by how it treats its weakest members' quote and it's correct. The point is not to punish the children for their parents lack of thought.

Not saying the implementation is anywhere close to perfect, but the intention is sound.

^^^^ This is a sensible post.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lastly, I absolutely detest the notion that a having a child is something you can or can't afford. Sky TV, comics, Star Trek Online, spending £50 on a Saturday night out or £100 in a restaurant is something I can or cannot afford. Having a child is something wonderful and precious, you make do and get by and give them the best of what you can give.

Very idealistic but not realistic. It's fine to observe that a child is more important than Sky TV as long as it is you that is making the sacrifice. Having a child is expensive. If you haven't much money, don't let it stop you but why should you expect a state handout if you choose to have 7? (not that the family in this case seemed to be saying that they should)

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lastly, I absolutely detest the notion that a having a child is something you can or can't afford. Sky TV, comics, Star Trek Online, spending £50 on a Saturday night out or £100 in a restaurant is something I can or cannot afford. Having a child is something wonderful and precious, you make do and get by and give them the best of what you can give.

Rubbish. If you're certain you're not in a situation to be able to give a child a decent quality of life then you should seriously consider whether it's responsible to have the child in the first place.
If you're able to piss away money on Sky TV, Star Trek Online, £50 on a Saturday night and £100 in a restaurant (or £1000 on a bike, or the numerous things we all spend on) then you're probably well placed to be able to afford a child (by which I mean afford to purchase the things that a child requires).
If you have a couple of children already and are struggling to feed, cloth or provide a home for them then a sense of social responsibility as well as a responsibility to any future kids should cause most people to consider whether they're in a position to have another.

Edit: And if you have the kid anyway then refer to the previous post that the state should be obliged to support the child (not support the parents)

CyclingBantam

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lastly, I absolutely detest the notion that a having a child is something you can or can't afford. Sky TV, comics, Star Trek Online, spending £50 on a Saturday night out or £100 in a restaurant is something I can or cannot afford. Having a child is something wonderful and precious, you make do and get by and give them the best of what you can give.

Countries lost it's sense of values, I'm sure of it.

I agree with some of what you have put but I totally disagree with this part.

I really would like children and (hopefully) will have one in the not too distant future however, I have planned for years to make sure I am in a position where I can suitable (IMO) support them. I agree that having children is a totally amazing thing and precisely because of that I will do my upmost to do EVERYTHING I can to make sure I provide well for them. Making sure I don't have seven, just because I want them is one of those things. I know if I had seven I wouldn't be able to provide for them as well, either materially or with care and attention as if I only had one (I appreciate it doesn't quite just go up on a scale but when you are talking those numbers, they clearly must lose out at some point).

Having a load of children you are struggling to feed effectively, which is caused by having to feed so many isn't, in my opinion, doing my best for them.

MrChuck

DonDaddyD wrote:

.

Lastly, I absolutely detest the notion that a having a child is something you can or can't afford. Sky TV, comics, Star Trek Online, spending £50 on a Saturday night out or £100 in a restaurant is something I can or cannot afford. Having a child is something wonderful and precious, you make do and get by and give them the best of what you can give.

Countries lost it's sense of values, I'm sure of it.

That's all very well, and I'm sure nobody likes to assign values to children in the same way that you might to a new bike or whatever, but there ARE costs associated with having them and if the money available to meet those costs is limited then, well, whether you can afford to support them is a valid question (and a different question to whether the state should support them).

If I read the article correctly, the family were managing to live within their means before the whole world went wrong, i.e. they could afford 7 children.

Dunno about this. If he's a cleaner and she's a dinner lady, I think they were always going to be sailing pretty close to the wind with 7 kids, which doesn't strike me as very prudent.

I don't want to sound too judgemental. I'm not a parent so I don't really understand what it's like to be one, but I don't really see why you'd go out of your way to have 7, especially if you have limited resources to take care of them.

DonDaddyD

Rolf F wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lastly, I absolutely detest the notion that a having a child is something you can or can't afford. Sky TV, comics, Star Trek Online, spending £50 on a Saturday night out or £100 in a restaurant is something I can or cannot afford. Having a child is something wonderful and precious, you make do and get by and give them the best of what you can give.

Very idealistic but not realistic. It's fine to observe that a child is more important than Sky TV as long as it is you that is making the sacrifice. Having a child is expensive. If you haven't much money, don't let it stop you but why should you expect a state handout if you choose to have 7? (not that the family in this case seemed to be saying that they should)

I know it not to be idealistic, actually.

I never said that anyone should expect a state handout. Seriously read what you've quoted, where have I written that. What I said was

1). I detest the notion that having a child boils down to something you can or can't afford.

2). You make do and give them the best of what you can give.

Please don't take what I've written out of context.

Rubbish. If you're certain you're not in a situation to be able to give a child a decent quality of life then you should seriously consider whether it's responsible to have the child in the first place.

Define decent quality. My Mum was 19 when she had me, she had no place of her own and my Dad was still living at home. Back then it was common place for families to have far less wealth that what we had. Should I have been aborted?

12 years on, my Mum had my brother, she was out of work and my Dad recently redundant. All that said he got a job and my bro went to private school.

So please define quality. When it is so clearly a variable that cannot be measured and is completely subjective to the individual.

If you have a couple of children already and are struggling to feed, cloth or provide a home for them then a sense of social responsibility as well as a responsibility to any future kids should cause most people to consider whether they're in a position to have another.

. This much I agree with.

airbusboy

' If you can't feed them, don't breed them'.

I believe we as society we do have a responsibility to make sure the children are fed and watered, but on the flip side i detest funding the irresponsibility of the parents. Prices have increased, and of late but like many people i have cut my cloth accordingly and still manage to survive.... mainly because i haven't built an unsustainable financial situation over the previous years.....

(Right as i'm having a rant, not directly linked to the above article) Why should people have to go to work, work long hours to raise children, while someone else gets funded to stay at home (if ""able''' to work, or get a job) and bring their children up..... not only do the workers contribute more to society (financially) but they spend less time bringing up their children..........

I don't have children, and don't plan on it in the near future.....

The Rookie

shm_uk wrote:

You can't blame the family for the global economy going so massively wrong in 2008.
Nobody really saw that coming.

Actually anyone with any common sense did, we have a recession every 7-12 years, the bigger the gap the harder the fall, we were always going to get a recession at some point, unless you believed Tony/Gordons claim to have put an end to boom and bust (just as well they did or the recession may have been really nasty.....???)

Give them more state aid (assuming they actually need it - we don't know where the money is actually going, there was a similar family on a TV program recently living in a shitehole and eating rubbish but affording their Sky monthly subs......) and you encourage the same in the future.

Simon

shm_uk

CyclingBantam wrote:

This family ... apear to be in a precarious position, which is self inflicted.

No it's not. They were managing perfectly well supporting themselves.
Their reduced working hours is out of their control.

I've got two kids. My wife is not working currently. I am fortunate to earn sufficient income to support the four of us.

If the cost of living, or interest rates on my mortgage, or whatever, increased to such a level that my pay no longer covered basic expenses would you say it was all my own fault for daring to have a wife & 2 kids?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I'm sure if this family knew how badly & quickly the world would all go wrong in 2008 they would have planned accordingly.

DonDaddyD

MrChuck wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

.

Lastly, I absolutely detest the notion that a having a child is something you can or can't afford. Sky TV, comics, Star Trek Online, spending £50 on a Saturday night out or £100 in a restaurant is something I can or cannot afford. Having a child is something wonderful and precious, you make do and get by and give them the best of what you can give.

Countries lost it's sense of values, I'm sure of it.

That's all very well, and I'm sure nobody likes to assign values to children in the same way that you might to a new bike or whatever, but there ARE costs associated with having them and if the money available to meet those costs is limited then, well, whether you can afford to support them is a valid question (and a different question to whether the state should support them).

I accept that there are costs associated to with having children. I never did or will approach it as I only earn £**,*** I can't afford them yet.

My child needs food in its mouth and clothes on its back. If I can do that for myself I can provide that for my child.

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Lastly, I absolutely detest the notion that a having a child is something you can or can't afford. Sky TV, comics, Star Trek Online, spending £50 on a Saturday night out or £100 in a restaurant is something I can or cannot afford. Having a child is something wonderful and precious, you make do and get by and give them the best of what you can give.

Very idealistic but not realistic. It's fine to observe that a child is more important than Sky TV as long as it is you that is making the sacrifice. Having a child is expensive. If you haven't much money, don't let it stop you but why should you expect a state handout if you choose to have 7? (not that the family in this case seemed to be saying that they should)

I know it not to be idealistic, actually.

I never said that anyone should expect a state handout. Seriously read what you've quoted, where have I written that. What I said was

1). I detest the notion that having a child boils down to something you can or can't afford.

2). You make do and give them the best of what you can give.

Please don't take what I've written out of context.

Rubbish. If you're certain you're not in a situation to be able to give a child a decent quality of life then you should seriously consider whether it's responsible to have the child in the first place.

Define decent quality. My Mum was 19 when she had me, she had no place of her own and my Dad was still living at home. Back then it was common place for families to have far less wealth that what we had. Should I have been aborted?

12 years on, my Mum had my brother, she was out of work and my Dad recently redundant. All that said he got a job and my bro went to private school.

So please define quality. When it is so clearly a variable that cannot be measured and is completely subjective to the individual.

If you have a couple of children already and are struggling to feed, cloth or provide a home for them then a sense of social responsibility as well as a responsibility to any future kids should cause most people to consider whether they're in a position to have another.

. This much I agree with.

I wouldn't count home ownership as a prerequisite for having kids, nor necessarily having a job at that precise moment in time.

I don't know your parents circumstances so apologies if the next bit sounds harsh.
If, having had you, your parents had struggled for 12 years and been barely able to make ends meet, struggling to feed or cloth you without assistance, moving homes regularly with no reliable source of income then I would have thought that they would have thought better of introducing your brother to a similar life. Love is not enough, there should be stability too.

It doesn't sound like this was the case, it sounds like there was a valid expectation that any recent redundancy was a low point in an otherwise stable life. You've not said anything about those 12 years so I've no basis to form an opinion.

Quality isn't entirely subjective though, a parent should have the ability to examine their situation with some detachment and take an objective view. I'm not deigning a base salary per child but a degree of pragmatism doesn't take the magic* of kids away.

* I have no kids, any inferred magic is entirely speculation.