It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Moms: I cannot afford to work!!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by vicnc2012
Can't afford to work really!!!!!!!!!! It must be nice to have that problem, if your mate makes that much money why in hell would you, it is best for you to stay at home anyway and concentrate your efforts on rasing the kids so they will grow up to be productive human being with compaasion love and respect instead of letting some stranger you don't know do all the work; unfortunately must americans do not have the options.

not really....
when my kids were little, we lived in a small town, there weren't that many jobs to begin with. once the kids grew up some, I got a job, about 30 minutes away. and I really didnt make that much money. when they were small, it would of literally cost us more than I would have made. not that we didn't need for me to work, but was literally a losing propositon!

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:11 PM

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by satron

Prettymuch, everyone else will be too busy working 8 parttime crap pay jobs to even think about having any sex......

You'll have to work to make sure the rich people's kids have comfy lives.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

. Children are not privileges that belong only to those with a bank account and full approval of the current system, children are the right of any parent, and those children born then take their full rights as living creature, great or small

We may the right to have them JPZ but they are not a possession, we do not own our children..

The truth of the matter is, in regards to this economy, we all brought this on ourselves, and frankly, blame is irrelevant. Stay at home Mom's, doing so because it is more cost effective to do so, are women taking full responsibility for their family and motherhood, and do not deserve any derision or bogus blame for having a child without some elitists snobs approval.

We absolutely brought this upon ourselves, I was a stay at home Mom, yes it was hard at times financially but we managed to buy our first and second home during that time. I gave up a lucrative job that paid very well to stay home and have never regretted it, could not imagine anyone raising my children except me. That was an era when women were starting to work outside the home and because I didn't I got much criticism for it, didn't bother me in the least as I felt it was the most important job there possibility be and still do.

I am pleased to say that both of my daughters are stay at home Moms who gave up great careers to do so and they have no regrets either.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by Aquarius1

We may the right to have them JPZ but they are not a possession, we do not own our children..

This was actually the point I was attempting to make by contrasting children to cars in a garage, and then emphasizing that a parents right to have children leads to producing children who in turn possess rights

Sometimes I get caught up in my own passion and assume I am being clear in my communication. It has been my experience that children, from a very early age, assert their beingness and own sovereignty, and are fairly clear in their assertions. Certainly by the age of two, most children - without really ever being able to effectively articulate the thought - are all ready discovering Descarte's articulated realization:

Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum!

By two years old, most children are experiencing their own world of doubt, of thought, and the realization that they are! I've never seen a Jaguar, Mercedes Benz, or '67 Mustang do that.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:03 PM
reply to post by CALGARIAN

I am failing to see the reason for the argument.. If they wish to have a child and not work for al iving that is their choice. They ahve no reason to complain and demand the government subsidise there lack of work for the choice of having a child.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:18 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

The article is simply asserting that it is not economically viable to work and have child. No one is demanding that the government pay for anything. We're just simply commenting on how ironic it is that apparently having a child in our current economic system takes a full income or more as the costs will, at the least, cause you to break even compared to a salary.

And yet opting to stay home and take care of your child is lauded if you are a member of the upper class and derided if you are in the working class where you are labeled a "welfare" mom whether you actually are or not and, furthermore, chastised by society for having the gall to exercise the human right to procreate with your spouse. As for the middle class, well, we're just left to tread water to help keep us occupied...
edit on 18/4/2012 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:35 PM
reply to post by CALGARIAN

Great topic OP, I can say that in London, I know of a few people in this very predicament. When combined with the fact its pretty hard to get a job here anyway, it just seems like a growing problem.

What solutions are there though? Considering wages are not going to be increased anytime soon..

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:11 PM

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
People bring this on themselves. people should Not have children if they first do not sit down and figure if the can actually afford children or not.

Having a kid is like buying a brand new top of the line RangeRover, Jaguar, Mercedes Benz etc but with a longer, more expensive payment plan that can either fluctuate or skyrocket at the drop of a hat.

If your not 100% sure you can afford this and give the kid the best education and world skills it needs to not only survive but thrive, you have no business having a kid. This would keep 50 % of us from having them, yet we and our world economy would all be a lot better off.

I see people all of the time who started off with 100% ability to be able to afford having a baby, then BOOM something happens and the husband is out of work, or the wife loses her job. Happening every day to people who start off on the right track.

Then, life throws something at them. No one can be completely and totally 100% certain that life will never throw something at them. You can have your plan A, B, C, and then some all worked out and every one of them fail.

The one thing I agree on is, when you are living on welfare, cannot pay your bills, cannot keep a job, or have bad health that is going to affect everyone's lives, then no, children should never be brought into the mix on purpose.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:19 PM
Its sickening...too many people work just to pay, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are an idea of the past.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:27 PM
It amazes me how quick people are to judge. "well you should have never had kids in the first place" REALLY? That's your answer? So many people lose their jobs every day. So many fathers and even mothers walk out on their families every day.

Not only that, but it's really irritating that several of us have stated that we are stay at home moms because it makes since financially AND that we are NOT on welfare. That's mostly what the article was about, and still people keeping coming into the thread without reading the article or the previous comments and chiming in with "You shouldn't have had kids you lazy welfare moms!"

I don't think this thread was about moms complaining and begging for welfare. It was about the fact that it's sometimes a smarter choice financially for a mother to stay home with the children while the father works outside of the home, if it is a two parent family.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:38 PM
Don't you think it's odd that Romney is abdicating mothers to work instead of stay home with their children when his own wife was a stay at home mom? I think there is an underlying message here that he is trying to present which is that poor single/married women should work, not understanding the catch 22 of the situation. I remember when Oregon did a ditty in the paper about 15 years ago trying to get low income mothers to work. Only thing is, the low income subsidies would have to be reimbursed out of their paychecks.
So, let's break it down, a common scenario. Bob and Mary get married right out of high school and had three children in four years. Bob has an affair and moves out with his no-good home wrecker. Starts drinking and doing drugs. Starts working at the 7-Eleven as a part time clerk. Of course Mary is awarded child support in family court but it is based on Bob's income. She get's a measly $150.00 a month child support. Now Mary thinks she should get a job. Her current situation is that her apartment rent ($600.00/month) is paid by low income housing, she gets food stamps of $450.00/month and part of her utilities are subsidized. Medical and Dental services for her and her children are provided by the state. She also receives a grant of $200.00 a month to cover utilities and extras.

Now why would she take the part time job at Starbucks when she would run in the red, have less food, no medical or dental? It's odd that Romney would preach "get a job" when there are very few jobs around to obtain. Maybe he forgot to look at the unemployment levels.

p.s. Not everyone has a WILLING family member to move in with, especially in the US where families seem to be shrinking. Some have no external family.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:54 PM
I don't think only people who "can afford it" should have children. As others have stated we should all be able to exercise our ability to procreate. At this point in my life I'd love to be thinking about having a baby with my man.

But honestly, I'm struggling with the whole concept. The thought of bringing my innocent, beautiful little baby to this ****hole planet to survive the way we currently do fills me with terror. I would have to stay home with him or her at least while they are young, and I'd have to do home-schooling at least until Junior High. The thought of raising another mindless consumer is completely abhorrent to me.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:54 PM
This is an interesting "trend". Maybe we'll start seeing families going back to a more traditional arrangement where one parent works (usually the husband), and the other stays home and raises the kids (usually the wife)? I see this as a good thing. It's not healthy for a kid in it's early years to barely see mum and dad because both of them are always at work.

I don't have any statistics to back it up but I feel that society as a whole started to decline when dual income families became the norm. Kids were basically left to fend for themselves and there was less "family time" being spent forming a bond with your children and teaching them manners, right from wrong, preparing healthy meals, socialising etc.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:59 PM
reply to post by LordGoofus

I hope that is what happens. It may even lead to a decline in divorce rates.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:11 PM
reply to post by CALGARIAN

My wife could just hug you for posting this. lol.... We'd faced this catch-22 before her health went south on her a couple years ago. She could go to work, make a little over $200 a week on a solid border-line full time schedule and then pay over 50% of that into daycare....or she could stay home and we'd lose the measly $50 or so we'd have left for her 5 work days by the end of it. In our area, no one is willing to talk about PART-TIME day care. It's xx amount per day and they think it sounds better by saying it's not extra if we're late.

Well...heck, you're absolutely right. In many cases, by the time gas for the commute is figured in, a mother is working for the experience of having a job. There sure isn't enough left to order a Pizza with by Friday night.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by CALGARIAN

I know the Struggle! They are cutting out Daycare Assistance here in NC and lots of single parents are suffering! There are too many middle men in Government! I wonder where all the Federal Funds that go to the State to help the poor really go?

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:15 PM
4:20 at my house? I didn't understand that.
I am hearing a lot of people say that only the well off and secure should have children.

To me that is a dangerous way of thinking. That's really- to me- saying only the rich are good enough to have kids.

Now, I live a fairly traditional female role and like it, but I have heard a lot of men talk about women "pushing out pups" or "welping a liter" and all sorts of terms that imply that breeding women are animals.

Same men condemn muslims for the way THEY treat their women. "Why they treat them women like they no better than dogs."

When motherhood becomes the target of all the "They're taking our jerrrrrrrrrrbs,", money, just resources in general- man, our society is sick. We've started to act like we are starving to death and fighting for the scraps.

Is that how we really want to be?

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:16 PM

Originally posted by sd211212
reply to post by kosmicjack

I see the problem as people who have children and cant afford to have children. Same as pet owners dont own an animal if you cant afford it. Dont rely on the state for your entire life.

I think I see what you are trying to say, but it doesn't actually make sense in the real world and here's why...

In a perfect world, responsible people can enter the workforce after high school or college and see their income rise relative to their performance and experience in a significant way with each passing year. Unfortunately, this is not the case in America. Even for the most responsible and hard working employees, there are some jobs that never raise pay enough to match inflation or even to allow a person to save up for their own retirement.

So are you saying that people who work hard everyday in retail or doing social work (college degree required), should not be allowed to have kids no matter how hard or long they work?

People have to work in warehouses, department stores, and restaurants. These jobs have to be done by someone. Even if all the women left the workforce, men who take these jobs still wouldn't be able to support children and a stay at home mom on the most frugal budget in most cities. Something has to give.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by Gridrebel

Don't you think it's odd that Romney is abdicating mothers to work instead of stay home with their children when his own wife was a stay at home mom?

Sure! The old saying "do as I say and not as I do" comes to mind.
Typical control freak mentality.

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:23 AM
Looks like TPTB need to make a decision.

Do they want more slaves right now, or more slaves for the future? They cannot have their cake and eat it too...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in