<blockquote><b>Quoting James Mama:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting dat uterus tho:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting James ... [snip!] ... things and eventually go to college. My babies were not that expensive. I did breast feed for a while though so that helped."</blockquote>



I don't know where you're shopping but I've never paid more than $15 for a pair of shoes.

<blockquote><b>Quoting dat uterus tho:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting James Mama:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting dat uterus ... [snip!] ... that helped."</blockquote> I don't know where you're shopping but I've never paid more than $15 for a pair of shoes."</blockquote>




My sons soccer cleats were almost 40$ from big 5 and his regular shoes were like 60$ from champs.

My daughters were 50$ from journeys.

Quoting dat uterus tho:" <blockquote><b>Quoting DisneyMommyTTC#3:</b>" They tend to get more costly as they get older!"</blockquote> Things got cheaper and easier once she hit two."

Yeah they get older than 2 though, the baby & toddler stages are the easy part, the wants & needs by school age & the teenage years are when smurf gets real, especially now when everyone wants to keep up with the latest technology.

<blockquote><b>Quoting DisneyMommyTTC#3:</b>" Yeah they get older than 2 though, the baby & toddler stages are the easy part, the wants & ... [snip!] ... age & the teenage years are when smurf gets real, especially now when everyone wants to keep up with the latest technology."</blockquote>


my daughter isn't a toddler. She's 5.

I see absolutely no reason to give my kids the latest technology. If they want it, they can get a job and buy it like I had to. That is not a need and a teenager is the cheapest of all to provide for. I had to start paying for my smurf at 16.

<blockquote><b>Quoting James Mama:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting dat uterus tho:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting James ... [snip!] ... cleats were almost 40$ from big 5 and his regular shoes were like 60$ from champs. My daughters were 50$ from journeys."</blockquote>



Well that's on you for wanting to buy name brand. That doesn't make kids more expensive than babies.

<blockquote><b>Quoting dat uterus tho:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting James Mama:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting dat uterus ... [snip!] ... Well that's on you for wanting to buy name brand. That doesn't make kids more expensive than babies."</blockquote>




No, those are the shoes he picked and I do think that good shoes are essential. I wouldn't put my kids in Walmart shoes because they do not support like they should.

Your child will need a computer for school before she is able to work I am sure.

I will not make my child support themselves at 16! I will support my children and provide so they are able to focus on achieving life goals. Like graduating high school and going to college!

Quoting James Mama:" <blockquote><b>Quoting dat uterus tho:</b>" <blockquote><b>Quoting James ... [snip!] ... things and eventually go to college. My babies were not that expensive. I did breast feed for a while though so that helped."

My sister has 3 kids they're all in teens now. She's never spent $100 on shoes probably $30-40 tops. Things are only expensive if you make it out to be.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Kati Iss Rollinn:</b>" My sister has 3 kids they're all in teens now. She's never spent $100 on shoes probably $30-40 tops. Things are only expensive if you make it out to be."</blockquote>



They must shop at Payless. Like I said I think that good shoes are important. And I let my kids pick out their shoes for the most part.

Quoting Back to Noob Status:" I don't know about that. Daycare alone is expensive if you don't have a SAHP. And, tbh, I want to be ... [snip!] ... I would like to take them to Disney world and put them through college and be able to spoil them every now and then."

i lucked out on this. see even though we are "pay check to pay check"
my kids still have a college fund and we are going to disney world in about 5 years. ..... BUT not with our expense. we have family memebers that started accounts for each child and during birthdays and holidays and stuff they deposit money to make it grow. we just got lucky.. otherwise my kids would pay for themeselves.. but honestly, my parents could have afforded college for my brother and I, but we had to pay for it ourselves and "earn" scholorships.. i didnt earn any but my brother did. lol smurf i barely even went to college.
if it wasnt for family doing that for my kids, they would be on their own. i think its a good insenitive to get good grades in HS.

It's not irresponsible to have a child if you aren't rich. The question is illogical simply because there is no proper solution (Not meaning YOUR question is illogical OP lol, just the prospect of whether or not a poor person should have a kid). POOR people get pregnant too- and since they get pregnant, you either have the baby or you abort it- those are your two options. A poor person is perfectly capable of being a good parent. Spoiling your kids with worthless material possessions (more crap than they need) does NOT make you a better parent than a poor one.
And if you give it up for adoption because you can't provide the kid with the newest technologically advanced toy every 2 months, there are already WAY too many kids in the system who remain in foster care. My point is- if everyone who was NOT rich, DIDN'T want to have the baby they carried- then they would have to get rid of the kid somehow- and if that was the case- MOST of the population would not exist- OR would be in foster care. Most of us aren't rich enough to give a kid everything under the sun, but that doesn't make us bad or irresponsible parents. Besides, nothing good comes of a spoiled child.

I'm poor as dirt, and my kid is well provided for. She wants for nothing, and I go without everything so SHE can have what she needs/wants. Granted I can't buy her expensive electronic gadgets and whatnot, but she is happy- and that is all that matters.

<blockquote><b>Quoting ~*~Modern*Day*Delilah~*~:</b>" It's not irresponsible to have a child if you aren't rich. The question is illogical simply because there ... [snip!] ... needs/wants. Granted I can't buy her expensive electronic gadgets and whatnot, but she is happy- and that is all that matters."</blockquote>


That wasn't the question...

No! I think it's irresponsible to keep having children if you live paycheck by paycheck. Ex: You have one child who you can barely take care of and still get pregnant over & over again which sadly I've seen happen. However, if I lived paycheck by paycheck I'd still want to have at least one child.

Quoting Back to Noob Status:" Do you think it is irresponsible to have kids if the parents are poor/living paycheck to paycheck? ... [snip!] ... owed more than just the bare necessities in life (i.e. food, basic clothing, shelter)? Curious to see what BG thinks..."

I think it's irresponsible to TRY to have children when you're barely making it/are reliant on government assistance. But if it happens on accident I don't expect someone to abort if they don't want to.

Quoting khigh:" No one said rich. Poor or paycheck to paycheck? Don't bring a baby into that situation. Babies are ... [snip!] ... Children even more so. You should have some sort of savings (3 months of living expenses in my opinion) before you TTC."

Kids CAN be expensive, but a lot of people make them out to be far more expensive than they really are. So many costs can be cut by cloth diapering, breast feeding, thrift shopping etc. I have a friend who has 3 kids and she doesn't spend more than $400 TOTAL (aside from bills she would have regardless of whether or not she had kids) to take care of all of them. And she's not on government assistance.