The debate "If you can't afford a family on minimum wages you shouldn't have started one" was started by
June 11, 2015, 12:57 pm.
43 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
jonatron5 posted 2 arguments, Argumention posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 6 arguments, danielle posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 2 arguments, bearunter posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
jonatron5, Damn3d, toughgamerjerry, omfgcandy, PlatypusParty, WesleySr, invincible_01, Bxat9, DavidStuff777, ScarletandRose, Flaming_Butt_Tart_42, raz, kyaah, INDIA, Mathew, Upbeatethan, Argumention, rotemvi, MEATMISSILE01, rishab, sabrina, action007man, kaka, Turtle, DerpedLocke, Psych_Code, Tristanzee and 16 visitors agree.
PsychDave, danielle, owentowe, felix, barca_paaras11, Sosocratese, bearunter, lararea, Chabii, amanofprogress, The_lamp, keyboardwarrior, kay_joey1101, PhoenixF1re, bigbuttgal and 9 visitors disagree.
The problem I see with all of these arguments about why people shouldn't have started a family is that they seem to approach being poor as either a temporary condition or as being the fault of the person. As the topic specifies that the person is working, this means that they are already trying to be a productive member of society. They are working, but the wages provided are not sufficient funds r a family to live on. It used to be that if you were working full time, you could support a family, but wages have not kept up with cost of living.
Also, many of the same people voted to support this as voted that people shouldn't expect minimum wage to increase. Inflation happens whether minimum wage increases or not, and if it does not increase, those making minimum wage gradually can afford less and less. If someone is working full time at minimum wage, they should be able to support their family. If they can't, that seems like more of a criticism of the system than the individual who, despite working hard, cannot make ends meet.
Finally, people are describing having children as a privilege that should not be given to those who are poor. Kids are more than just "nice to have." Kids are your contribution to the next generation. They are a person's legacy and that is something everyone has a right to. While I certainly agree that financial planning is important, I would never try to take away someone's right to have a family.
one reason you really shouldn't be starting a family if you're dirt poor is that how are you going to support them? think of the kids how would you send them to school? buy things for them? kids are nice to have but when you're poor it's just going to deepen you're poverty
so you are saying that people who have more money than other people should have a normal life just because they can afford more stuff but because someone's poor which could be caused by an accident which caused them to be paralized etc that they don't deserve kids because they can't work.
So you're changing the goal posts a bit for this debate, which is usually a big no no.... The title says people who are on minimum wage, not people who don't make enough money.
Anyways, it seems like you have still failed to account for future earnings (loss of jobs and perspective incomes) so are you saying that people who started a family, but are now in a position where they can no longer afford a family should abandon their children (either by giving them up for adoption or into foster care)? And are you saying that a couple who has a large earning potential due to education, but simply isn't at that potential yet, shouldn't have a family even though they are very likely to be able to afford one in the near future (I'm thinking 2 doctors in residency, biological clock ticking and all may want to opt to have kids before they are truly ready, rather than risk not being able to have children).
You are welcome to have an opinion, but without justifying it with evidence, it has very little weight. Are you saying that everyone who has ever lost a job either had it coming or immediately found a new one? Did everyone who list their homes when the housing market crashed land right back on their feet? If not, there is a serious problem with your premise that you need to address.
I don't care how educated you are. if you can't afford a family you shouldn't start one plain and simple
May I add, a lot of people couldn't even afford a family on salary from jobs that require degrees. A lot of those jobs pay around $14/hour for entry level positions requiring a BS/BA (librarian, lab tech, postdoc, paramedics, counselors, anything in academic research, etc...). So you're saying people who have degrees, but aren't getting paid enough to support a family shouldn't have one either? By that logic, only people who have been in the job market for years should have families and those born into wealth. This is problematic as studies show a market decrease in child birth for couples with higher education already, those numbers decrease further the longer they are in the job market. You're essentially saying don't have kids unless you're born with certain advantages or you happened to choose a lucrative career field.
This opinion is based on what? When the auto industry had mass layoffs, lots of skilled workers were let go. What jobs suddenly opened up? You say skilled labours and educated people will get rehired, but do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
people do get laid off and do truly have setbacks. but most skilled labourers or educated people will be rehired.
I apologize for the autocorrect. That should have read "through no fault of their own".
Another flaw in this is what if you were making more when you started a family? Lots if people are laid off through night fault of their own and struggle to find another job. How many people lost their homes during the crash not too long ago? Should they have not started a family until after the crash? Blanket statements assigning blame are rarely accurate and usually serve as justification for looking down on someone. Unless you know the situation of an individual or family, to say they should have planned ahead is unfair.
this is a dilemma I'm sort of in! I would love to start a family now, but I won't get because my job is minimum wage and seasonal and I know I could not support a child without help. But it worked for my dad he's on just over the minimum wage, his job is seasonal and my mum doesn't work yet they still managed to support a family of four kids. I honestly don't know how they do it, but I personally think in life people succeed in different ways, some people get their dream job, earn lots have a nice car and a nice house some people on the other hand have little money but a great family, they struggle to get by but they wouldn't change it for the world because having a child is something amazing. like me for example as much as I would like to have a baby, I'll keep waiting just a little longer but if it happened then for me it wouldn't be the end of the world, I can put with not being rich because my love for the child would be more important!!
tbh I've forgot where I was going with this but basically I half agree!
What about if you can't get a better paying paying job, should you never have a family?