Would you let finances determine family size?

[Natsku]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I view it as society investing in the family, which in turn invests in the future of society which is to everyone's benefit. It works here at least, there's no clamour to get rid of the child home care benefit as people see that its good.

Me too, but that's only because I love my family. Can also see it as a way for lazy people to stay out of work and spend their family allowance on bingo tickets and beer.

I don't mind paying for a minority of lazy people in order to benefit the majority of people.

 

[Pearls18]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I view it as society investing in the family, which in turn invests in the future of society which is to everyone's benefit. It works here at least, there's no clamour to get rid of the child home care benefit as people see that its good.

Me too, but that's only because I love my family. Can also see it as a way for lazy people to stay out of work and spend their family allowance on bingo tickets and beer.

I don't mind paying for a minority of lazy people in order to benefit the majority of people.

You can't expect legislation to pay out on what is an opinion. There is no solid proof staying at home benefits mother or child, if that was the case governments wouldn't assist with child care costs (I'm not saying one is better than the other, that is my point), if you believe it is better to stay at home wait until you can afford to not work, I shouldn't be expected to pay mothers who WANT to stay at home. I am all for paying into the benefits system to help pay for people on hard times, like you just said as much as the Daily Mail likes us to think everyone on benefits loves it, I believe it is only a small amount of lazy people which I guess have to be paid to help the majority as it's hard to test, but as said previously being a stay at home mum, or dad, is a lifestyle choice great if you want it but you should earn it, I don't think we should expect the government to fund our lives, I am happy to work and provide for my son myself. What ever happened to accountability for our own lives? But this is way off topic now...

 

[Natsku]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I view it as society investing in the family, which in turn invests in the future of society which is to everyone's benefit. It works here at least, there's no clamour to get rid of the child home care benefit as people see that its good.

Me too, but that's only because I love my family. Can also see it as a way for lazy people to stay out of work and spend their family allowance on bingo tickets and beer.

I don't mind paying for a minority of lazy people in order to benefit the majority of people.

You can't expect legislation to pay out on what is an opinion. There is no solid proof staying at home benefits mother or child, if that was the case governments wouldn't assist with child care costs (I'm not saying one is better than the other, that is my point), if you believe it is better to stay at home wait until you can afford to not work, I shouldn't be expected to pay mothers who WANT to stay at home. I am all for paying into the benefits system to help pay for people on hard times, like you just said as much as the Daily Mail likes us to think everyone on benefits loves it, I believe it is only a small amount of lazy people which I guess have to be paid to help the majority as it's hard to test, but as said previously being a stay at home mum, or dad, is a lifestyle choice great if you want it but you should earn it, I don't think we should expect the government to fund our lives, I am happy to work and provide for my son myself. What ever happened to accountability for our own lives? But this is way off topic now...

But thats exactly whats happened where I live. Legislation pays for parents to choose either to stay home for 3 years and be paid (and get their job back) or go back to work with subsidised childcare. Its not choosing one as better than the other but deciding that whats best for society is that parents can choose (and make a viable choice that is not dependent on their finances) on whether to stay home or go to work in those first few important years.

 

[Pearls18]

I think people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I view it as society investing in the family, which in turn invests in the future of society which is to everyone's benefit. It works here at least, there's no clamour to get rid of the child home care benefit as people see that its good.

Me too, but that's only because I love my family. Can also see it as a way for lazy people to stay out of work and spend their family allowance on bingo tickets and beer.

I don't mind paying for a minority of lazy people in order to benefit the majority of people.

You can't expect legislation to pay out on what is an opinion. There is no solid proof staying at home benefits mother or child, if that was the case governments wouldn't assist with child care costs (I'm not saying one is better than the other, that is my point), if you believe it is better to stay at home wait until you can afford to not work, I shouldn't be expected to pay mothers who WANT to stay at home. I am all for paying into the benefits system to help pay for people on hard times, like you just said as much as the Daily Mail likes us to think everyone on benefits loves it, I believe it is only a small amount of lazy people which I guess have to be paid to help the majority as it's hard to test, but as said previously being a stay at home mum, or dad, is a lifestyle choice great if you want it but you should earn it, I don't think we should expect the government to fund our lives, I am happy to work and provide for my son myself. What ever happened to accountability for our own lives? But this is way off topic now...

But thats exactly whats happened where I live. Legislation pays for parents to choose either to stay home for 3 years and be paid (and get their job back) or go back to work with subsidised childcare. Its not choosing one as better than the other but deciding that whats best for society is that parents can choose (and make a viable choice that is not dependent on their finances) on whether to stay home or go to work in those first few important years.

It's funny after writing my last post I thought about our own system, tax credits, and how in a sense they help women to either stay home IF their husband's wages are below a certain level to hoist them up a bit (or man at home obviously) Or with the child care tax credits to help pay for care, the levels for tax credits are much lower now so don't really give every person the option but I would say they definitely make working more flexible particularly if you want to work part time. I guess I didn't like the assumption staying home is better so they should get paid but actually looking at both our countries (although yours a lot more!!) both do subsidise to an extent both options. Before people blast me I know tax credits only help a certain number of families especially now the limits are so much lower, and it isn't as generous as Finland etc but it was the principle behind them I'm thinking of.

 

[Natsku]

Yeah same principle in both countries. I like it, its good to give parents a real choice and not force them into one or the other.

 

[JASMAK]

people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

Why does there have to be a choice? If I had to choose love or money, of course I'd choose love, re-read my post at what point did I say love wasn't needed? Love should be an absolute given, people wanting praise for saying love is enough like they are unique aren't, everyone who is TTC should do it on the premise there will be love, we can all offer that no matter what our circumstances are (I know this isn't what happens in the real world but let's talk about most people who want children for the love of a child) money makes life easier, less stressful, opens opportunities. I will not be made to feel materialistic and shallow for wanting my son to be well dressed, be well educated, have wonderful holidays, not be embarrassed by his toys and family car. If our situation changes I hope I have raised a child to not care about those things, or to understand, but as a parent I want him to have the best of what I can give him AS WELL as my devoted love and that of his dads. Health and love are the most important things in life I'm not stupid, I just want more for myself and my family if we can get it, you only live once, I don't want to spend that life living hand to mouth,there's too much to see and experience, but if that's how we have to live, we will be happy I just won't have more children I can support comfortably.

Um, that is how I read the bolded part. Yes, people CAN live on love alone. Sounds like you had SOME money. I, literally had none, and I was happy so saying ALL people who have children when poor are 'child abusers', 'niave' and 'selfish' is a prejudiced sweeping statement. And, I never said you were materialistic, ever. I am well-off, and we have love, but I dont look at parents who are poor as child abusers either. Just because you needed money to make you happy, doesn't mean others do. I think the basics are enough, but I know people who aren't making ends meet, but are wonderful people/parents.

 

[Pearls18]

people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

Why does there have to be a choice? If I had to choose love or money, of course I'd choose love, re-read my post at what point did I say love wasn't needed? Love should be an absolute given, people wanting praise for saying love is enough like they are unique aren't, everyone who is TTC should do it on the premise there will be love, we can all offer that no matter what our circumstances are (I know this isn't what happens in the real world but let's talk about most people who want children for the love of a child) money makes life easier, less stressful, opens opportunities. I will not be made to feel materialistic and shallow for wanting my son to be well dressed, be well educated, have wonderful holidays, not be embarrassed by his toys and family car. If our situation changes I hope I have raised a child to not care about those things, or to understand, but as a parent I want him to have the best of what I can give him AS WELL as my devoted love and that of his dads. Health and love are the most important things in life I'm not stupid, I just want more for myself and my family if we can get it, you only live once, I don't want to spend that life living hand to mouth,there's too much to see and experience, but if that's how we have to live, we will be happy I just won't have more children I can support comfortably.

Um, that is how I read the bolded part. Yes, people CAN live on love alone. Sounds like you had SOME money. I, literally had none, and I was happy so saying ALL people who have children when poor are 'child abusers', 'niave' and 'selfish' is a prejudiced sweeping statement. And, I never said you were materialistic, ever. I am well-off, and we have love, but I dont look at parents who are poor as child abusers either. Just because you needed money to make you happy, doesn't mean others do. I think the basics are enough, but I know people who aren't making ends meet, but are wonderful people/parents.

I didn't say those things about child abusers etc. Everyone has a different perception of poverty, it is a subjective word you could be using it differently to how I perceive it or someone else, I do not think parents should assume love will be enough and be irreponsible enough to TTC in a situation where they are not financially stable (if it is avoidable, I know life happens, jobs are lost etc) I'm glad you had a happy childhood despite poverty but I wouldn't assume that to be the consensus, I wouldn't deem that a good enough reason to assume everything would be ok and say to people so long as you have love you will be fine, life isn't as pretty as that. I for one will shower my children with love, work hard to ensure we don't live in poverty, but if things beyond my control happen know we have the foundation of a strong family unit to get through anything. I'm just being realistic. I know how stressful money problems are and know I wouldn't be happy not knowing how I was going to pay the electricity bill, how I would get through Christmas, even if my children were happy my stress would no doubt be visible, children aren't blind and no matter what you try to say to me I believe it would impact on childhood.

 

[24/7]

Absolutely! I will always have to work, which I am happy to do to support my family, and we live comfortably with one child, and our stretching ourselves in order for our son to have a sibling, but we won't be having anymore. I want to be able to save for their future, allow them to go on any school trips they wish, have nice things, have driving lessons, go to university. They won't be spoilt, but I don't want them to go without because I chose to have more children than we can afford, I would be chosing what I want over what is best for them, and as a Mum they come first. xx

 

[Liesje]

people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

Why does there have to be a choice? If I had to choose love or money, of course I'd choose love, re-read my post at what point did I say love wasn't needed? Love should be an absolute given, people wanting praise for saying love is enough like they are unique aren't, everyone who is TTC should do it on the premise there will be love, we can all offer that no matter what our circumstances are (I know this isn't what happens in the real world but let's talk about most people who want children for the love of a child) money makes life easier, less stressful, opens opportunities. I will not be made to feel materialistic and shallow for wanting my son to be well dressed, be well educated, have wonderful holidays, not be embarrassed by his toys and family car. If our situation changes I hope I have raised a child to not care about those things, or to understand, but as a parent I want him to have the best of what I can give him AS WELL as my devoted love and that of his dads. Health and love are the most important things in life I'm not stupid, I just want more for myself and my family if we can get it, you only live once, I don't want to spend that life living hand to mouth,there's too much to see and experience, but if that's how we have to live, we will be happy I just won't have more children I can support comfortably.

Um, that is how I read the bolded part. Yes, people CAN live on love alone. Sounds like you had SOME money. I, literally had none, and I was happy so saying ALL people who have children when poor are 'child abusers', 'niave' and 'selfish' is a prejudiced sweeping statement. And, I never said you were materialistic, ever. I am well-off, and we have love, but I dont look at parents who are poor as child abusers either. Just because you needed money to make you happy, doesn't mean others do. I think the basics are enough, but I know people who aren't making ends meet, but are wonderful people/parents.

I didn't say those things about child abusers etc. Everyone has a different perception of poverty, it is a subjective word you could be using it differently to how I perceive it or someone else, I do not think parents should assume love will be enough and be irreponsible enough to TTC in a situation where they are not financially stable (if it is avoidable, I know life happens, jobs are lost etc) I'm glad you had a happy childhood despite poverty but I wouldn't assume that to be the consensus, I wouldn't deem that a good enough reason to assume everything would be ok and say to people so long as you have love you will be fine, life isn't as pretty as that. I for one will shower my children with love, work hard to ensure we don't live in poverty, but if things beyond my control happen know we have the foundation of a strong family unit to get through anything. I'm just being realistic. I know how stressful money problems are and know I wouldn't be happy not knowing how I was going to pay the electricity bill, how I would get through Christmas, even if my children were happy my stress would no doubt be visible, children aren't blind and no matter what you try to say to me I believe it would impact on childhood.

That was me who said having children while already poor is like child abuse (again, I wasn't actually serious) but I can still recall thinking I would rather be beaten because at least when you're beaten if you go out the beatings stop... If you're poor, when you go out you're still poor.

 

[leelee]

people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

Why does there have to be a choice? If I had to choose love or money, of course I'd choose love, re-read my post at what point did I say love wasn't needed? Love should be an absolute given, people wanting praise for saying love is enough like they are unique aren't, everyone who is TTC should do it on the premise there will be love, we can all offer that no matter what our circumstances are (I know this isn't what happens in the real world but let's talk about most people who want children for the love of a child) money makes life easier, less stressful, opens opportunities. I will not be made to feel materialistic and shallow for wanting my son to be well dressed, be well educated, have wonderful holidays, not be embarrassed by his toys and family car. If our situation changes I hope I have raised a child to not care about those things, or to understand, but as a parent I want him to have the best of what I can give him AS WELL as my devoted love and that of his dads. Health and love are the most important things in life I'm not stupid, I just want more for myself and my family if we can get it, you only live once, I don't want to spend that life living hand to mouth,there's too much to see and experience, but if that's how we have to live, we will be happy I just won't have more children I can support comfortably.

Um, that is how I read the bolded part. Yes, people CAN live on love alone. Sounds like you had SOME money. I, literally had none, and I was happy so saying ALL people who have children when poor are 'child abusers', 'niave' and 'selfish' is a prejudiced sweeping statement. And, I never said you were materialistic, ever. I am well-off, and we have love, but I dont look at parents who are poor as child abusers either. Just because you needed money to make you happy, doesn't mean others do. I think the basics are enough, but I know people who aren't making ends meet, but are wonderful people/parents.

I didn't say those things about child abusers etc. Everyone has a different perception of poverty, it is a subjective word you could be using it differently to how I perceive it or someone else, I do not think parents should assume love will be enough and be irreponsible enough to TTC in a situation where they are not financially stable (if it is avoidable, I know life happens, jobs are lost etc) I'm glad you had a happy childhood despite poverty but I wouldn't assume that to be the consensus, I wouldn't deem that a good enough reason to assume everything would be ok and say to people so long as you have love you will be fine, life isn't as pretty as that. I for one will shower my children with love, work hard to ensure we don't live in poverty, but if things beyond my control happen know we have the foundation of a strong family unit to get through anything. I'm just being realistic. I know how stressful money problems are and know I wouldn't be happy not knowing how I was going to pay the electricity bill, how I would get through Christmas, even if my children were happy my stress would no doubt be visible, children aren't blind and no matter what you try to say to me I believe it would impact on childhood.

That was me who said having children while already poor is like child abuse (again, I wasn't actually serious) but I can still recall thinking I would rather be beaten because at least when you're beaten if you go out the beatings stop... If you're poor, when you go out you're still poor.

So you would rather be beaten than be poor and have parents that love you???

 

[Liesje]

people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

Why does there have to be a choice? If I had to choose love or money, of course I'd choose love, re-read my post at what point did I say love wasn't needed? Love should be an absolute given, people wanting praise for saying love is enough like they are unique aren't, everyone who is TTC should do it on the premise there will be love, we can all offer that no matter what our circumstances are (I know this isn't what happens in the real world but let's talk about most people who want children for the love of a child) money makes life easier, less stressful, opens opportunities. I will not be made to feel materialistic and shallow for wanting my son to be well dressed, be well educated, have wonderful holidays, not be embarrassed by his toys and family car. If our situation changes I hope I have raised a child to not care about those things, or to understand, but as a parent I want him to have the best of what I can give him AS WELL as my devoted love and that of his dads. Health and love are the most important things in life I'm not stupid, I just want more for myself and my family if we can get it, you only live once, I don't want to spend that life living hand to mouth,there's too much to see and experience, but if that's how we have to live, we will be happy I just won't have more children I can support comfortably.

Um, that is how I read the bolded part. Yes, people CAN live on love alone. Sounds like you had SOME money. I, literally had none, and I was happy so saying ALL people who have children when poor are 'child abusers', 'niave' and 'selfish' is a prejudiced sweeping statement. And, I never said you were materialistic, ever. I am well-off, and we have love, but I dont look at parents who are poor as child abusers either. Just because you needed money to make you happy, doesn't mean others do. I think the basics are enough, but I know people who aren't making ends meet, but are wonderful people/parents.

I didn't say those things about child abusers etc. Everyone has a different perception of poverty, it is a subjective word you could be using it differently to how I perceive it or someone else, I do not think parents should assume love will be enough and be irreponsible enough to TTC in a situation where they are not financially stable (if it is avoidable, I know life happens, jobs are lost etc) I'm glad you had a happy childhood despite poverty but I wouldn't assume that to be the consensus, I wouldn't deem that a good enough reason to assume everything would be ok and say to people so long as you have love you will be fine, life isn't as pretty as that. I for one will shower my children with love, work hard to ensure we don't live in poverty, but if things beyond my control happen know we have the foundation of a strong family unit to get through anything. I'm just being realistic. I know how stressful money problems are and know I wouldn't be happy not knowing how I was going to pay the electricity bill, how I would get through Christmas, even if my children were happy my stress would no doubt be visible, children aren't blind and no matter what you try to say to me I believe it would impact on childhood.

That was me who said having children while already poor is like child abuse (again, I wasn't actually serious) but I can still recall thinking I would rather be beaten because at least when you're beaten if you go out the beatings stop... If you're poor, when you go out you're still poor.

So you would rather be beaten than be poor and have parents that love you???

At the time, yes. Every day that I had to go to school and explain my lunch and clothes and lack of school supplies to my teachers and classmates was just torture. I wouldn't wish that on any kid.
When you wake up every day and wish you were never born, a loving family doesn't seem all that important. Now that I'm grown up and have seen the world I see how that kind of thinking was irrational and didn't make much sense, but at that age, all I had seen were the inside of my room and my school because again, we were too poor for me to do or see anything else. We didn't even have a tv for me to see images of those children starving in Africa so as far as I was concerned I was the poorest kid on the planet.

 

[robinator]

I agree, Liesje, that love is not everything, especially to a kid. Kids see what their friends have and want the same things. To not be able to have even a couple of those things, to a child, is really hard. It's not fair - and you can't tell a child that life isn't fair; they don't have the intellect yet to understand that concept. All they know is they don't have the things their friends do and it is upsetting.

Kids do notice when other kids are "poor", and don't generally pick those kids to be their friends. So not only do kids miss out on material things, they also run the risk of missing out on the social and emotional aspects of childhood. And to say, "well, I wouldn't want my kid to be friends with kids like that, anyway"......that's all well and good, but children don't understand that - they just want to be accepted.

 

[leelee]

people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

Why does there have to be a choice? If I had to choose love or money, of course I'd choose love, re-read my post at what point did I say love wasn't needed? Love should be an absolute given, people wanting praise for saying love is enough like they are unique aren't, everyone who is TTC should do it on the premise there will be love, we can all offer that no matter what our circumstances are (I know this isn't what happens in the real world but let's talk about most people who want children for the love of a child) money makes life easier, less stressful, opens opportunities. I will not be made to feel materialistic and shallow for wanting my son to be well dressed, be well educated, have wonderful holidays, not be embarrassed by his toys and family car. If our situation changes I hope I have raised a child to not care about those things, or to understand, but as a parent I want him to have the best of what I can give him AS WELL as my devoted love and that of his dads. Health and love are the most important things in life I'm not stupid, I just want more for myself and my family if we can get it, you only live once, I don't want to spend that life living hand to mouth,there's too much to see and experience, but if that's how we have to live, we will be happy I just won't have more children I can support comfortably.

Um, that is how I read the bolded part. Yes, people CAN live on love alone. Sounds like you had SOME money. I, literally had none, and I was happy so saying ALL people who have children when poor are 'child abusers', 'niave' and 'selfish' is a prejudiced sweeping statement. And, I never said you were materialistic, ever. I am well-off, and we have love, but I dont look at parents who are poor as child abusers either. Just because you needed money to make you happy, doesn't mean others do. I think the basics are enough, but I know people who aren't making ends meet, but are wonderful people/parents.

I didn't say those things about child abusers etc. Everyone has a different perception of poverty, it is a subjective word you could be using it differently to how I perceive it or someone else, I do not think parents should assume love will be enough and be irreponsible enough to TTC in a situation where they are not financially stable (if it is avoidable, I know life happens, jobs are lost etc) I'm glad you had a happy childhood despite poverty but I wouldn't assume that to be the consensus, I wouldn't deem that a good enough reason to assume everything would be ok and say to people so long as you have love you will be fine, life isn't as pretty as that. I for one will shower my children with love, work hard to ensure we don't live in poverty, but if things beyond my control happen know we have the foundation of a strong family unit to get through anything. I'm just being realistic. I know how stressful money problems are and know I wouldn't be happy not knowing how I was going to pay the electricity bill, how I would get through Christmas, even if my children were happy my stress would no doubt be visible, children aren't blind and no matter what you try to say to me I believe it would impact on childhood.

That was me who said having children while already poor is like child abuse (again, I wasn't actually serious) but I can still recall thinking I would rather be beaten because at least when you're beaten if you go out the beatings stop... If you're poor, when you go out you're still poor.

So you would rather be beaten than be poor and have parents that love you???

At the time, yes. Every day that I had to go to school and explain my lunch and clothes and lack of school supplies to my teachers and classmates was just torture. I wouldn't wish that on any kid.
When you wake up every day and wish you were never born, a loving family doesn't seem all that important. Now that I'm grown up and have seen the world I see how that kind of thinking was irrational and didn't make much sense, but at that age, all I had seen were the inside of my room and my school because again, we were too poor for me to do or see anything else. We didn't even have a tv for me to see images of those children starving in Africa so as far as I was concerned I was the poorest kid on the planet.

Sounds like a very tough childhood Do you think your parents were irresponsible for having children, if life was that tough financially

 

[robinator]

^^^That's a trick question, if I ever heard one!

 

[leelee]

^^^That is a very spiteful thing to ask.

I wasn't trying to be spiteful at all. As mentioned above, I think her childhood sounds very tough and was given the title of the thread and what Liesje felt about her childhood, I was just wondering what her thoughts were.

Liesje - the question was a genuine one.

 

[Liesje]

^^^That is a very spiteful thing to ask.

I wasn't trying to be spiteful at all. As mentioned above, I think her childhood sounds very tough and was given the title of the thread and what Liesje felt about her childhood, I was just wondering what her thoughts were.

Liesje - the question was a genuine one.

My parents had good intentions, to them we weren't poor at all. I just know I would never do that to my kids.

Kind of like this woman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsVxgOjNLbA
I like her lifestyle and think it would be neat to live like that, but when you get to where they ask her kids how they like it (4:20), they don't seem happy at all. They probably want a room just like their friends have.

 

[JASMAK]

people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

Why does there have to be a choice? If I had to choose love or money, of course I'd choose love, re-read my post at what point did I say love wasn't needed? Love should be an absolute given, people wanting praise for saying love is enough like they are unique aren't, everyone who is TTC should do it on the premise there will be love, we can all offer that no matter what our circumstances are (I know this isn't what happens in the real world but let's talk about most people who want children for the love of a child) money makes life easier, less stressful, opens opportunities. I will not be made to feel materialistic and shallow for wanting my son to be well dressed, be well educated, have wonderful holidays, not be embarrassed by his toys and family car. If our situation changes I hope I have raised a child to not care about those things, or to understand, but as a parent I want him to have the best of what I can give him AS WELL as my devoted love and that of his dads. Health and love are the most important things in life I'm not stupid, I just want more for myself and my family if we can get it, you only live once, I don't want to spend that life living hand to mouth,there's too much to see and experience, but if that's how we have to live, we will be happy I just won't have more children I can support comfortably.

Um, that is how I read the bolded part. Yes, people CAN live on love alone. Sounds like you had SOME money. I, literally had none, and I was happy so saying ALL people who have children when poor are 'child abusers', 'niave' and 'selfish' is a prejudiced sweeping statement. And, I never said you were materialistic, ever. I am well-off, and we have love, but I dont look at parents who are poor as child abusers either. Just because you needed money to make you happy, doesn't mean others do. I think the basics are enough, but I know people who aren't making ends meet, but are wonderful people/parents.

I didn't say those things about child abusers etc. Everyone has a different perception of poverty, it is a subjective word you could be using it differently to how I perceive it or someone else, I do not think parents should assume love will be enough and be irreponsible enough to TTC in a situation where they are not financially stable (if it is avoidable, I know life happens, jobs are lost etc) I'm glad you had a happy childhood despite poverty but I wouldn't assume that to be the consensus, I wouldn't deem that a good enough reason to assume everything would be ok and say to people so long as you have love you will be fine, life isn't as pretty as that. I for one will shower my children with love, work hard to ensure we don't live in poverty, but if things beyond my control happen know we have the foundation of a strong family unit to get through anything. I'm just being realistic. I know how stressful money problems are and know I wouldn't be happy not knowing how I was going to pay the electricity bill, how I would get through Christmas, even if my children were happy my stress would no doubt be visible, children aren't blind and no matter what you try to say to me I believe it would impact on childhood.

That was me who said having children while already poor is like child abuse (again, I wasn't actually serious) but I can still recall thinking I would rather be beaten because at least when you're beaten if you go out the beatings stop... If you're poor, when you go out you're still poor.

So you would rather be beaten than be poor and have parents that love you???

At the time, yes. Every day that I had to go to school and explain my lunch and clothes and lack of school supplies to my teachers and classmates was just torture. I wouldn't wish that on any kid.
When you wake up every day and wish you were never born, a loving family doesn't seem all that important. Now that I'm grown up and have seen the world I see how that kind of thinking was irrational and didn't make much sense, but at that age, all I had seen were the inside of my room and my school because again, we were too poor for me to do or see anything else. We didn't even have a tv for me to see images of those children starving in Africa so as far as I was concerned I was the poorest kid on the planet.

But just because you perceived being 'poor' that way, does not mean ALL do. I was poor as in sometimes homeless, no food...literally went weeks without, no clothes...I wore shorts in the snow...and I am telling you...I am not lying. I WAS HAPPY. Maybe you werent..maybe you can look at someone who you perceive as poor and think there sad childs face means they are miserable, but I doubt I was the only one in the world...dirt poor, starving...and happy. Would I do it to my kids...no, not puposely. Aremy parents niave...well, yes, I guess my mother was, since she was only 15. Honestly, I think if people are only poor...they have it pretty good. I was abused...and it is much worse than not wearing designer jeans, or not watching tv (we didnt have one either) and much worse than going to school with the right school supplies. Honestly, if you were feeling so sad, I am starting to wonder if maybe you had low iron or depression? Anyways, we do all perceive things differently. I was always a happy child...so was my twin sister. I always try to look on the bright side of things too.

 

[Liesje]

people who think children can be happy on love alone are naive, especially in this day in age, I want my children to see the world, be well educated and enjoy themselves with the luxuries we could afford as well as having the life and stability our family unit brings, because love etc should be a given when planning a family, having money doesn't deteriorate family values that is a personality trait (I know life doesn't work like that though unfortunately!)

To the person (Natsku?) who said women should be subsidised to stay at home I HATE this idea, I would cringe to think my taxes would go towards someone's lifestyle choice in this way, you may think it is best for your child for you to be at home but that's not what I think is best for every child, if someone wants to be a stay at home mother they should discuss it with the father and wait (if necessary) until it is financially viable, I don't think the taxpayer should fund a lifestyle choice.

Also someone said about single mothers not being able to work and needing help for this reason, tosh (in the UK at least) my husband works away a lot and I don't live near family so I have to plan child care as if he isn't around, and single parents get a lot of help with child care tax credits so it does pay to work.

I would stretch ourselves financially for a second because I think a sibling is priceless, but beyond that I would consider lifestyle and finances before considering a third and for that reason it'll probably only be 2 for us.

I am guessing by your opinion, you have never been dirt poor. You can have all the money in the world, but no love...and if I had to chose only one, it would be love.

Why does there have to be a choice? If I had to choose love or money, of course I'd choose love, re-read my post at what point did I say love wasn't needed? Love should be an absolute given, people wanting praise for saying love is enough like they are unique aren't, everyone who is TTC should do it on the premise there will be love, we can all offer that no matter what our circumstances are (I know this isn't what happens in the real world but let's talk about most people who want children for the love of a child) money makes life easier, less stressful, opens opportunities. I will not be made to feel materialistic and shallow for wanting my son to be well dressed, be well educated, have wonderful holidays, not be embarrassed by his toys and family car. If our situation changes I hope I have raised a child to not care about those things, or to understand, but as a parent I want him to have the best of what I can give him AS WELL as my devoted love and that of his dads. Health and love are the most important things in life I'm not stupid, I just want more for myself and my family if we can get it, you only live once, I don't want to spend that life living hand to mouth,there's too much to see and experience, but if that's how we have to live, we will be happy I just won't have more children I can support comfortably.

Um, that is how I read the bolded part. Yes, people CAN live on love alone. Sounds like you had SOME money. I, literally had none, and I was happy so saying ALL people who have children when poor are 'child abusers', 'niave' and 'selfish' is a prejudiced sweeping statement. And, I never said you were materialistic, ever. I am well-off, and we have love, but I dont look at parents who are poor as child abusers either. Just because you needed money to make you happy, doesn't mean others do. I think the basics are enough, but I know people who aren't making ends meet, but are wonderful people/parents.

I didn't say those things about child abusers etc. Everyone has a different perception of poverty, it is a subjective word you could be using it differently to how I perceive it or someone else, I do not think parents should assume love will be enough and be irreponsible enough to TTC in a situation where they are not financially stable (if it is avoidable, I know life happens, jobs are lost etc) I'm glad you had a happy childhood despite poverty but I wouldn't assume that to be the consensus, I wouldn't deem that a good enough reason to assume everything would be ok and say to people so long as you have love you will be fine, life isn't as pretty as that. I for one will shower my children with love, work hard to ensure we don't live in poverty, but if things beyond my control happen know we have the foundation of a strong family unit to get through anything. I'm just being realistic. I know how stressful money problems are and know I wouldn't be happy not knowing how I was going to pay the electricity bill, how I would get through Christmas, even if my children were happy my stress would no doubt be visible, children aren't blind and no matter what you try to say to me I believe it would impact on childhood.

That was me who said having children while already poor is like child abuse (again, I wasn't actually serious) but I can still recall thinking I would rather be beaten because at least when you're beaten if you go out the beatings stop... If you're poor, when you go out you're still poor.

So you would rather be beaten than be poor and have parents that love you???

At the time, yes. Every day that I had to go to school and explain my lunch and clothes and lack of school supplies to my teachers and classmates was just torture. I wouldn't wish that on any kid.
When you wake up every day and wish you were never born, a loving family doesn't seem all that important. Now that I'm grown up and have seen the world I see how that kind of thinking was irrational and didn't make much sense, but at that age, all I had seen were the inside of my room and my school because again, we were too poor for me to do or see anything else. We didn't even have a tv for me to see images of those children starving in Africa so as far as I was concerned I was the poorest kid on the planet.

But just because you perceived being 'poor' that way, does not mean ALL do. I was poor as in sometimes homeless, no food...literally went weeks without, no clothes...I wore shorts in the snow...and I am telling you...I am not lying. I WAS HAPPY. Maybe you werent..maybe you can look at someone who you perceive as poor and think there sad childs face means they are miserable, but I doubt I was the only one in the world...dirt poor, starving...and happy. Would I do it to my kids...no, not puposely. Aremy parents niave...well, yes, I guess my mother was, since she was only 15. Honestly, I think if people are only poor...they have it pretty good. I was abused...and it is much worse than not wearing designer jeans, or not watching tv (we didnt have one either) and much worse than going to school with the right school supplies. Honestly, if you were feeling so sad, I am starting to wonder if maybe you had low iron or depression? Anyways, we do all perceive things differently. I was always a happy child...so was my twin sister. I always try to look on the bright side of things too.

I doubt it since the low iron and depression magically went away once my parents finished school and started making money.... but enough about me, I'll never believe that parents should just assume their kids can be happy without money. There are other ways of teaching children the value of what they have without forcing them to live in poverty.

 

[robinator]

Birth rates in the US have dropped yet again (heard this on the radio this morning):

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/birth-rate-in-us-down-fourth-year_n_1935143.html

NEW YORK -- U.S. births fell for the fourth year in a row, the government reported Wednesday, with experts calling it more proof that the weak economy has continued to dampen enthusiasm for having children.

But there may be a silver lining: The decline in 2011 was just 1 percent – not as sharp a fall-off as the 2 to 3 percent drop seen in other recent years.

"It may be that the effect of the recession is slowly coming to an end," said Carl Haub, a senior demographer with the Population Reference Bureau, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization.

Most striking in the new report were steep declines in Hispanic birth rates and a new low in teen births. Hispanics have been disproportionately affected by the flagging economy, experts say, and teen birth rates have been falling for 20 years.

Falling births is a relatively new phenomenon in this country. Births had been on the rise since the late 1990s and hit an all-time high of more than 4.3 million in 2007.

But fewer than 4 million births were counted last year – the lowest number since 1998.

Among the people who study this sort of thing, the flagging economy has been seen as the primary explanation. The theory is that many women or couples who are out of work, underemployed or have other money problems feel they can't afford to start a family or add to it.

The economy officially was in a recession from December 2007 until June 2009. But well into 2011, polls show most Americans remained gloomy, citing anemic hiring, a depressed housing market and other factors.

The report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a first glimpse at 2011 birth certificate data from state health departments. More analysis comes later but officials don't expect the numbers to change much.


Early data for 2012 is not yet available, and it's too soon to guess whether the birth decline will change, said the CDC's Stephanie Ventura, one of the study's authors.

Highlights of the report include:

_The birth rate for single women fell for the third straight year, dropping by 3 percent from 2010 to 2011. The birth rate for married women, however, rose 1 percent. In most cases, married women are older and more financially secure.

_The birth rate for Hispanic women dropped a whopping 6 percent. But it declined only 2 percent for black women, stayed the same for whites and actually rose a bit for Asian-American and Pacific Islanders.

_Birth rates fell again for women in their early 20s, down 5 percent from 2010 – the lowest mark for women in that age group since 1940, when comprehensive national birth records were first compiled. For women in their late 20s, birth rates fell 1 percent.

_But birth rates held steady for women in their early 30s, and rose for moms ages 35 and older. Experts say that's not surprising: Older women generally have better jobs or financial security, and are more sensitive to the ticking away of their biological clocks.

_Birth rates for teen moms have been falling since 1991 and hit another historic low. The number of teen births last year – about 330,000 – was the fewest in one year since 1946. The teen birth rate fell 8 percent, and at 31 per 1,000 girls ages 15 through 19 was the lowest recorded in more than seven decades.

"The continued decline in the teen birth rates is astounding," said John Santelli, a Columbia University professor of population and family health.

Did the economy have anything to do with a drop in teen births?

Yes, indirectly, Santelli said. Teenagers watch the struggles and decisions that older sisters and older girlfriends are making, and what they see influences their thinking about sex and birth control, he said.

"Teens tend to emulate young adults," Santelli said. "They are less influenced directly by the economy than by people."

Studies show that since 2007, larger percentages of sexually active teenage girls are using the pill and other effective birth control. Studies also show a small decline in the proportion of girls ages 15 through 17 who say they've had sex, Santelli noted.

The new birth report also noted a fourth straight decline in a calculation of how many children women have over their lifetimes, based on the birth rates of a given year.

A rate of a little more than 2 children per woman means each couple is helping keep the population stable. The U.S. rate last year was slightly below 1.9.

Countries with rates close to 1 – such as Japan and Italy – face future labor shortages and eroding tax bases as they fail to reproduce enough to take care of their aging elders.

Officials here aren't as worried.


The U.S. replacement rate is still close to 2. And it has dropped in the past and then bounced back up again, said Ventura, an official at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.

"And we haven't seen any studies that show couples want to have fewer children or no children," she added.

One more report highlight: The U.S. C-section rate may have finally peaked at just under 33 percent, the same level as last year.

Cesarean deliveries are sometimes medically necessary. But health officials have worried that many C-sections are done out of convenience or unwarranted caution, and in the 1980s set a goal of keeping the national rate at 15 percent.

The C-section rate had been rising steadily since 1996, until it dropped slightly in 2010.

"It does suggest the upward trend may be halted," said Joyce Martin, a CDC epidemiologist who co-authored the new report. But CDC officials want a few more years of data before declaring victory, she added.

I would hope that theory is correct - that people are looking beyond "oooh, I want to have a baby" and saying, "we should wait until we are a little more financially stable".

I get that unless you're a millionaire, you're never really financially ready for a baby. But if you're in masses of debt and/or already living paycheck to paycheck, then perhaps it's not the smartest time to be thinking about conceiving.

 

[ahcigar1]

Kids can grow up happy and healthy on less money just as well as those that have more money and have everything at hand for them. I grew up pretty poor. We didn't have extra money sitting around. My dad went with only $2 in his pocket every week. But at the same time my brothers and I all grew up extremely happy. Life is what you make of it. We made do with what we had, and honestly we never knew the difference. It also taught all of us some very valuable aspects in life that if you want something you have to work for it. I did horseback riding every week but since my parents couldn't afford the lessons I worked them off by doing chores around the barn. And my brothers did the same type of deal. Growing up the way we did also made us value our items and achievments even more because we had to earn them, we had to work for what we had. My parents instilled in both of us that the most important things in life are not based on what you have but faith and family. And I still believe that to this day. Money and material things isn't everything and it surely doesn't determine quality of life. How you make due with what you have makes that determination.