BYU pauper babies

[Tao]

Hmmm. I guess I just don't see it. My parents raised 5 kids and put my mom through college on minimum wage. I can cook meals for 3 at $60 a month, found a 2br 1bath house in south provo that has a 600 mortgage. Assume another 200 in utilities. Yes, diapers are expensive, but cloth is an option. There are many options out there that are deemed 'less desirable' but when it comes down to brass tacks, are quite palatable.

40 hour weeks at 7$ an hour is $1176/mo. After tithing and taxes, that is pretty tight, but that's also assuming only working one job and no overtime. 60-80 hour weeks or more are not impossible burdens to shoulder.

"Can not care for" I don't believe happens in the US. "Will not care for" sure, all the time.

[Katya]

My parents raised 5 kids and put my mom through college on minimum wage.

Were you perhaps living in an area with a very low cost of living?

[Marduk]

Tao and TBS, you guys are missing each other here. Tao, you're talking about financial ability, TBS, I'm pretty sure the reason those parents can't care for their kids is not financial. Well, part of it is, but it isn't lack of money, it is spending money on the wrong things, and the reason they can't get more money is those wrong things.

[Katya]

Tao and TBS, you guys are missing each other here. Tao, you're talking about financial ability, TBS, I'm pretty sure the reason those parents can't care for their kids is not financial. Well, part of it is, but it isn't lack of money, it is spending money on the wrong things, and the reason they can't get more money is those wrong things.

This is a good point (and one I was thinking about after I made my comment). There's an excellent book called A Framework for Understanding Poverty which explains that a lot of the difference between social classes comes down to mindset and skills and not income. Tao's family clearly had the skills of budgeting, valuing education, and generally making short-term tradeoffs for long-term benefits. I'm also assuming that he grew up in a low-crime area, belonging to a church community, in a 2-parent home, with parents who were citizens and native English speakers, and who didn't have serious mental illnesses, physical disabilities or addictions, and possibly lived near extended family. All of these factors can contribute significantly to one's ability to care for children and to pull oneself out of poverty.

It's unfortunately easy to take such skills, abilities, or other life circumstances for granted and to be lacking in sympathy or understanding for people who are in different circumstances.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Because debt is very easy to take on these days, I wonder how definitions of "poor" need to change. We go deeper and deeper into debt every month and try to minimize expenses. We have access to $10,000 to $20,000 more a year in loans, but we live inside a pretty lean budget. We don't feel the danger of starving, but we do constantly feel the weight of growing debt.

Tao - ignoring, for a minute, the fact that your food budget is going to cause nutrition problems, you have less than $122 a month left. And assuming you're all perfectly healthy, expect at least $130 to go to catastrophic health insurance. Plus diapers and all sorts of other baby expense. And cleaning supplies, toiletries, lightbulbs, etc are out of the question. Better hope your job is within walking distance, cause gas and car payments are going to be impossible. Forget about taking your child in for checkups. If you ever get sick, there is no way you'll be able to pay.

So what you're saying is that you absolutely MUST work significant overtime to support a family of 3 at a subsistence level at minimum wage.

[thebigcheese]

a lot of the difference between social classes comes down to mindset and skills and not income.

Totally agree with this. Something that completely baffled me after high school was watching so many of my smart and capable friends go back to the ghetto where they came from. They had every chance in the world to get out of there, but they just didn't take it. They grew up there, it's where they're comfortable. It's the world they know.

[NerdGirl]

I just think people shouldn't name their babies Rapunzel. If you want something named Rapunzel, but a toy poodle or a barbie. That is all I have to add to this discussion.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

especially since babies are born bald. that's a lot of pressure on that kid.

[Tao]

Tao - ignoring, for a minute, the fact that your food budget is going to cause nutrition problems, you have less than $122 a month left. And assuming you're all perfectly healthy, expect at least $130 to go to catastrophic health insurance. Plus diapers and all sorts of other baby expense. And cleaning supplies, toiletries, lightbulbs, etc are out of the question. Better hope your job is within walking distance, cause gas and car payments are going to be impossible. Forget about taking your child in for checkups. If you ever get sick, there is no way you'll be able to pay.

So what you're saying is that you absolutely MUST work significant overtime to support a family of 3 at a subsistence level at minimum wage.

You are correct, I was not outlining a complete budget, taxes alone cut heavily into such a proposal. But what I was attempting to show was quite the opposite of what you got out of it. After running those numbers I was impressed at how little beyond the basic 40 hour/week minimum wage threshold would be required. Will you have to go beyond it? Most assuredly, yes, unless you've got some other form of support, either family, church, or governmental assistance. (I'm still not sure how I feel about WIC; I'm glad that its there, I approve of its aims, but I feel it still has some major flaws.) Yes, you wont be running to the doctor for every sniffle, nor will you be able to much by way of car payments (honestly though? car payments? An old beater that cost you $400 doesn't typically require payments as such. Takes some lean months to save for it, but you'll not be making payments. Bikes are even cheaper.) No gaming systems, no internet, no cable, probably no cell phone (though with the prices there matching many land-lines it may be worth it to splurge). Library cards tend to be free.

I'm not sure why you feel that 60$ a month toward food would lead to malnutrition. Growing a garden, having chickens/rabbits if allowed, making your own breads and pastas, much of your actual expenditures come down to flour and milk, beans and rice. (Though rice is far more expensive than I recall: it seems you're lucky to find it at anything near a dollar a pound!) Sure it wont be fancy, but you'll not starve. Many people survived long before Wal-mart was established.

I guess that's my point, as Marduk has observed; it isn't the financial situation that's creating this impossible-to-raise-a-family, it is lack of willingness (or awareness) to make the sacrifices needed. Government and other assistance can help ease such burdens, but can also lend the illusion that sacrifices aren't needed.

[krebscout]

I think by "car payments" he means car insurance.

[Tao]

Ah, that'd make more sense.

[TheBlackSheep]

Tao and TBS, you guys are missing each other here. Tao, you're talking about financial ability, TBS, I'm pretty sure the reason those parents can't care for their kids is not financial. Well, part of it is, but it isn't lack of money, it is spending money on the wrong things, and the reason they can't get more money is those wrong things.

Well, first of all, I don't exactly agree with your assessment of that situation, but be that as it may, I was talking about just financial stuff. I wasn't talking about your typical BYU couple with kids, it's true, but Tao said that he doesn't believe that situations in which people cannot financially care for their kids exist in the US. I'm going to save us all from a very long comment here, but no, I was just talking about financial stuff alone. Social stuff ties into it all, sure, but these people could not provide financially for their children, at least in general.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

You are correct, I was not outlining a complete budget, taxes alone cut heavily into such a proposal.

I included Social Security and Medicaid taxes. A family this size would not be subject to income tax (and could actually get a "rebate" from the government for tax credits.).

But what I was attempting to show was quite the opposite of what you got out of it. After running those numbers I was impressed at how little beyond the basic 40 hour/week minimum wage threshold would be required.

That's my point. You may see working overtime or picking up a second job as "not a big deal." A lot of people are having a hard time even getting one part-time minimum wage job—McDonalds recently rejected almost a million applicants during their recent hiring spree. Even if one is able to get more than a full time job, we're talking a stressing, exhausting workload to meet even a bare subsistence level.

Yes, you wont be running to the doctor for every sniffle, nor will you be able to much by way of car payments

I'm not saying for every sniffle. We're talking any possible medical malady under the sun. Medical bills are behind around 60% of bankruptcies (and 78 percent of these had insurance).

If you're driving a beater you're going to be paying for car parts and repairs. If you buy a more reliable car, you'll have payments. Either way, like wifey said, you'll have insurance payments. And "lean months" is an inaccurate phrase, since we're both agreeing that to even make ends meet you'd need to work more.

I'm not sure why you feel that 60$ a month toward food would lead to malnutrition. Growing a garden, having chickens/rabbits if allowed, making your own breads and pastas, much of your actual expenditures come down to flour and milk, beans and rice. (Though rice is far more expensive than I recall: it seems you're lucky to find it at anything near a dollar a pound!) Sure it wont be fancy, but you'll not starve. Many people survived long before Wal-mart was established.

Wouldn't you have to pay more in rent to have a yard with a garden? And survival is different than nutrition—you want to ensure health in both the long term and short term

I guess I'm just confused - are you really saying you expect unprivileged parents to suck it up, work multiple minimum wage jobs, farm their own food, and in general live in the early 1900s? I don't think these sacrifices are actually needed, and I think the expectation of sacrifices like this stigmatize accepting available aid and put an undue burden on the working-class.

[Tao]

I guess I'm just confused - are you really saying you expect unprivileged parents to suck it up, work multiple minimum wage jobs, farm their own food, and in general live in the early 1900s? I don't think these sacrifices are actually needed, and I think the expectation of sacrifices like this stigmatize accepting available aid and put an undue burden on the working-class.

Do I expect it? Not at all. Sadly my opinion of people in general isn't that high anymore. I no longer expect people to consider giving up their 360 or afternoon soaps to put food on the table. There is currently no need to. As Imogen pointed out, there are those who would gladly milk the system for every penny they can get. With aid, you can rent apartments for less than $50 a month (personal knowledge: I've built them). With foodstamps, you can get far more than enough money for food (again, personal knowledge: my sister and brother-in-law were shocked at the amount their foodstamps got them). If the situation permits, there are times when unemployment benefits are better than being employed. (that one is hear-say, a good friend of the family actually took a pay cut when he started working again, but was going bonkers sitting around collecting pay).

On the other hand, I also don't expect someone who has the drive to sustain a family to stay long at the same pay-grade as your average unmotivated high school student. And for those times when things are at their tightest, I'm very glad that we have aid available. I'm not anti-welfare by any means. What I am against is the blanket statement that supporting a family is not fiscally possible until you are so far along. What I hear when such a claim is set forth is "You can't possibly have a family until you can afford to have a family without hampering your lifestyle any more than is absolutely possible."

Which I'm fine with as a personal decision; to each his own. But to castigate another for their decision, claiming something is impossible because you haven't considered all the possibilities, I am quite against.

[Hypatia]

Ooo! I had a roommate who admitted to me that she was not going to take her birth control after getting married (despite her husband's wishes) so she would have a legitimate reason for dropping out of school. Not that she would ever admit that to the general public but...yeah, it happens.

[UnluckyStuntman]

Ooo! I had a roommate who admitted to me that she was not going to take her birth control after getting married (despite her husband's wishes) so she would have a legitimate reason for dropping out of school. Not that she would ever admit that to the general public but...yeah, it happens.

That's... sad.

[Craig Jessop]

Ooo! I had a roommate who admitted to me that she was not going to take her birth control after getting married (despite her husband's wishes) so she would have a legitimate reason for dropping out of school. Not that she would ever admit that to the general public but...yeah, it happens.

Why on earth was he marrying her? She must have had huge redeeming qualities. Beyond the willingness to hijack the reproductive process, of course.

[Whistler]

Hmm... I think Tao's lower estimates on financial things and W&S's higher estimates have to do with rural vs. city dwelling and different standards of living. Some people... don't have health insurance.

[Imogen]

Hmm... I think Tao's lower estimates on financial things and W&S's higher estimates have to do with rural vs. city dwelling and different standards of living. Some people... don't have health insurance.

And when something bad happens to those people, they end up in ridiculous debt. I know a person can lose their insurance for a lot of reasons, but I wouldn't want to have kids if I didn't have insurance already. That way if I lost it, I'd at least have COBRA for a while until I found a new job or could afford insurance again.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Hmm... I think Tao's lower estimates on financial things and W&S's higher estimates have to do with rural vs. city dwelling and different standards of living. Some people... don't have health insurance.

1. I was using numbers from when we were living in provo. Cost of living where we are is 2-3 times those numbers for rent, health insurance, car insurance.

2. Health insurance is not a luxury. That so many don't have it is a travesty that devastates families. There are certainly levels of health care that are luxury, but I think it's fair to say that catastrophic health insurance is the bare minimum. Going without health insurance is not a "sacrifice," but a foolhardy risk that puts your family's well-being and even survival in jeopardy. To an extent the same might be said about life insurance if you are the only one capable of providing for your family.