BellaOnline Forums Relationships Married No Kids BusinessWeek Article: Children = Fools' Game?

Businessweek Article

Most of the reader comments were BINGOtastic....

Wow. Some of those comments were nasty! On both sides!

"Gurge Nov 13, 2007 12:27 AM GMT You breeders are the most selfish people in the world, you know that right? You'll gladly bring a child into this messed up world just to try and make yourselves feel good. Your not satisfied with your life as it is, so you have to spawn some poor soul into this world because you want those warm fuzzy maternal/paternal feelings, you want someone to carry on your name, you want to feel looked up too and important... you you you its all about you and what you want. I'm just glad no child of mine will ever have to worry about failing classes, being too ugly to get dates, divorce, finding work, death, war, famine, nuclear holocaust etc.. since you couldn't pay me enough to have one."

Good article. The title is really shocking...I can't believe it got published. I do agree that you can't put a pricetag on children. Or at least that isn't my leading argument against not having them.

There do seem to be more people today that don't "make it" even if they have the degree, etc. I wonder what that's about? I know a bunch of people that continue to take money from their parents, and take take take from their parents well into late adulthood. I don't see this "they will take care of us when we get older" thing happening for a lot of people. The parents give give give and I wonder how they feel about it.

Good call. My thoughts exactly. The bulk of the comments read like a handbook: "How to be an uptight, self-righteous @$$ after giving birth". Many of the others were just snarky or mean. Though I loved these two for being the words of people who THINK:

Todd Nov 12, 2007 10:44 PM GMT Mid twenties and married with a child. I agree with the author - it's expensive! With both my wife and I working, we can barely make ends meet (both college grads). Chances of purchasing a house or condo are next to nil - 2br's start at about 400k; 1 br's are out of the question. Having my wife or I stay home is out of the question. I envy those that say 'money is not an issue with kids, and you're a soulless bastard if it is' - They have the money.

Brandon Nov 12, 2007 5:00 PM GMT I'm surprised by the vehemence of the replies to this article. At 30, with many options ahead, my wife and I find ourselves doing this same math. It isn't a question of the economic value, but rather understanding what the exchange of having children is and when or if to have them. There's no assault on the family here! I'm disappointed by the shortsightedness of the commentary so far. I for one applaud those who head into the relative unknown with a greater understanding of the prospective impact to their life.

Great article, Jez.

It made me think of another answer for the nagging question, "Why aren't you going to have any kids?"

Answer: "I still can't seem to fit it in the budget."

Thom
Nov 13, 2007 1:49 AM GMT
I am 30 something with a beautiful wife, five children, and I am apparently one of those 'breeders'. Sorry, Gurge, you don't know what you are missing. Based on your response, I'm kinda glad. Man, kids are expensive, but they are the most important thing in my life, and worth every sacrifice it takes to raise them.

Other people's ideas of what is important vary widely.

Sounds like Gurge wished he wasn't born with all the horrible childhood tragedies he had to endure. The challenges are what makes life worthwhile.

The challenge of children is a challenge that I would rather not choose.

By the way, without all the 'breeders', you have an economy that collapses on itself in a generation. China, anyone?

Soon, we will have a planet that will collapse upon itself by not being able to reasonably support all the people.

I read somewhere that it takes $150,000+ to raise one child from birth to adulthood. That is quite a bit more than most people would think.

Have lots to say on this later but for now, I don't get this "private pre school" business. OK I live in the UK, maybe it's different here but I work in a state-run pre-school (and the best in the area, one of the best in the country, there are no fees to parents, (although we encourage fund-raising) so what's this money for pre-school all about? (The school's free too.) However, they start from 3 years old here, so of course, working parents would have to perhaps pay someone else to look after kids younger than that. Our school/pre-school pushes the kids quite a lot, more than most in the area, esp. academically. So I don't get this having to pay loads for pre-school please explain?

Because the assumption is, if you're paying lots of money, your child will be super smart.

To be quite honest, I think preschool here is really just a daycare. The stuff that kids learn there they should know already, but their parents are too lazy. And I think they spend more time playing than actually learning anything. (I know play is important.)

My nephew, on the other hand, isn't even 3 yet and he can count to 100, knows his ABCs, can identify pretty much every basic shape and animal, etc. I know a kindergarten teacher who says that her kids don't even know that by the time they get to kindergarten!