[Loughla]

That's a very morality based argument. In general, those types of arguments aren't great and don't really serve a purpose outside of letting the individual take the moral high ground for whatever reason.

I had to rely on food banks when my parents kicked me out at 16. I had to again my second year of marriage while I was still in graduate school and our car got hit, forcing us to use our food budget (and we did have a budget that we followed) for the family.

For the second time, I had kids, I had a good job, so did my wife, I was seeking higher education to advance in my career. But times were tight due to factors out of our control, and we needed help.

What should we have done differently?

[solumunus]

I can’t understand what you think their argument is. This response doesn’t seem relevant to theirs.

[nobodyandproud]

I’m pretty sure the retort was aimed at the patronizing bit here:

> but ignores the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford.

Which seems quite relevant. The only fool-proof plan for anyone is to have zero kids, which is ridiculous.

My wife and I live beneath ours means, save as much as possible, live debt free, and we instead try to afford as much as possible for the kids.

A job loss or major accident/medical problem where we survive is terrifying from a financial PoV.

[mytailorisrich]

Nothing patronising in my comment... it's common sense.

Unfortunately it almost customary here that any comments be interpreted in the most negative way possible for some reason. Perhaps to avoid discussion or, indeed, the tough, uncomfortable questions.

[jabberwhookie]

Your comment is completely patronizing. Every child who needs help has parents who should know better and let's make them suffer.. Not because it is rational or even meets the objectives of the community but because we should be a community that is mean spirited.

[GeoAtreides]

no, the other posters are right, your comment was not only patronising but terrifying in its implications.

[nobodyandproud]

I have no dog in this fight, but your intent matters less than what it signifies: The comment is patronizing in the abstract, because it’s out-of-touch.

That’s the best interpretation, and the response still fits if less harshly worded.

[mytailorisrich]

My comment was neither patronizing nor out of touch. In fact it acknowledges that this is a "tough question".

Social issues can't be tackled without facing the tough questions head on.

My point is that I think that the best way to actually help families and children is to incentivise and teach not to have children you can't afford in the first place instead of infantilising people and to tell them that anything goes and the state will pick up the tab.

No-one, no-one replied to my comments on the point. Only intellectually lazy outrage.

[jabberwhookie]

Plenty of social problems are fixed without tackling them head on. The entire concept of the economic advantage of capitalism lifting all boats is an attempt to ignore the details of social problems, accurate justice and all those other annoying details that make it hard to cash in on stealing shared resources. Why fox anything without seeing what the surplus might wash away is not so stupid, but that theory must be lazy?

Your thinking is entirely lazy. You don't want to do something so you need to find a "tough question" and a cheap policy.

Every country needs a next generation and if it isn't getting one it is because it is a miserly society that thinks it can poke and prod parents and still expect them to do all the work that is actually a shared responsibility.

[nobodyandproud]

> the tough question of the individual responsibility not to have more children than one can afford

It’s out of touch because it’s not merely a “tough” question.

It’s not a well-defined question and it may not be quantifiable.

It’s a terrible lens to view through, but financially speaking creating or extending your family is a major risk.

The easy questions: What does it even mean to say one has more children than one can afford? What standard is being used to decide when someone has gone past affordability?

The harder or impossible questions, and these are critically important: What factors play into the financial risk of having or extending a family? And can each factor be quantified?

I suspect the answer is no, because few or no private insurer is in business guaranteeing long-term employment terms.

Finally: Even if the probabilities can be accurately quantified, what risk threshold can we establish as responsible vs irresponsible?

And the burden is on the claim maker to establish that it’s possible, because as far as I know life in a market economy is a bit too messy to forecast in this manner.

If this inspires you or someone else to try, I wish you all the best and with my blessing.