Garry AKA Pod Posted March 4, 2007 Author Share Posted March 4, 2007 Anyone who has children in this day and age is living in the dark ages, its all very yesterday. But who will provide for you in you old age Laurejon? You hate johnny foreigner, you hate the public sector. Will you get a robot to wipe your @rse when you are too infirm to do so, or have you bought a shotgun to go out in style? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappabear Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Children offer a very poor return on the investment.The money is much better spent having a nice home, without stains,vomit,food,toys on the carpet. Have a holiday abroad every month, and have a nice shiny new car every year. Anyone who has children in this day and age is living in the dark ages, its all very yesterday. In a sad way you are right In the Middle East and Asian cultures, kids are an investment, because ,in the parents later years, the kids have the responsibility for taking care of their parents, thats why a lot of Asains here in the middle east, are working primarily to give their kids the best eduction possible In our increasingly " Me first" culture, what can parents expect?, after giving kids this, that and the other, suporting them through university etc, what will happen is when that Mum and Dad become too much bother, they will be stuck in a Care Home, and the kids will end up squabbling over their graveside about who has what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Sacks Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 What a load of old over-intellectualised nonsense.Simple fact: Children are expensive. Always have been, always will be. People without kids have both more money and time to spend on themselves, the downside is that they don't get the joy of kids. People who have kids AND who worry too much about money to really enjoy their kids are the poorest of the lot. money themselves time to spend on themselves they don't get the joy of kids Well well, your post reveals more about the mental health of the nation than the economics of child raising. These people who decided to have kids because it synchronised with their off-the-shelf lifestyle timetable? Made you the center of attention for a while? Sibling rivalry? I hope you're not like this, because your life will be one long and futile treasure hunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeless Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 i dont think the kid would mind if its wrapped in a towel and wheeled around in a shopping trolly. infact if a baby could have its own way it would just go naked and wear a pair of wellies to splash puddles with. its the darn pretentious parents what i wanna know is what all they millions of people do that earn under 15k a year, how they spend 10k a year on each kid? what a joke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Goggles Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 i dont think the kid would mind if its wrapped in a towel and wheeled around in a shopping trolly.infact if a baby could have its own way it would just go naked and wear a pair of wellies to splash puddles with. its the darn pretentious parents what i wanna know is what all they millions of people do that earn under 15k a year, how they spend 10k a year on each kid? what a joke It's also strange how the people spending the most on this tat are those who can least afford it. Most of our (expensive) baby stuff is hand-me-downs from our friends' children, but a lot of that is third-hand from their friends! However, your average chav mother wouldn't be seen dead using hand-me-downs! Funny old world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest portwinestain Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Children offer a very poor return on the investment.The money is much better spent having a nice home, without stains,vomit,food,toys on the carpet. Have a holiday abroad every month, and have a nice shiny new car every year. Anyone who has children in this day and age is living in the dark ages, its all very yesterday. true we will just have to import brown children instead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedgefunded Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 My little bugger costs £1k/month on private education alone. Add in a few ski-trips, fodder, clothing, iPods and heaven knows what else and I drop about £20k/year on him Bummer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah-so Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 In a sad way you are rightIn the Middle East and Asian cultures, kids are an investment, because ,in the parents later years, the kids have the responsibility for taking care of their parents, thats why a lot of Asains here in the middle east, are working primarily to give their kids the best eduction possible In our increasingly " Me first" culture, what can parents expect?, after giving kids this, that and the other, suporting them through university etc, what will happen is when that Mum and Dad become too much bother, they will be stuck in a Care Home, and the kids will end up squabbling over their graveside about who has what. In some Asian cultures, being the eldest son is like drawing the short straw. You get to (or have to) inherit the farm/family business and then find it hard to find a wife who will live in the countryside with you and your in-laws. The younger brothers all dash off to the big city to seek their fortune and get laid, and leave their elder brother to get to grips with planting rice. ButI do agree with your sentiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peemac Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Well well, your post reveals more about the mental health of the nation than the economics of child raising. These people who decided to have kids because it synchronised with their off-the-shelf lifestyle timetable? Made you the center of attention for a while? Sibling rivalry?I hope you're not like this, because your life will be one long and futile treasure hunt. I'm sorry but I really have no idea what point you are trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wonga Wallah Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I bet a lot of the cost isn't in consumer crap necessarily, but reflects what you might have to spend in order to move to an area where there is some chance of the little dears not getting knived in the playground? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay67 Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 My step-daughter has made career out of laying on her back and popping sprogs at regular intervals. Did she keep the cot, pram, clothes etc from sprog 1 to use for sprog 2 and 3? oh no, she ditched it all, and got all new, due to a nice handout from the DHSS for each sprog that comes along. OH is a volunteer in a Charity Shop,and they frequently get given prams in excellent condition.Some of them cost £250-£300 new.They are priced at £30 initially.Nobody buys them.Down to £25, £20, £15, and finally £7.50p.Still don't sell.They are then eventually passed on to other charity shops,who failed to sell them either.It puzzled her.If chavs are getting free money for new ones,I guess that explains it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chichi Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 So the new attack on getting single mums into work - what good will that do? They had a 37 year old with what looked like an 11 year old on the TV. She's never worked. Sorry, I'll just repeat that. She's NEVER worked. OK, she's got one kid - but why didn't she work before then? I'm not sure SP are the best group to pick on. Childcare as this prog says is expensive and employers don't like you having time off work when your kids are ill. So why not send out people who aren't responsible for looking after other people to get them back to work. You wouldn't send the carer of an elderly or infirm person into work would you? (although some of them do work as carers and have jobs) Get the sods who've never worked into work by all means - but pick on them all not just the lone parents. Perhaps this is the problem that there's no requirement to have paid in to get cash out of the benefits system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfit Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 what’s more important is that you cant bring a kid up in a 1bed flat.ideally if you want 2 or more kids you need a 3bed house and in London that is going to set you back 250k Alternatively you can rent and have the risk of being moved every 6months I agree and although there are some on here that say HPI won't stop them having kids For every with this attitude there are others not having children and I am one of them and I know plenty more I have a good excuse at the moment as I live in a one bedroom flat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiley Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 ideally if you want 2 or more kids you need a 3bed house and in London that is going to set you back 250k Where? Lucky to get one for twice that price nowadays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peemac Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 So the new attack on getting single mums into work - what good will that do?They had a 37 year old with what looked like an 11 year old on the TV. She's never worked. Sorry, I'll just repeat that. She's NEVER worked. OK, she's got one kid - but why didn't she work before then? I'm not sure SP are the best group to pick on. Childcare as this prog says is expensive and employers don't like you having time off work when your kids are ill. So why not send out people who aren't responsible for looking after other people to get them back to work. You wouldn't send the carer of an elderly or infirm person into work would you? (although some of them do work as carers and have jobs) Get the sods who've never worked into work by all means - but pick on them all not just the lone parents. Perhaps this is the problem that there's no requirement to have paid in to get cash out of the benefits system. This is where the liberal left's destruction of the family unit comes into the argument. In a decent society, that cherished the stable family unit with 2 parents and one acting as breadwinner there's no need for both parents to work. And no need for any state intervention. Anyone would think the liberal agenda from the outset was to make everyone dependent on the state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbital Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 yeah, glad ive got an older bro with 2 kids, lots of free baby stuff coming my way, most of theirs was 2nd hand too. this is the problem these days, people seems too quick to spend and think that any kind of compromise or sacrifice is not possible. The other big mistake is to think this wasnt the case in the past. Im sure any of us with older siblings were brought up on hand me downs - it was normal wasnt it? I rememebr drowning in my big bro's school uniform - just glad I was given any stuff from my sister lol. Attitudes have changed, people would now rather chose 'things' over a house - this is the real problem. This is why people find it so much harder to buy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignorant Steve Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I was a 2nd son and existed on hand-me-downs. Hated it. I have 2 sons - both have new clothes and toys. Mixture of cheap supermarket stuff and the slightly more "upmarket" stuff. Re-used prams, changing table, cot etc. Biggest cost is nursery / schooling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 people would now rather chose 'things' over a house So, uh, why have house prices tripled in a few years if people now want 'things' instead of houses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peemac Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 So, uh, why have house prices tripled in a few years if people now want 'things' instead of houses? lol, I was going to say he was doing very well up until that point Attitudes have changed, people would now rather chose 'things' over a house - this is the real problem. This is why people find it so much harder to buy... Just explain how people spending their money on other things can possibly the problem. The problem is that people are spending the vast majority of their income (IMO an unsustainable proportion) on their house. Everything else is going on credit, including the kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It is different this time Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 On BBC 2 now. Sad middle class parents that think they have to spend £2k on kitting a frigging nursery room.What a set of sad people. Need to tell little Chelsea and Alexis, NO! The little Oiks need a clip around the ear! Hope they revisit these families next year when they are having to shop at Matalan and Primark or they'll default on their mortgages. I do agree with you what a set of sad people, they don't have to spend £2K on nursery room they do not have to spend at least half of what was shown on that programme but again it is today society buy the latest & most expensive items most likely not needed. The problem is that sort of people, probably, risk defaulting their mortgages rather than shopping at Primarks. I am afraid the kids don't have to have £450 PS3 yes it is good to have one but it is not a must, good old days bring back my Atari games I was quite happy with them when I was a kid and no they didn't cost £450 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedgefunded Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 A BBC Micro that did 4/5th of sod-all cost around £400 in 1983, and the first DVD players in the UK cost around £500. Quote prices of certain things, but you're on a hiding to nothing with electronics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christhpc Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Only suckers and schools bought BBCs. A C64 was an investment for life, not just for Christmas. Mine lasted me 10 years until the tape port gave up. And if IIDTT is talking about Atari 2600s - well they were cheap as hell. I mean they were even cheap when they first came out in 1977 (Wiki reckons $199). And er, on topic. I'm just surprised to see these two new bits of really quite right-wing proposure legislature cropping up at the same time. This and that baliffs thing. Gordie setting out the stalls? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurejon Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 If people stopped having children, then in two decades our streets would be rid of gun crime, drugs, and we would save a fortune in not having to have literally hundreds of thousands of people involved in Social Work trying to look after the imbeciles that have been created. Women should sell their eggs overseas to the highest bidder, and spend the money putting down a deposit on a house and having all the mod cons like decking, Victorian Conservatory (The biggest in the street) and monkey puzzle trees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wonga Wallah Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 I was a 2nd son and existed on hand-me-downs. Hated it. I have 2 sons - both have new clothes and toys. Mixture of cheap supermarket stuff and the slightly more "upmarket" stuff.Re-used prams, changing table, cot etc. Biggest cost is nursery / schooling. Just wait til they get to nursery. I put twins through university & it cost me an arm & a leg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeless Posted March 5, 2007 Share Posted March 5, 2007 Just wait til they get to nursery. I put twins through university & it cost me an arm & a leg. and now they cant afford to have there own kids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.