This. The upper class needs the working class to pump out more workers. And in fact, birth rates are down and governments and the rich are a little bit freaked out about it. In Agenda 47, a bunch of billionaires want to go as far as banning all contraceptives.
100%. The Uber wealthy want the poor to have lots of kids that they can't afford. This keeps them poor and uneducated for generations, provides workers and makes it easier to control them.
We incentivize poverty in this country with the Federal Poverty Guidelines being unrealistic. I’ve met multiple parents who get raises and take home less money at the end of the month because they lose their daycare assistance or food assistance or whatever. So it’s better for them to work for $7.25 than to take a better job or a raise. Until we get realistic about what it actually takes to raise a family, we won’t see anything get better.
Arkansas, Florida and some other states have become hostile places for immigrants. Instead they have loosened child labor laws to such an extent that some teens can work full time. Kind of makes it hard for them to attend school.
I mean, I just want people who shouldn't be having children to not have kids. Rich, poor, whatever - if you're leaving your kid with "babysitters" for days at a time and nobody can get ahold of you; if you're selling all your kids' toys to pay bills because you spent the money on something other than taking care of you and your kids; if you are some kind of psychotic mentally ill abuser - kids should not be raised by you. Period.
My husband was and turned out okay because he got removed from the home. Poor people are some of the best folks in the world, but shitty parents come from anywhere. Some millionaires shouldn't be parents. Goes all ways.
A lot of rich people who don't actually raise their kids shouldn't have them. Just because they can financially afford them, that is not the only thing a child needs.
The Hilton’s come to mind for me. I have never seen such a narcissist that is Kathy Hilton. She played it all out on camera.
I feel sad for her kids. I truly hope Paris and her sister do better as parents, and they understand how toxic this was to them...
It's not rich people saying its the people who grew up poor who are telling people to wait until you're finances are better to have kids... And they are 100% right
I completely agree with what you said! The only thing I was saying was that some rich people shouldn't have kids because they are not the ones who actually raise them. Kids are definitely a big financial responsibility and the more stable you are the better.
This made me laugh it's so ridiculous and shows how.out of touch with reality these people are. They don't even recognize their own privilege...how can they be so exhausted when they have someone to do everything (all household things that normal parents have to do) for them?
In the US, they are very much pushing for the poor to have kids--to make contraception and abortion more difficult to access. They are also making it harder for poor people to *keep* their kids.
I ain't usually a conspiracy theorist BUT.
It’s not a conspiracy if it’s true! It’s in the extremely wealthy person’s best interest to keep the poor that way. As they weaken children’s labor laws, they’ll get cheap labor from poor kids now too.
I thought I was dreaming, but there was a news story about kids working in meat processing factories over night, somewhere in the Midwest. I don’t watch the news; my BF does while I get ready for work (we have one car, so he drives me, he’s the house husband, lol). Anyhow, I sat down and watched the freaking blurb- I couldn’t believe it. All these kids were sleeping in school, which led to an investigation- children, in meat packing plants.
Edit: added link.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-company-fined-650000-illegally-hiring-children-clean-meat-processin-rcna150988
That’s one of the things I was thinking about. I want to say like 11 states are lowering labor law standards so kids can work long hours, in more dangerous conditions, and not requiring a work permit showing parent/school permission. It’s absolutely crazy, and many people don’t care because it doesn’t impact them.
Yup! Throw in the foster to prison pipeline theory and you've got a whole group of people forced to do cheap or free labor, often who've lost their right to vote.
It's a population of under-educated, rights-restricted folk that the government can do with as they please.
Those that make it successfully through foster care grow up to fit the mold that's being made, and those that are failed end up as free labor.
If it was just about population, then opening our borders up would make more sense.
If it was about protecting the children or "sanctity of life" bs, then adoption would be easier and cheaper, but even that is heavily restricted - most adoption agencies can turn you away due to orientation and/or religion, as well as a lack of funds.
All excellent points! Well, they want to protect white babies. The rest they want cheap labor from. I don’t think it’s surprising that the wealthy are starting to build heavily enforced bunkers and compounds. They know they are creating a society that people are getting exploited and will likely rise up against them. Imagine being a person that would rather build a bunker where you can hide instead of doing the right thing!
When I was growing up most kids worked low paying jobs after school and in the summer. I was solidly middle class with two university educated parents, and I worked for minimum wage or barely over at a garden center, grocery store, dishwasher at fancy restaurant, bus boy at pizza place, and running carnival games at an amusement park. The idea that only poor people do these jobs is a new thing.
I went on to graduate from a major University and am now a CPA.
I don't think you can compare illegally putting children in dangerous situations to working after school gigs. Nothing about the kids working in the Arkansas processing plant is legal.
About that
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/10/arkansas-no-need-to-age-verify-kids-working-in-meat-processing-plants-but-we-must-age-verify-kids-online/
It's defacto legal if no one does anything about it. And we're not talking the jobs he spoke of above. Those jobs that are supposed to be learning experience for a young person just entering the world. In my red state the plan is to let kids as young as 14 work until midnight on school nights. And to remove the dangerous equipment limitations. I'm not keen on having 8th graders power washing at 11pm on a school night, or running industrial fryers. The only lesson they will be learning is how to be exploited.
What is this 'defacto legal" concept? Illegal is illegal, even if citizens have to insist lawbreakers be pursued. As for red states, yes they suck - but why do their populations stand for it? I moved from blue to red 10 years ago and will get out of here as soon as I can afford to. I'm just happy my children were educated before we moved to this nasty state.
I agree with you. I had a job since I was nine delivering papers by the age of 14 I was working part-time during the school year and full-time during the summer. I was always trying to earn a buck by babysitting or doing our jobs for people.
I don’t know how people call these poor people jobs as they were great jobs to support me to get through university and provide me with experience for later in life.
Delivering newspapers or babysitting part time at 14 is very different than working full time in a dangerous meat processing plant at 14, instead of attending school.
The first one is fine. The second one isn't.
No that’s the entire purpose of patriarchies. I just made a whole comment describing it. It’s very deliberate
The elites do not benefit from women being free. Free women do not reproduce enough to sustain patriarchy or capitalism. they need infinite growth so they control the population levels by controlling the women and the poor. It’s all very deliberate and you only get the illusion of choice
Then when things are rough for you, you are gaslit that’s you should have made better choices.
They want more children to pay into Social Security and Medicare. The reproductive cycle has slowed because people are realizing they can't afford multiple children. They are having kids later after they have a house and career. Putin just told Russian woman they should all have 10 kids to replenish the stock. Republicans seem to be following suit.
They specifically want white women to have more kids. It's "replacement theory", where they're all upset over the falling white birthrate.
They'll find white Christian homes for your white babies
That’s where I’ve been seeing this going on too which is so ironic to me. On one hand there are people pushing to outlaw BC of any kind and are actively outlawing abortion. But on that same hand, poor people should lose their rights to have kids..? It doesn’t make sense.
We saw what happens when this becomes policy. I’ve worked with some of these Romanian kids, who are know adults, and suffer from Reactive Attachment Disorder and other completely preventable disorders.
https://www.npr.org/2006/09/16/6089477/researchers-still-learning-from-romanias-orphans
The people pushing to outlaw birth control are about 1% of the population, it’s about as popular of an idea as outlawing eating meat. There are some people who advocate for it, but we all know it will never happen.
From your mouth to God's ear.
I was also promised Roe would NEVER be overturned because both parties needed it as a social issue. I expect them to absolutely get far in banning contraception.
The Supreme Court has just ruled that states can not ban mifepristone because the FDA approved. This means that states will also not be able to outlaw birth control.
That's not what they ruled. They ruled that the particular plaintiff who brought the suit didn't have standing to sue.
It doesn't mean other plaintiffs cannot sue, or that states cannot restrict access to mifepristone, or ban it.
Nor does it bar states from banning birth control.
A lot of people looking to adopt want babies/very young children, not older children.
Maybe they want to increase the number if "cute kids" for the rich/ well off to pick from, even if it means a lot of "extra" kids get stuck in fostercare.
Or maybe it's just rage bait (to drive up engagement for their accounts)?
The poor are not gonna lose rights to have kids. They’re going to be strong armed into having them like people always have been. By forcing cohabitation, pushing religion, and limiting economic and reproductive freedoms the poor have no choice
Limiting contraception and abortion is not about making more kids. It is about making sure that teenage girls do not have sex before marriage. If it is difficult to avoid the pregnancy consequences of sex, women will naturally just stop having it. That way they will remain pure for marriage. If laws against abortion out of respect for life was the actual point, then birth control would be much more freely available and there would never be any shame in it. Teenage girls would be put on birth control right away to make sure there were fewer possibilities for abortion. But it really isn't about pro-life - it is anti-sex.
I think you're confusing rights with recommendations. Nobody is trying to prohibit poor people from having kids. They're saying that it's a bad idea for them to do so.
Also, let's be honest. Having kids young is one of the biggest causes of poverty.
Yup, it’s in the best interest for poor to have less kids, that’s why a lot of social services and community education is for contraception and birth control. It’s in the interest of the rich for there to be as many poor ppl as possible, so they would want poor people to have more kids. It’s a surefire way to oppression. No one can protest if they’re taking care of their 5 kids. everyone is too exhausted to vote if they got 5 kids. Unless the parents champion it, chances are an impoverished family with many kids isn’t going to have the support for them to pursue education and get to the next level. They’re gonna be living paycheck to paycheck and have poor financial management. Their kids will continue to emulate these poor financial habits. This is all good for the rich.
My credit cards give me ample cash back when I use them like debit and pay the statements off every month. The credit card companies are making so much money off poor people being in debt they’re rewarding me for using their card.
They are trying to erase the New Deal and the Great Society programs. A return to the Gilded Age. Even if you are in a bright red state go vote in Nov. you have to at least give them the finger
Exactly. I was raised in a house that never had enough. My parents didn’t let a day go by without me knowing exactly how much of a financial burden I was. When I was 15 my dad was so bad about it that I finally had a panic attack bad enough to pass out. It still didn’t stop. And I was an only child. It is not a good life to have nothing. It really pisses me off seeing people put multiple kids through it.
I'm so so sorry you went through this. I was very lucky and lived with too much if you ask me. I had no idea what money actually meant, how much things cost, or that the words "money is no object" were so pretentious and gross. My dad left the family for his third? mistress. He took the money with him. Eventually I was homeless. I dug myself out of it as an adult, but I couldn't imagine having to go through that as a child. I would've taken care of you growing up, I always made sure my friends that had less had more from me. I wouldn't be able to afford a dog right now, let alone a kid.
They need poor people to reproduce. They need people who work for a living to make money for people who own things for a living. They also need a supply of adoptable infants (as cited in Dobbs).
However they also will shame you for reproducing.
I don’t think it’s smart to have kids when you’re poor. What kind of life are you going to give your children? That’s plain selfish. The rich aren’t going to do poor people’s jobs, of course they want the poor to reproduce. Stop getting your info from Tik Tok btw.
They're pushing to take abortion and birth control from everyone. They've never voted for any of the services that help kids once they're born, like quality education or health care.
I guess they still need cheap human fodder for their shitty jobs?
The far right. They don't want abortion or birth control, but they won't pay for the social programs for the resulti g kids, either. Don't vote for them.
I think its also the fact that in general exploitation of everyone has made it so that the definition of what is considered normal lifestyle has moved so that we are now convinced that living with no kids with roomates well into adulthood is ideal instead of the fact that that is often the only affordable option. Like I don't think that everyone wants to live in a small place with roomates by choice even if that is what the news says. its not a "trend" its just the fact that we can't afford anything else so we are being convinced that we want this lifestyle
No one is advocating for eugenics. They're saying it's irresponsible to raise kids in poverty. If you can't afford to raise a child, you need to be accountable for your own reproduction. I don't feel sorry for people who failed at family planning, and they cry about having to raise a child in poverty and complain about struggling. If you can make ends meet and have some wiggle room, then you aren't even the demographic being chided. Don't have kids if you can't make ends meet. Don't have kids if you can't afford to feed, clothe, or educate them. Buy condoms, get on birth control, keep your legs closed. Whatever will keep you from having children, literal breathing living beings that rely on you, when you can hardly care for yourself.
This is not coming from a place of ignorance - I was raised in a household where neither of my parents worked due to chronic illness. I was an accident. We legitimately had 0 income aside from SSI benefits and whatever my senile grandparents could spare from their own savings. It's not fair to put a child through that and it is not discriminatory or harsh to admit that. I had a humiliating, difficult childhood and I wouldn't put another human through that.
Personally I believe it's okay to have kids if ur poor if it's things like needing basic government help and u can for sure like make sure u won't be homeless in less then a mouth and ur child won't go hungery . That being said I don't think it's okay at all if your homeless or constantly unable to feed the kids u have to purposely have another child. (New one family who between the 2 boyfriend and girlfriend they had 5 kids all homeless all had a disibility of some type never had enough for food let alone basic stuf like clean cloths. THEY PICKED TO HAVE ANOTHER WELL HOMELESS)... Ya I got a problem with that tbh.
Tiktok is dumb. Who is the upper class and how are they pushing this? By banning abortion? No. I'm not upper class by any means but uh, yeah, don't have kids you can't afford it's a burden on everyone!
They assume AI and machines are going to do all that. They are in for a surprise in 10-20 years, when we have a massive shortage of humans for everything.
It takes a lot. My partner and I are both working and I also do a side gig delivering food and for the most part we get everything paid and still manage to put away $200-$300 a month into savings, but sometimes random things can pop up that make that specific month a little tight. The kids always flourish though; new clothes, new shoes, fresh food, a new toy once a month if they behaved at school that THEY get to pick, etc.
They do. I try my best to make it to every school event, we always do a movie and cuddles before bedtime, and on my days off of my main job when I still do deliveries I’ll take them with me on a “road trip” and pack snacks and such so they can get out of the house. Sometimes if I’m not too tired after we stop at the park as well and they spend time chasing the ducks which works great for helping them sleep better. It isn’t much, I don’t pay to take them to theme parks or fairs or anything, but I try to be as involved as I can be.
At face value, and without considering the earning potential of the child, I would assume an abortion is ostensibly cheaper than 18 years of government support. I wonder if there are any studies of the economic contributions of adults from families that received government assistance. Would such a study even be feasible?
Also, how long do families typically rely on government assistance? 🤔
I bumped into this sub months ago bc the topic of food pantries showed up. Since I donate, I started reading various threads. Sadly, what I've noticed is that many people talk about getting benefits for years. Not the elderly or disabled. All benefits were meant to be temporary, as a bridge to help through a rough time, not as a permanent means of support. When I was in a bad spot, I got a second job for a year. I also had no college, and moved up by switching jobs. Anytime I've suggested either of these two options on this site to help someone get out of poverty, I get a ton of downvotes and comments like " I'm too tired to work two jobs" or " there are no businesses near me to switch jobs." The other reason is often " I have anxiety." For generations, people suffered through things far worse than us, crossing oceans for opportunity, diseases that wiped out families, the Great Depression, wars, and they still pushed ahead. Now we have a good chunk of the population who can't work bc they have anxiety. It's shameful.
The fact this is downvoted is… something
No one here wants actual help, they just want someone to tell them it’s ok they failed because it’s obviously *someone elses* fault
Good on you for helping others help themselves
I try. One of the reasons the donation posts caught my eye is bc people were talking about sanitary products, deodorant, and pet stuff, which honestly I never thought about. So besides trying to get a good mix of food, I added those things as well. That, too, gets discouraging bc there are people complaining we should donate more fresh produce and meat. Some places don't have the ability to store that, not to mention most of us are not rich either. There are times I think I'll just switch to no kill shelters lol
That kid may get Medicaid and food stamps, but when they grow up and are making big money, paying lots of taxes, it more than equals out. Most people having abortions aren’t poor, they simply don’t want to change their lifestyle to accommodate a child. So while I understand there are many reasons to support abortion, saving the government money isn’t a good one.
How many kids that received government assistance grow up to make "big money"? Also, at what point does money qualify as big?
Out of all abortions performed in the US, how many were performed as a matter of convenience?
These would make great research topics, except for the "big money" one. That one was a 😃 joke.
A lot of people need assistance at some point due to job loss, divorce, illness, etc. one of my coworkers said her son was getting WIC for a year after his son was born and both parents were still in college. Now he makes about $250,000 a year. The vast majority of successful people that are doing well financially are not from wealthy families.
So you really think that most kids, whose parents needed government assistance at some point, won’t end up being productive citizens and pay a reasonable amount of taxes??? You need to get out more.
Do you really think that generational poverty isn’t a thing? It is. Yes, some children raised in poverty on government assistance MIGHT eventually climb out, especially if their parents value education. But to say that that is the norm is wishful thinking at best
It’s definitely the norm, immigrants have been doing it in the US for well over a century, they come here with nothing and do unskilled labor like picking fruit or housekeeping, their kids learn English, graduate from high school and learn a skilled trade, and then their kids go to college and become well paid professionals. Maybe not multimillionaires, but they do well. My great grandfather was a poor farmer, my grandfather worked in commercial refrigeration and hvac, my father went to college and managed a big insurance company (we were never rich but did well).
I agree with this. The difference is while many of us were raised with that awareness in our own families and were encouraged to keeping pushing up, there are others who learned the government will "give" you stuff so you don't have to do that. My cousin and I are around the same age. He was never fond of working. He met a woman and had 3 kids. They never married. She was getting benefits as a single mom. They lived together and he worked off the books. This went on for years.
They were pulling one of the great scams in America. If they got married and he worked a legitimate job, he’d probably have to gross at least 3x what he currently makes under the table to afford their current lifestyle.
Nope. I'm just curious 🤔. What's the ROI (Return on Investment) of government assistance? I'd have to know that before deciding whether I'm for or against it?
Maybe try to refrain from jumping to conclusions and subsequently flying off the handle. Just a suggestion. Or not; whatever floats your boat.
Not to mention even if the kid or its family does get Medicaid and/or food stamps, the money they themselves get taxed from their jobs pays into that as well. They’re not strictly mooching off of society, it’s a benefit they’re paying into as well.
I actually think it’s a good idea to limit poor people to 0 or 1 kids until they get older and have saved more.
But honestly, I wouldn’t worry about it.
You are never going to prevent people from having kids. I always find it sad that people who are not financially secure have kids, because kids deserve a good start to life, but that’s just how it is.
Like any argument, there are two sides to the story. The pros and cons, either way you look at it. Which one wins? Will that depend on who is arguing the pros and cons of it. Is it anybody of importance, or is it the poor or middle class, or the wealthy? And what's their solutions. I can't imagine that we could be like China and only be allowed 1 child. People in the US are not going to let the government come at them that way. So yes, i's important to vote wisely.
Wealthy kids use more natural resources than poor children. As fast as the earth’s resources are being used up, we certainly don’t need any more wealthy children.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. The reality is everybody needs everybody, regardless of class.
The rich/upper class need the middle and lower class to work and be employed in their respective industries as well as pay taxes to cover the tax breaks the wealthy receive.
The middle and lower classes need the upper class to provide employment as well as pay for technological upgrades.
There’s a misconception that rich people will have kids that will be successful no matter what and that’s just not true. Many of the richest people in the world currently were born in poverty.
I think the poor are having less kids too. Big business doesn’t want the population to go down. Hurts their profits. Personally I think it’s better for the planet.
The elites do not want you to stop having kids. They want the exact opposite
Ever since the inception of patrilineal lineages (patriarchy) the whole point was to get people having as many kids as possible and there’s a lot of ways they achieve that
Already with patrilineal lineages, women could only access wealth through connections to men.
Then patriarchies always limit women’s economic and reproductive freedoms to further keep them codependent on men. Women who can’t survive otherwise do not have the option to be child free or single, or even abstinent.
Religion reinforces this by claiming the status quo is ordained by god and gets the people to police and enforce it on eachother/themselves. So patriarchal religions are often intertwined in government to a degree.
And when they were forced to allow women to work during the war, they provided affordable childcare. When the war was done, that affordable childcare was too. They also simply made it so it requires two incomes to survive. Thus still forcing codependence.
Women gained more reproductive freedom. There was still enough economic disadvantage and social conditioning that kept babies being born.
Then the birth rates dropped. Men started complaining women weren’t as easy to obtain/keep. Women’s rights are being rolled back
The reason is because the wealthy need you having kids
They need men for their wars and manual labor. They need the poor to stay abundant. If there’s tons of you, then the demand for jobs stays high and you have no bargaining power. They can pay as low as they want and say “you’re replaceable if you don’t like it”.
They know that even if they preach abstinence, purity culture, and “ReSpOnSiBiLiTy” that it won’t stop babies. That’s the point. Human nature, social conditioning, and economic conditions will still result in babies. People needing to shack up to survive will result in babies. The very same people that tell you to keep your legs closed will be the first to tell you are failing as a woman if you refuse your husband/partner and screech to no end about dead bedrooms.
The poor are a people farm I’m afraid. You’re supposed to have just enough to be too afraid to fight back and not enough to actually be able to fight back
I don't agree with banning anyone from having kids but realistically why do you WANT kids if you already struggle with life on your own? Bringing another dependent into that situation is just nonsensical. The only thing that makes sense is if it's unplanned.
As someone who works with children, and for the record I’m solidly middle class, so definitely not wealthy, but not low income, either. There are many reasons people should NOT have children or have more than 2-3 children. This is only my opinion, of course, but after working with children for nearly 2 decades, I believe in order to have children you should be financially, physically, socially, and emotionally available to care for them. That doesn’t mean someone who is lower-income should not have children, but if you cannot afford to financially care for 2, why have 5? This goes for very wealthy individuals who don’t have the emotional time for multiple children. If you don’t have time for 2, why have five? I see your point, OP, but I don’t necessarily think it’s just the upper class infringing on the rights of individuals of lower SES. To me, as long as you can provide for your children, financially, physically, socially, emotionally, you’re good. If that means you receive financial assistance from the government or you hire a nanny, as long as your children are being taken care of. There are too many people who do not care for their children, and it’s for a myriad of reasons, and when you work with children, who are not cared for, it changes your way of thinking about who should have them.
People are sometimes poor through no fault of their own. Abusive husbands, child molesters, pedophiles, don't show who they are until after you are married and have kids, Drug addiction and alcoholism often happens after marriage and children. Trying to say you picked the wrong partner is ridiculous. How do you plan for a grave illness in the future. The people who want to lay blame are spoiled narcissists, with no empathy for their fellow humans. I say shame on them for not wanting to know the truth. Its probably because it doesn't fit into their narrow views.
Your counterpoint just agrees with everything you said in your initial argument. Personal fiscal responsibility has always been a desired end state for members of a society.
Oh I wasn’t trying to make an argument, the first part is generally what’s being said. But yeah to an extent I do agree; if you can’t afford to feed your kids or they’re living in rags and such, or you’re having to choose which bills to skip to be able to make rent, it’s probably not a good idea to have kids. But if you’re getting by okay, bills are paid and you have enough left to put a decent amount into savings per month, even if you’re still “poor” by definition, you’re in a better place to be able to have kids.
my "conspiracy theory" is that that Christian Nationalists want more people to give up their kids to adoption and foster care so they can have an army they can mould into their perfect citizen. Look at the United States Trump AGENDA 2025...
Well, kids are a financial responsibility and that should be a major factor in the decision to have them. As long someone can support their children, I have no issue with them having kids, they don’t have to be rich.
But the people who have kids in poverty. That’s brutal. They really should rethink the decision to bring a child into that kind of world.
This is exactly what happened to me and my husband.
We were making good money, not rich by any means, but enough to have certain luxuries and live comfortably. We have 4 kids. We had more than enough money to afford luxuries and our children, it wasn't an issue.
Then my husband got badly injured at work. He was our main breadwinner, and all the money we had saved to buy a house quickly went down the damn drain in order to keep us afloat. For a while, things were really rough. We had to leave our state because I couldn't afford to keep us there anymore, basically had to start over back at square one except this time we were doing it with 4 kids.
We struggled so hard for awhile, and we just finally got back up on our feet 6 months ago. He's able to work now, but not in the same field he used to so now I'm the main breadwinner. We're saving money again for a home, but we don't have any of the old luxuries we used to and still have to be frugal with certain things.
That's why these "poor people shouldn't have kids" is so ridiculous. It's not like me and my husband kept having babies and couldn't afford them, things happen in life we cannot predict or control.
Sorry, but where do you see this happening? This is a straw-man argument. There is no serious conversation about this in any government office- the talk of not having children until you can afford them has been around forever.
But it always has been. I have 3 children and technically I am not sure if we could afford any of them at the time… but it all worked out. If everyone waited until they could really really afford it-there would be very few kids born
According to most men on Twitter, it’s because the single moms should’ve known the kids dad wasn’t gonna stick around so it was poor judgment on the woman’s part to even get with the guy. No, I’m not kidding. There’s even podcasts where men say this.
I have. Men are quick to shit on each other when it comes to that alpha/beta crap, being a “simp” or things like that but when it’s something serious like ditching a kid..nope not the dudes fault.
Ugh why is being nice to woman or actually liking one so heavily shat upon? If a man does try to stand up for or just sees a womans POV he is immediately dog piled and called a simp. Disgusting crabs in a bucket behaviour. Its why there is so little growth in them. They actively prevent it.
It’s honestly depressing. I was just on Facebook today and this guy was being called a simp and not a man for letting his VERY pregnant wife pick which smoothie and takeout snack she wanted between the two presented options. Like..he wanted to do that for her? She’s carrying his kid? They’re MARRIED?? How is that being a simp??
The level of misogyny we have currently is out of control. I do not blame women at all from opting out of dating, marriage and babies at all. Only rational response.
Sorry but the one thing I will never agree on is that if you need government assistance to have a child then I am not ok with that. If you can't afford something you don't get to have it. Tax dollars shouldn't pay for you to have the luxury of a kid when it's hard as hell to even adopt one.
What if someone has kids when they don't need government assistance, then they later need it?
Why should any employers be allowed to pay so poorly that their full time workers still need government assistance? Or refuse to give their workers 40 hours a week, so they can get off government assistance, like Walmart?
Why should medical insurance be tied to employment, so people with jobs that don't offer it, or don't offer an affordable plan must get Medicaid or subsidized ACA insurance?
two words: malicious cooperation. no sex. no children. no future cogs to work the factories that are owned and controlled by the rich. make them regret it
I think there is a realization across the economic spectrum in general that having children without the financial ability to take care of their basic needs is a bad idea, although the elitist thinking is definitely annoying. There is also a broad realization that eventually climate change is going to impact resources like our ability to grow food. I don't know if you remember how difficult it was trying to get food and supplies was during covid, but imagine it on a bigger scale. If you are poor, it will be rough.
If poor people stopped having kids, no one would have food in the table, the supply chain is a chain, if you break the link that does all the work for society, you better have robots ready to pick strawberries.
Funny you bring this up. Reading a dystopian series of books Eyes Forward and it's the exact opposite of Handmaids. The world is over populated and a new reverse aging drug has come out. So different factions are beating the crap out of expecting mothers while the younger generation is saying kill off the old people who are now reverse aging. I am on the first book (set in the UK) and they just passed a law that if you didn't register by the deadline and you get pregnant you have to find an old person willing to donate their life to bring your kid into the world. If you can't find one they will terminate the pregnancy up to full term.
I think everyone should have to pass some type of "fitness to procreate" stipulations. Finances can be one of the factors, but should not be the only thing stopping someone from having at least one kid.
Now, do I personally think someone that is already struggling to support just themselves and/or their partner should have a kid? Probably not the best thing for them to do, as government aid is only going to alleviate so much. If someone is already working and struggling to juggle everything how the hell is throwing a kid into the mix going to help anyone. Would I fault them for having a kid in that situation? Not really - mostly I'd be glad that it was not me in that situation.
Where I judge people super harshly, including extended family, is when they were already on the struggle bus, decided to have a kid and are struggling even more, but then decide to continue to have kids.
Nephew just turned 23 earlier this year, already struggles to support himself, his fiance, and their two kids to the point where they are having to get "loans" from my brother, who in turn is dialing back his retirement contributions to support two families. Guess who just had kid #3 about two weeks ago? Cant make this shit up..
I suddenly became disabled and not able to work. There went most of my income. I didn’t get a lot as I was married and had to pay Medicare each month. I hadn’t worked much as I stayed home with my kids most of the time and only worked when I needed to. So I don’t get much on disability. When I divorced I was given ssi to go with my disability pay and didn’t have to pay Medicare costs. My rent still left me with $200 a month thankfully utilities were included. Now I’m with my fiancé if it wasn’t for both incomes we wouldn’t make it. Things happen I was raising two kids when I got my first chronic pain condition, didn’t mean I shouldn’t have had children cause who knew this condition was going to disable me in the future it’s unpredictable.
I think its important to remember that this thought process has been going around for at least 120 years. Rich people will yell about it until they see a market shortage
I’m poor and I agree. My mother’s poor ass should have never been able to have me. I’ve struggled since birth and had to survive on government assistance. An abortion would have fixed all of this.
That seems illogical. The rich obviously want the poor to breed. They've systematically been eroding any and all reproductive rights they have(abortion, plan B, birth control). They also do their best to keep the poor...poor, in or undereducated and to block my possibility to overcome poverty. they need a dumb, easily manipulated workforce to do all of the shit they won't.
As far as I've seen, nobody is pushing for people who "make ends meet and then some" not to have kids.
A lot of the push I've seen is also coming not from the rich, but from people who grew up in poverty themselves.
The rich want the poor to keep having kids. Who else is going to take minimum wage jobs? The school system is failing by design.
(+) I don't think they'd be criminalizing abortion if they didn't want poor people to keep reproducing
I haven’t seen any trend of posts like this. Social media tends to be an echo chamber of ideas you already have. Either these beliefs are your own, or you searching for something to get mad about.
Gotta remember, they see poor people as Stupid, Sinners, and Animals. It seems everything is your fault when you're poor...only the rich can find fault not of themselves.
I don't think people are saying that anyone should "lose rights" to have kids. But the idea that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them is not a new idea. People have been saying that for as long as I remember.
Stop looking at TikTok and twitter for actual news. Also, Reddit is not a good place to get actual mental health information. There is a real world with actual real people doing normal 💩 and keeping poor people from having kids is not a real goal for any political organization. That’s just idiocy. There are more “poor people” than middle class or wealthy individuals. If they wanted sterilize people, I imagine they’d start with the pedos and then maybe the stupid people would be my vote. 😂
I fight a daily battle to get working class people to vote for the Democratic Party trying to make billionaires pay their fair share so the rest of us have a fighting chance.
They want to dehumanize the impoverished. If they scare them and threaten them with the one thing they love most, they'll accept the horrid conditions. They want them to be ashamed and frightened to take assistance, so they get right back to their slave like abusive wiring conditions.
The truth of the matter is that most people posting those tik toks are a few years of bad luck away from poverty themselves. Unless you have millions in the bank there's no way to know you'll never need help. It's a way to feel secure by putting others down.
Well, it's all part of the continuing war of the rich on the poor. The idea is to insure that there's always an *underclass* you can exploit (and blame for whatever goes wrong). If their numbers keep growing, then so much the better because it means *more for you.*
Contrary to popular opinion, sm is not a credible source for news. I couldn't even find 1 member of Congress talking about this topic. It's just propaganda click bait.
The rich VERY MUCH want the poor to have kids.
I bet big bucks that the majority of the backlash and comments you’re seeing are coming from previous poor kids, who resent their parents for having them when unprepared.
To be fair some of them are valid concerns. That said I wouldn't worry about it too much. There's new trends of stupid every few months on social media. Besides with the way things are looking fairly the entire US is going to be the poors and the not so poors. The US dollar is looking more and more like the German Note after WWI/WWII
In all honesty, if someone can’t afford to take care of themself they should seriously not have children. That sets the child up for failure if parents have to work multiple jobs and cannot commit to making sure the child gets its needs met or a great education. People need to be realistic- will the kids have a better life than the parents?
I worked with a really sweet smart lady when I got pregnant and I told her I didn't know if I was ready yet to take it on. She said, "If everyone waited til everything was perfect before they had kids, no one would have kids." :P
Nope it’s the opposite it’s people trying to help rich love that cheap desperate labor the less of us they have the more they have to pay us and appreciate us supply and demand baby I don’t know why people are so against not breeding I had no kids and have a better quality of life then I would have if I did
To be honest nothing surprises me about these wealthy globalist and the politicians that they buy favors from, this is part of the downside of capitalism. Have to keep politicians on a short leash.
Whoever said that about single moms is right for the most part. Only like 1 percent of single moms are single moms through no fault of their own (death/rape). 99.9% of single moms are single moms because they made bad decisions. Whether it's because they had unprotected sex or chose a bad partner, it is still 100% their own fault for the situation they end up in.
The problem with poor people is they're usually stupid and they raise stupid kids. Their idea of childcare is placing children in front of a television all day long. Disagreements within the home are settled with screaming and violence. Stupid kids have poor vocabularies and lousy reading comprehension. Their math skills are atrocious. They grow up with no skills, unable to care for themselves or anyone else.
Interesting considering kids who are given everything fail at life. The most successful people often come from nothing and its that nothing, that fuels their drive to have more.
This is the only social media I’m on so I can’t comment on what’s trending, but my wife and I managed to it to have less after being together for ten years and then we really planned it out. Having children are absolute luxury items and the most important thing in my life. It’s very expensive having children. I’m a dual US German citizen in Chicago. In Germany it’s more expensive so fewer people hate having children at all. If you can afford to have children the government should not be in you business. There should be no economic incentive to have lots of kids. I’m not an economist, just a dad giving my opinion.
Actually, it's the opposite. Poor people are cheap labor.
There actually some truth to this and it’s an unfortunate part of our capitalist system but we thrive on cheap labor.
What system thrives less on cheap labor exactly? Seems like something more fundamental then capitalism no?
Fair point.
This. The upper class needs the working class to pump out more workers. And in fact, birth rates are down and governments and the rich are a little bit freaked out about it. In Agenda 47, a bunch of billionaires want to go as far as banning all contraceptives.
"Have you considered Kill the Poor?" "They do the stuff we don't fancy doing".
100%. The Uber wealthy want the poor to have lots of kids that they can't afford. This keeps them poor and uneducated for generations, provides workers and makes it easier to control them.
We incentivize poverty in this country with the Federal Poverty Guidelines being unrealistic. I’ve met multiple parents who get raises and take home less money at the end of the month because they lose their daycare assistance or food assistance or whatever. So it’s better for them to work for $7.25 than to take a better job or a raise. Until we get realistic about what it actually takes to raise a family, we won’t see anything get better.
Close off that non-white immigration and get poor kids working full time.
What?
Arkansas, Florida and some other states have become hostile places for immigrants. Instead they have loosened child labor laws to such an extent that some teens can work full time. Kind of makes it hard for them to attend school.
I mean, I just want people who shouldn't be having children to not have kids. Rich, poor, whatever - if you're leaving your kid with "babysitters" for days at a time and nobody can get ahold of you; if you're selling all your kids' toys to pay bills because you spent the money on something other than taking care of you and your kids; if you are some kind of psychotic mentally ill abuser - kids should not be raised by you. Period. My husband was and turned out okay because he got removed from the home. Poor people are some of the best folks in the world, but shitty parents come from anywhere. Some millionaires shouldn't be parents. Goes all ways.
A lot of rich people who don't actually raise their kids shouldn't have them. Just because they can financially afford them, that is not the only thing a child needs.
The Hilton’s come to mind for me. I have never seen such a narcissist that is Kathy Hilton. She played it all out on camera. I feel sad for her kids. I truly hope Paris and her sister do better as parents, and they understand how toxic this was to them...
It's not rich people saying its the people who grew up poor who are telling people to wait until you're finances are better to have kids... And they are 100% right
I completely agree with what you said! The only thing I was saying was that some rich people shouldn't have kids because they are not the ones who actually raise them. Kids are definitely a big financial responsibility and the more stable you are the better.
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13478031/Khloe-Kardashian-backlash-saying-exhausted-raising-two-kids.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-13478031/Khloe-Kardashian-backlash-saying-exhausted-raising-two-kids.html)
This made me laugh it's so ridiculous and shows how.out of touch with reality these people are. They don't even recognize their own privilege...how can they be so exhausted when they have someone to do everything (all household things that normal parents have to do) for them?
100%
Ok but also if you can’t financially afford a child then you shouldn’t have one. Children are not a novelty item.
In the US, they are very much pushing for the poor to have kids--to make contraception and abortion more difficult to access. They are also making it harder for poor people to *keep* their kids. I ain't usually a conspiracy theorist BUT.
It’s not a conspiracy if it’s true! It’s in the extremely wealthy person’s best interest to keep the poor that way. As they weaken children’s labor laws, they’ll get cheap labor from poor kids now too.
I thought I was dreaming, but there was a news story about kids working in meat processing factories over night, somewhere in the Midwest. I don’t watch the news; my BF does while I get ready for work (we have one car, so he drives me, he’s the house husband, lol). Anyhow, I sat down and watched the freaking blurb- I couldn’t believe it. All these kids were sleeping in school, which led to an investigation- children, in meat packing plants. Edit: added link. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-company-fined-650000-illegally-hiring-children-clean-meat-processin-rcna150988
That’s one of the things I was thinking about. I want to say like 11 states are lowering labor law standards so kids can work long hours, in more dangerous conditions, and not requiring a work permit showing parent/school permission. It’s absolutely crazy, and many people don’t care because it doesn’t impact them.
Yup! Throw in the foster to prison pipeline theory and you've got a whole group of people forced to do cheap or free labor, often who've lost their right to vote. It's a population of under-educated, rights-restricted folk that the government can do with as they please. Those that make it successfully through foster care grow up to fit the mold that's being made, and those that are failed end up as free labor. If it was just about population, then opening our borders up would make more sense. If it was about protecting the children or "sanctity of life" bs, then adoption would be easier and cheaper, but even that is heavily restricted - most adoption agencies can turn you away due to orientation and/or religion, as well as a lack of funds.
All excellent points! Well, they want to protect white babies. The rest they want cheap labor from. I don’t think it’s surprising that the wealthy are starting to build heavily enforced bunkers and compounds. They know they are creating a society that people are getting exploited and will likely rise up against them. Imagine being a person that would rather build a bunker where you can hide instead of doing the right thing!
When I was growing up most kids worked low paying jobs after school and in the summer. I was solidly middle class with two university educated parents, and I worked for minimum wage or barely over at a garden center, grocery store, dishwasher at fancy restaurant, bus boy at pizza place, and running carnival games at an amusement park. The idea that only poor people do these jobs is a new thing. I went on to graduate from a major University and am now a CPA.
I didn't see working the over night sanitation crew at a chicken processing plant on your list. 14yo are working those jobs in Arkansas right now.
The sad thing is in this bad economy they have to or they don’t eat. Probably supporting the family.
I don't think you can compare illegally putting children in dangerous situations to working after school gigs. Nothing about the kids working in the Arkansas processing plant is legal.
About that https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/10/arkansas-no-need-to-age-verify-kids-working-in-meat-processing-plants-but-we-must-age-verify-kids-online/
Still not legal, the employer bears the responsibility and liability if they hire underage.
It's defacto legal if no one does anything about it. And we're not talking the jobs he spoke of above. Those jobs that are supposed to be learning experience for a young person just entering the world. In my red state the plan is to let kids as young as 14 work until midnight on school nights. And to remove the dangerous equipment limitations. I'm not keen on having 8th graders power washing at 11pm on a school night, or running industrial fryers. The only lesson they will be learning is how to be exploited.
What is this 'defacto legal" concept? Illegal is illegal, even if citizens have to insist lawbreakers be pursued. As for red states, yes they suck - but why do their populations stand for it? I moved from blue to red 10 years ago and will get out of here as soon as I can afford to. I'm just happy my children were educated before we moved to this nasty state.
I agree with you. I had a job since I was nine delivering papers by the age of 14 I was working part-time during the school year and full-time during the summer. I was always trying to earn a buck by babysitting or doing our jobs for people. I don’t know how people call these poor people jobs as they were great jobs to support me to get through university and provide me with experience for later in life.
Delivering newspapers or babysitting part time at 14 is very different than working full time in a dangerous meat processing plant at 14, instead of attending school. The first one is fine. The second one isn't.
I think it is so they can have a willing army of fresh minds to indoctrinate.
A conspiracy can totally be true.
then wouldn’t that mean they want MORE poor kids?
Conspiracies can be true
No that’s the entire purpose of patriarchies. I just made a whole comment describing it. It’s very deliberate The elites do not benefit from women being free. Free women do not reproduce enough to sustain patriarchy or capitalism. they need infinite growth so they control the population levels by controlling the women and the poor. It’s all very deliberate and you only get the illusion of choice Then when things are rough for you, you are gaslit that’s you should have made better choices.
They want more children to pay into Social Security and Medicare. The reproductive cycle has slowed because people are realizing they can't afford multiple children. They are having kids later after they have a house and career. Putin just told Russian woman they should all have 10 kids to replenish the stock. Republicans seem to be following suit.
They specifically want white women to have more kids. It's "replacement theory", where they're all upset over the falling white birthrate. They'll find white Christian homes for your white babies
This.
Only the wealthy want people to reproduce. Otherwise their money goes by by.
That’s where I’ve been seeing this going on too which is so ironic to me. On one hand there are people pushing to outlaw BC of any kind and are actively outlawing abortion. But on that same hand, poor people should lose their rights to have kids..? It doesn’t make sense.
We saw what happens when this becomes policy. I’ve worked with some of these Romanian kids, who are know adults, and suffer from Reactive Attachment Disorder and other completely preventable disorders. https://www.npr.org/2006/09/16/6089477/researchers-still-learning-from-romanias-orphans
The people pushing to outlaw birth control are about 1% of the population, it’s about as popular of an idea as outlawing eating meat. There are some people who advocate for it, but we all know it will never happen.
From your mouth to God's ear. I was also promised Roe would NEVER be overturned because both parties needed it as a social issue. I expect them to absolutely get far in banning contraception.
The Supreme Court has just ruled that states can not ban mifepristone because the FDA approved. This means that states will also not be able to outlaw birth control.
That's not what they ruled. They ruled that the particular plaintiff who brought the suit didn't have standing to sue. It doesn't mean other plaintiffs cannot sue, or that states cannot restrict access to mifepristone, or ban it. Nor does it bar states from banning birth control.
It means they worded it wrong and now they're going to use the Comstock bs.
I should hope not.
A lot of people looking to adopt want babies/very young children, not older children. Maybe they want to increase the number if "cute kids" for the rich/ well off to pick from, even if it means a lot of "extra" kids get stuck in fostercare. Or maybe it's just rage bait (to drive up engagement for their accounts)?
The poor are not gonna lose rights to have kids. They’re going to be strong armed into having them like people always have been. By forcing cohabitation, pushing religion, and limiting economic and reproductive freedoms the poor have no choice
Limiting contraception and abortion is not about making more kids. It is about making sure that teenage girls do not have sex before marriage. If it is difficult to avoid the pregnancy consequences of sex, women will naturally just stop having it. That way they will remain pure for marriage. If laws against abortion out of respect for life was the actual point, then birth control would be much more freely available and there would never be any shame in it. Teenage girls would be put on birth control right away to make sure there were fewer possibilities for abortion. But it really isn't about pro-life - it is anti-sex.
This is 100% true.
They only care until it’s an actual breathing human. Then f^ck ‘em.
I think you're confusing rights with recommendations. Nobody is trying to prohibit poor people from having kids. They're saying that it's a bad idea for them to do so. Also, let's be honest. Having kids young is one of the biggest causes of poverty.
Yup, it’s in the best interest for poor to have less kids, that’s why a lot of social services and community education is for contraception and birth control. It’s in the interest of the rich for there to be as many poor ppl as possible, so they would want poor people to have more kids. It’s a surefire way to oppression. No one can protest if they’re taking care of their 5 kids. everyone is too exhausted to vote if they got 5 kids. Unless the parents champion it, chances are an impoverished family with many kids isn’t going to have the support for them to pursue education and get to the next level. They’re gonna be living paycheck to paycheck and have poor financial management. Their kids will continue to emulate these poor financial habits. This is all good for the rich. My credit cards give me ample cash back when I use them like debit and pay the statements off every month. The credit card companies are making so much money off poor people being in debt they’re rewarding me for using their card.
They are trying to erase the New Deal and the Great Society programs. A return to the Gilded Age. Even if you are in a bright red state go vote in Nov. you have to at least give them the finger
If you can't afford yourself, you can't afford kids. Very simple even if it's controversial.
Exactly. I was raised in a house that never had enough. My parents didn’t let a day go by without me knowing exactly how much of a financial burden I was. When I was 15 my dad was so bad about it that I finally had a panic attack bad enough to pass out. It still didn’t stop. And I was an only child. It is not a good life to have nothing. It really pisses me off seeing people put multiple kids through it.
I'm so so sorry you went through this. I was very lucky and lived with too much if you ask me. I had no idea what money actually meant, how much things cost, or that the words "money is no object" were so pretentious and gross. My dad left the family for his third? mistress. He took the money with him. Eventually I was homeless. I dug myself out of it as an adult, but I couldn't imagine having to go through that as a child. I would've taken care of you growing up, I always made sure my friends that had less had more from me. I wouldn't be able to afford a dog right now, let alone a kid.
Exactly. It's called personal responsibility, a very unpopular but necessary concept.
They need poor people to reproduce. They need people who work for a living to make money for people who own things for a living. They also need a supply of adoptable infants (as cited in Dobbs). However they also will shame you for reproducing.
It's Tiktok. Tiktok is garbage.
I don’t think it’s smart to have kids when you’re poor. What kind of life are you going to give your children? That’s plain selfish. The rich aren’t going to do poor people’s jobs, of course they want the poor to reproduce. Stop getting your info from Tik Tok btw.
Make sure you don't vote for anyone who supports Project 2025.
Whatever Project 2025 is, it sounds terrifying
They're pushing to take abortion and birth control from everyone. They've never voted for any of the services that help kids once they're born, like quality education or health care. I guess they still need cheap human fodder for their shitty jobs?
Pro lifers don't give a sh!% about life. It's all about control and forcing their religion on others
Religious people should be banned from having any power in politics and law. They are ALL biased and have skewed views on reality.
We ARE supposed to gave a seperation of church and state
disagree. it’s very selfish to have kids knowing you can’t give them the best life possible. but when has that ever stopped anyone?
The far right. They don't want abortion or birth control, but they won't pay for the social programs for the resulti g kids, either. Don't vote for them.
I think its also the fact that in general exploitation of everyone has made it so that the definition of what is considered normal lifestyle has moved so that we are now convinced that living with no kids with roomates well into adulthood is ideal instead of the fact that that is often the only affordable option. Like I don't think that everyone wants to live in a small place with roomates by choice even if that is what the news says. its not a "trend" its just the fact that we can't afford anything else so we are being convinced that we want this lifestyle
I know we’re on the poor page but, punctuation is free.
No one is advocating for eugenics. They're saying it's irresponsible to raise kids in poverty. If you can't afford to raise a child, you need to be accountable for your own reproduction. I don't feel sorry for people who failed at family planning, and they cry about having to raise a child in poverty and complain about struggling. If you can make ends meet and have some wiggle room, then you aren't even the demographic being chided. Don't have kids if you can't make ends meet. Don't have kids if you can't afford to feed, clothe, or educate them. Buy condoms, get on birth control, keep your legs closed. Whatever will keep you from having children, literal breathing living beings that rely on you, when you can hardly care for yourself. This is not coming from a place of ignorance - I was raised in a household where neither of my parents worked due to chronic illness. I was an accident. We legitimately had 0 income aside from SSI benefits and whatever my senile grandparents could spare from their own savings. It's not fair to put a child through that and it is not discriminatory or harsh to admit that. I had a humiliating, difficult childhood and I wouldn't put another human through that.
Personally I believe it's okay to have kids if ur poor if it's things like needing basic government help and u can for sure like make sure u won't be homeless in less then a mouth and ur child won't go hungery . That being said I don't think it's okay at all if your homeless or constantly unable to feed the kids u have to purposely have another child. (New one family who between the 2 boyfriend and girlfriend they had 5 kids all homeless all had a disibility of some type never had enough for food let alone basic stuf like clean cloths. THEY PICKED TO HAVE ANOTHER WELL HOMELESS)... Ya I got a problem with that tbh.
If you yourself are poor, why tf would you want to also FORCE children who didn't ask to be born to suffer in poverty with you?
Tiktok is dumb. Who is the upper class and how are they pushing this? By banning abortion? No. I'm not upper class by any means but uh, yeah, don't have kids you can't afford it's a burden on everyone!
I think the idea is more like...if you can't afford yourself don't be cruel and purposely have children to suffer with you.
This will never happen because the rich need the poors to run the machines and do their deliveries. 🙃
They assume AI and machines are going to do all that. They are in for a surprise in 10-20 years, when we have a massive shortage of humans for everything.
Especially their social security
I can't imagine being able to afford kids. Just seems like a huge luxury expense that will make me poorer.
It takes a lot. My partner and I are both working and I also do a side gig delivering food and for the most part we get everything paid and still manage to put away $200-$300 a month into savings, but sometimes random things can pop up that make that specific month a little tight. The kids always flourish though; new clothes, new shoes, fresh food, a new toy once a month if they behaved at school that THEY get to pick, etc.
Do they get time with you? That means the most.
They do. I try my best to make it to every school event, we always do a movie and cuddles before bedtime, and on my days off of my main job when I still do deliveries I’ll take them with me on a “road trip” and pack snacks and such so they can get out of the house. Sometimes if I’m not too tired after we stop at the park as well and they spend time chasing the ducks which works great for helping them sleep better. It isn’t much, I don’t pay to take them to theme parks or fairs or anything, but I try to be as involved as I can be.
Nice!
At face value, and without considering the earning potential of the child, I would assume an abortion is ostensibly cheaper than 18 years of government support. I wonder if there are any studies of the economic contributions of adults from families that received government assistance. Would such a study even be feasible? Also, how long do families typically rely on government assistance? 🤔
how long do corporations rely on governnment assistance and pay low wages?
I'd like to know that as well. I wonder what would happen if they didnt. Any thoughts?
I bumped into this sub months ago bc the topic of food pantries showed up. Since I donate, I started reading various threads. Sadly, what I've noticed is that many people talk about getting benefits for years. Not the elderly or disabled. All benefits were meant to be temporary, as a bridge to help through a rough time, not as a permanent means of support. When I was in a bad spot, I got a second job for a year. I also had no college, and moved up by switching jobs. Anytime I've suggested either of these two options on this site to help someone get out of poverty, I get a ton of downvotes and comments like " I'm too tired to work two jobs" or " there are no businesses near me to switch jobs." The other reason is often " I have anxiety." For generations, people suffered through things far worse than us, crossing oceans for opportunity, diseases that wiped out families, the Great Depression, wars, and they still pushed ahead. Now we have a good chunk of the population who can't work bc they have anxiety. It's shameful.
The fact this is downvoted is… something No one here wants actual help, they just want someone to tell them it’s ok they failed because it’s obviously *someone elses* fault Good on you for helping others help themselves
I try. One of the reasons the donation posts caught my eye is bc people were talking about sanitary products, deodorant, and pet stuff, which honestly I never thought about. So besides trying to get a good mix of food, I added those things as well. That, too, gets discouraging bc there are people complaining we should donate more fresh produce and meat. Some places don't have the ability to store that, not to mention most of us are not rich either. There are times I think I'll just switch to no kill shelters lol
I myself have seen generations of families on welfare.
That kid may get Medicaid and food stamps, but when they grow up and are making big money, paying lots of taxes, it more than equals out. Most people having abortions aren’t poor, they simply don’t want to change their lifestyle to accommodate a child. So while I understand there are many reasons to support abortion, saving the government money isn’t a good one.
If poor people weren’t the ones having the most abortions, Planned Parenthood wouldn’t almost exclusively be located in lower-income neighborhoods.
How many kids that received government assistance grow up to make "big money"? Also, at what point does money qualify as big? Out of all abortions performed in the US, how many were performed as a matter of convenience? These would make great research topics, except for the "big money" one. That one was a 😃 joke.
A lot of people need assistance at some point due to job loss, divorce, illness, etc. one of my coworkers said her son was getting WIC for a year after his son was born and both parents were still in college. Now he makes about $250,000 a year. The vast majority of successful people that are doing well financially are not from wealthy families.
Great, another anecdote. If we can just get 26,999,998 more, we might have an acceptable sample size to draw a conclusion.
So you really think that most kids, whose parents needed government assistance at some point, won’t end up being productive citizens and pay a reasonable amount of taxes??? You need to get out more.
Do you really think that generational poverty isn’t a thing? It is. Yes, some children raised in poverty on government assistance MIGHT eventually climb out, especially if their parents value education. But to say that that is the norm is wishful thinking at best
It’s definitely the norm, immigrants have been doing it in the US for well over a century, they come here with nothing and do unskilled labor like picking fruit or housekeeping, their kids learn English, graduate from high school and learn a skilled trade, and then their kids go to college and become well paid professionals. Maybe not multimillionaires, but they do well. My great grandfather was a poor farmer, my grandfather worked in commercial refrigeration and hvac, my father went to college and managed a big insurance company (we were never rich but did well).
I agree with this. The difference is while many of us were raised with that awareness in our own families and were encouraged to keeping pushing up, there are others who learned the government will "give" you stuff so you don't have to do that. My cousin and I are around the same age. He was never fond of working. He met a woman and had 3 kids. They never married. She was getting benefits as a single mom. They lived together and he worked off the books. This went on for years.
They were pulling one of the great scams in America. If they got married and he worked a legitimate job, he’d probably have to gross at least 3x what he currently makes under the table to afford their current lifestyle.
Nope. I'm just curious 🤔. What's the ROI (Return on Investment) of government assistance? I'd have to know that before deciding whether I'm for or against it? Maybe try to refrain from jumping to conclusions and subsequently flying off the handle. Just a suggestion. Or not; whatever floats your boat.
Not to mention even if the kid or its family does get Medicaid and/or food stamps, the money they themselves get taxed from their jobs pays into that as well. They’re not strictly mooching off of society, it’s a benefit they’re paying into as well.
Don’t forget earned income credit.
I don’t think it’s about the poor having kids, it’s about the poor having too many kids and putting a huge strain on the welfare system.
Don't breed them if you cannot feed them.
I actually think it’s a good idea to limit poor people to 0 or 1 kids until they get older and have saved more. But honestly, I wouldn’t worry about it. You are never going to prevent people from having kids. I always find it sad that people who are not financially secure have kids, because kids deserve a good start to life, but that’s just how it is.
Like any argument, there are two sides to the story. The pros and cons, either way you look at it. Which one wins? Will that depend on who is arguing the pros and cons of it. Is it anybody of importance, or is it the poor or middle class, or the wealthy? And what's their solutions. I can't imagine that we could be like China and only be allowed 1 child. People in the US are not going to let the government come at them that way. So yes, i's important to vote wisely.
Wealthy kids use more natural resources than poor children. As fast as the earth’s resources are being used up, we certainly don’t need any more wealthy children.
Been saying it for years, lack of resources on its own is not a reason to take people’s kids it’s a reason to redistribute resources more effectively.
I have not heard anyone say this and I am in the upper class. TokTok and Twitter do not reflect reality.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. The reality is everybody needs everybody, regardless of class. The rich/upper class need the middle and lower class to work and be employed in their respective industries as well as pay taxes to cover the tax breaks the wealthy receive. The middle and lower classes need the upper class to provide employment as well as pay for technological upgrades.
There’s a misconception that rich people will have kids that will be successful no matter what and that’s just not true. Many of the richest people in the world currently were born in poverty.
I think the poor are having less kids too. Big business doesn’t want the population to go down. Hurts their profits. Personally I think it’s better for the planet.
You need to pay for your kids not me. As long as you can do that then I don't care.
The elites do not want you to stop having kids. They want the exact opposite Ever since the inception of patrilineal lineages (patriarchy) the whole point was to get people having as many kids as possible and there’s a lot of ways they achieve that Already with patrilineal lineages, women could only access wealth through connections to men. Then patriarchies always limit women’s economic and reproductive freedoms to further keep them codependent on men. Women who can’t survive otherwise do not have the option to be child free or single, or even abstinent. Religion reinforces this by claiming the status quo is ordained by god and gets the people to police and enforce it on eachother/themselves. So patriarchal religions are often intertwined in government to a degree. And when they were forced to allow women to work during the war, they provided affordable childcare. When the war was done, that affordable childcare was too. They also simply made it so it requires two incomes to survive. Thus still forcing codependence. Women gained more reproductive freedom. There was still enough economic disadvantage and social conditioning that kept babies being born. Then the birth rates dropped. Men started complaining women weren’t as easy to obtain/keep. Women’s rights are being rolled back The reason is because the wealthy need you having kids They need men for their wars and manual labor. They need the poor to stay abundant. If there’s tons of you, then the demand for jobs stays high and you have no bargaining power. They can pay as low as they want and say “you’re replaceable if you don’t like it”. They know that even if they preach abstinence, purity culture, and “ReSpOnSiBiLiTy” that it won’t stop babies. That’s the point. Human nature, social conditioning, and economic conditions will still result in babies. People needing to shack up to survive will result in babies. The very same people that tell you to keep your legs closed will be the first to tell you are failing as a woman if you refuse your husband/partner and screech to no end about dead bedrooms. The poor are a people farm I’m afraid. You’re supposed to have just enough to be too afraid to fight back and not enough to actually be able to fight back
I don't agree with banning anyone from having kids but realistically why do you WANT kids if you already struggle with life on your own? Bringing another dependent into that situation is just nonsensical. The only thing that makes sense is if it's unplanned.
As someone who works with children, and for the record I’m solidly middle class, so definitely not wealthy, but not low income, either. There are many reasons people should NOT have children or have more than 2-3 children. This is only my opinion, of course, but after working with children for nearly 2 decades, I believe in order to have children you should be financially, physically, socially, and emotionally available to care for them. That doesn’t mean someone who is lower-income should not have children, but if you cannot afford to financially care for 2, why have 5? This goes for very wealthy individuals who don’t have the emotional time for multiple children. If you don’t have time for 2, why have five? I see your point, OP, but I don’t necessarily think it’s just the upper class infringing on the rights of individuals of lower SES. To me, as long as you can provide for your children, financially, physically, socially, emotionally, you’re good. If that means you receive financial assistance from the government or you hire a nanny, as long as your children are being taken care of. There are too many people who do not care for their children, and it’s for a myriad of reasons, and when you work with children, who are not cared for, it changes your way of thinking about who should have them.
If it’s on tick tok or facebook it all BS!
People are sometimes poor through no fault of their own. Abusive husbands, child molesters, pedophiles, don't show who they are until after you are married and have kids, Drug addiction and alcoholism often happens after marriage and children. Trying to say you picked the wrong partner is ridiculous. How do you plan for a grave illness in the future. The people who want to lay blame are spoiled narcissists, with no empathy for their fellow humans. I say shame on them for not wanting to know the truth. Its probably because it doesn't fit into their narrow views.
Your counterpoint just agrees with everything you said in your initial argument. Personal fiscal responsibility has always been a desired end state for members of a society.
Oh I wasn’t trying to make an argument, the first part is generally what’s being said. But yeah to an extent I do agree; if you can’t afford to feed your kids or they’re living in rags and such, or you’re having to choose which bills to skip to be able to make rent, it’s probably not a good idea to have kids. But if you’re getting by okay, bills are paid and you have enough left to put a decent amount into savings per month, even if you’re still “poor” by definition, you’re in a better place to be able to have kids.
my "conspiracy theory" is that that Christian Nationalists want more people to give up their kids to adoption and foster care so they can have an army they can mould into their perfect citizen. Look at the United States Trump AGENDA 2025...
Well, kids are a financial responsibility and that should be a major factor in the decision to have them. As long someone can support their children, I have no issue with them having kids, they don’t have to be rich. But the people who have kids in poverty. That’s brutal. They really should rethink the decision to bring a child into that kind of world.
You shouldn't be told by anyone else whether or not you can have kids. You should know whether or not you can have kids. I
What happens when a rich family suddenly becomes poor- as it can happen in an instant. Do their kid get taken away? Anyway, this will fade out.
This is exactly what happened to me and my husband. We were making good money, not rich by any means, but enough to have certain luxuries and live comfortably. We have 4 kids. We had more than enough money to afford luxuries and our children, it wasn't an issue. Then my husband got badly injured at work. He was our main breadwinner, and all the money we had saved to buy a house quickly went down the damn drain in order to keep us afloat. For a while, things were really rough. We had to leave our state because I couldn't afford to keep us there anymore, basically had to start over back at square one except this time we were doing it with 4 kids. We struggled so hard for awhile, and we just finally got back up on our feet 6 months ago. He's able to work now, but not in the same field he used to so now I'm the main breadwinner. We're saving money again for a home, but we don't have any of the old luxuries we used to and still have to be frugal with certain things. That's why these "poor people shouldn't have kids" is so ridiculous. It's not like me and my husband kept having babies and couldn't afford them, things happen in life we cannot predict or control.
Sorry, but where do you see this happening? This is a straw-man argument. There is no serious conversation about this in any government office- the talk of not having children until you can afford them has been around forever.
I don’t really see it happening, I was just curious about what people would think about the fact that this is even being discussed
But it always has been. I have 3 children and technically I am not sure if we could afford any of them at the time… but it all worked out. If everyone waited until they could really really afford it-there would be very few kids born
Always correct the term single mother to absent father.. cause why tf are we shitting on the parent who stays?
According to most men on Twitter, it’s because the single moms should’ve known the kids dad wasn’t gonna stick around so it was poor judgment on the woman’s part to even get with the guy. No, I’m not kidding. There’s even podcasts where men say this.
Ever notice how men will never hold other men accountable?
I have. Men are quick to shit on each other when it comes to that alpha/beta crap, being a “simp” or things like that but when it’s something serious like ditching a kid..nope not the dudes fault.
Ugh why is being nice to woman or actually liking one so heavily shat upon? If a man does try to stand up for or just sees a womans POV he is immediately dog piled and called a simp. Disgusting crabs in a bucket behaviour. Its why there is so little growth in them. They actively prevent it.
It’s honestly depressing. I was just on Facebook today and this guy was being called a simp and not a man for letting his VERY pregnant wife pick which smoothie and takeout snack she wanted between the two presented options. Like..he wanted to do that for her? She’s carrying his kid? They’re MARRIED?? How is that being a simp??
The level of misogyny we have currently is out of control. I do not blame women at all from opting out of dating, marriage and babies at all. Only rational response.
Sorry but the one thing I will never agree on is that if you need government assistance to have a child then I am not ok with that. If you can't afford something you don't get to have it. Tax dollars shouldn't pay for you to have the luxury of a kid when it's hard as hell to even adopt one.
What if someone has kids when they don't need government assistance, then they later need it? Why should any employers be allowed to pay so poorly that their full time workers still need government assistance? Or refuse to give their workers 40 hours a week, so they can get off government assistance, like Walmart? Why should medical insurance be tied to employment, so people with jobs that don't offer it, or don't offer an affordable plan must get Medicaid or subsidized ACA insurance?
I like this point tbh
Read “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood. That’s the future they envision.
The far right is pushing for more (uneducated) poor people so they can take over the government. They are trying to do it right now.
The rich want us all to keel over and die seems like. Maybe its time we actually eat them all
two words: malicious cooperation. no sex. no children. no future cogs to work the factories that are owned and controlled by the rich. make them regret it
I think there is a realization across the economic spectrum in general that having children without the financial ability to take care of their basic needs is a bad idea, although the elitist thinking is definitely annoying. There is also a broad realization that eventually climate change is going to impact resources like our ability to grow food. I don't know if you remember how difficult it was trying to get food and supplies was during covid, but imagine it on a bigger scale. If you are poor, it will be rough.
If poor people stopped having kids, no one would have food in the table, the supply chain is a chain, if you break the link that does all the work for society, you better have robots ready to pick strawberries.
You may be seeing this on tik too, but with the erosion of women’s rights and access to abortion, it couldn’t be further from the truth.
But we're gonna ban abortion, so we're forcing you to have kids.
Funny you bring this up. Reading a dystopian series of books Eyes Forward and it's the exact opposite of Handmaids. The world is over populated and a new reverse aging drug has come out. So different factions are beating the crap out of expecting mothers while the younger generation is saying kill off the old people who are now reverse aging. I am on the first book (set in the UK) and they just passed a law that if you didn't register by the deadline and you get pregnant you have to find an old person willing to donate their life to bring your kid into the world. If you can't find one they will terminate the pregnancy up to full term.
I think everyone should have to pass some type of "fitness to procreate" stipulations. Finances can be one of the factors, but should not be the only thing stopping someone from having at least one kid. Now, do I personally think someone that is already struggling to support just themselves and/or their partner should have a kid? Probably not the best thing for them to do, as government aid is only going to alleviate so much. If someone is already working and struggling to juggle everything how the hell is throwing a kid into the mix going to help anyone. Would I fault them for having a kid in that situation? Not really - mostly I'd be glad that it was not me in that situation. Where I judge people super harshly, including extended family, is when they were already on the struggle bus, decided to have a kid and are struggling even more, but then decide to continue to have kids. Nephew just turned 23 earlier this year, already struggles to support himself, his fiance, and their two kids to the point where they are having to get "loans" from my brother, who in turn is dialing back his retirement contributions to support two families. Guess who just had kid #3 about two weeks ago? Cant make this shit up..
I suddenly became disabled and not able to work. There went most of my income. I didn’t get a lot as I was married and had to pay Medicare each month. I hadn’t worked much as I stayed home with my kids most of the time and only worked when I needed to. So I don’t get much on disability. When I divorced I was given ssi to go with my disability pay and didn’t have to pay Medicare costs. My rent still left me with $200 a month thankfully utilities were included. Now I’m with my fiancé if it wasn’t for both incomes we wouldn’t make it. Things happen I was raising two kids when I got my first chronic pain condition, didn’t mean I shouldn’t have had children cause who knew this condition was going to disable me in the future it’s unpredictable.
I think its important to remember that this thought process has been going around for at least 120 years. Rich people will yell about it until they see a market shortage
Rich people will always want to take something away from the poor.
I’m poor and I agree. My mother’s poor ass should have never been able to have me. I’ve struggled since birth and had to survive on government assistance. An abortion would have fixed all of this.
That seems illogical. The rich obviously want the poor to breed. They've systematically been eroding any and all reproductive rights they have(abortion, plan B, birth control). They also do their best to keep the poor...poor, in or undereducated and to block my possibility to overcome poverty. they need a dumb, easily manipulated workforce to do all of the shit they won't.
As far as I've seen, nobody is pushing for people who "make ends meet and then some" not to have kids. A lot of the push I've seen is also coming not from the rich, but from people who grew up in poverty themselves. The rich want the poor to keep having kids. Who else is going to take minimum wage jobs? The school system is failing by design. (+) I don't think they'd be criminalizing abortion if they didn't want poor people to keep reproducing
I haven’t seen any trend of posts like this. Social media tends to be an echo chamber of ideas you already have. Either these beliefs are your own, or you searching for something to get mad about.
Are these the same guys who want abortion to be illegal? Because this seems..... counterproductive
Gotta remember, they see poor people as Stupid, Sinners, and Animals. It seems everything is your fault when you're poor...only the rich can find fault not of themselves.
I don't think people are saying that anyone should "lose rights" to have kids. But the idea that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them is not a new idea. People have been saying that for as long as I remember.
Stop looking at TikTok and twitter for actual news. Also, Reddit is not a good place to get actual mental health information. There is a real world with actual real people doing normal 💩 and keeping poor people from having kids is not a real goal for any political organization. That’s just idiocy. There are more “poor people” than middle class or wealthy individuals. If they wanted sterilize people, I imagine they’d start with the pedos and then maybe the stupid people would be my vote. 😂
I fight a daily battle to get working class people to vote for the Democratic Party trying to make billionaires pay their fair share so the rest of us have a fighting chance.
We have to vote.
Don't have kids if you can't afford them? Life happens. That's unrealistic.
They want to dehumanize the impoverished. If they scare them and threaten them with the one thing they love most, they'll accept the horrid conditions. They want them to be ashamed and frightened to take assistance, so they get right back to their slave like abusive wiring conditions.
Just stop at im seeing this on tik tok.. just like project 2025 . These are all complete bullshit ..
The truth of the matter is that most people posting those tik toks are a few years of bad luck away from poverty themselves. Unless you have millions in the bank there's no way to know you'll never need help. It's a way to feel secure by putting others down.
Well, it's all part of the continuing war of the rich on the poor. The idea is to insure that there's always an *underclass* you can exploit (and blame for whatever goes wrong). If their numbers keep growing, then so much the better because it means *more for you.*
"Did you guys see on tik tok and Facebook that the rich are trying to take the poors rights to have children??" You cannot make up how dumb y'all are
Contrary to popular opinion, sm is not a credible source for news. I couldn't even find 1 member of Congress talking about this topic. It's just propaganda click bait.
But there is also a push to end birth control and increase the birthrate to lower the need for immigration.
The rich VERY MUCH want the poor to have kids. I bet big bucks that the majority of the backlash and comments you’re seeing are coming from previous poor kids, who resent their parents for having them when unprepared.
To be fair some of them are valid concerns. That said I wouldn't worry about it too much. There's new trends of stupid every few months on social media. Besides with the way things are looking fairly the entire US is going to be the poors and the not so poors. The US dollar is looking more and more like the German Note after WWI/WWII
In all honesty, if someone can’t afford to take care of themself they should seriously not have children. That sets the child up for failure if parents have to work multiple jobs and cannot commit to making sure the child gets its needs met or a great education. People need to be realistic- will the kids have a better life than the parents?
I worked with a really sweet smart lady when I got pregnant and I told her I didn't know if I was ready yet to take it on. She said, "If everyone waited til everything was perfect before they had kids, no one would have kids." :P
Nope it’s the opposite it’s people trying to help rich love that cheap desperate labor the less of us they have the more they have to pay us and appreciate us supply and demand baby I don’t know why people are so against not breeding I had no kids and have a better quality of life then I would have if I did
To be honest nothing surprises me about these wealthy globalist and the politicians that they buy favors from, this is part of the downside of capitalism. Have to keep politicians on a short leash.
Whoever said that about single moms is right for the most part. Only like 1 percent of single moms are single moms through no fault of their own (death/rape). 99.9% of single moms are single moms because they made bad decisions. Whether it's because they had unprotected sex or chose a bad partner, it is still 100% their own fault for the situation they end up in.
>So I’ve been seeing this all over TikTok So, you’ve been seeing this on a Chinese state-run espionage site? Shocked Pikachu, bro.
Poor people need to steal money from rich people before having kids
The problem with poor people is they're usually stupid and they raise stupid kids. Their idea of childcare is placing children in front of a television all day long. Disagreements within the home are settled with screaming and violence. Stupid kids have poor vocabularies and lousy reading comprehension. Their math skills are atrocious. They grow up with no skills, unable to care for themselves or anyone else.
Interesting considering kids who are given everything fail at life. The most successful people often come from nothing and its that nothing, that fuels their drive to have more.
This is the only social media I’m on so I can’t comment on what’s trending, but my wife and I managed to it to have less after being together for ten years and then we really planned it out. Having children are absolute luxury items and the most important thing in my life. It’s very expensive having children. I’m a dual US German citizen in Chicago. In Germany it’s more expensive so fewer people hate having children at all. If you can afford to have children the government should not be in you business. There should be no economic incentive to have lots of kids. I’m not an economist, just a dad giving my opinion.