WSJ Affording a Family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:40k in loans for an associates degree in interior design? That's...a choice.

And she was making a whopping $12/hr at Home Depot and thought it was good idea to keep having kids and then was shocked that she wouldn't be able to afford child care. Then the husband was physically unable to continue working construction and now they're living on like $40k/year. These people are irresponsible. I don't care how people try to spin it, but having five kids intentionally when a few have health issues and you can't afford the basics like sufficient housing and healthcare is irresponsible. Oh but wait, the wife said she's going to get a job in 2028. So for the next three years the taxpayer funded programs they qualify for will just have to do. What a mess.

Moreover, the WSJ held this up as an example of how it’s “possible” to have kids on a modest income, rather than a cautionary tale.

And honestly the only reason they aren’t living in section 8 housing is because her 15 years older DH bought a cheap home before the housing bubble kicked off in the 2000s

+100
What’s going to happen to them when Medicaid is cut?
Also, this administration is Union busting. If they have there way, there won’t be anymore
union jobs not to mention the number of jobs that will be lost as the US economy gets crazier and more unstable.

I don’t they are going after the working poor with children.

This is not a typical lower middle class income family. The husband was older than the typical first time groom. The wife was younger than typical. He had a house at 20 years old but never upgraded to a bigger house? Poor decision making.

It’s an example of a couple not understanding that a plan should have been two children, they could handle that. Also never say what your child might or might not need regarding their future. Some might not want college, some might.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My parents both with a 6th grade education who got married in 1957 in Bronx had four kids. My Mom was a SAHM, my Dad worked 60 hour work weeks. We had a rent controlled shithole 750sf rental that was two bedroom. Girls got second small bedroom. Brother and I slept on mattress on living room floor.

All four kids got masters degree and all four multi millionaires. Heck I live in a two million dollar home, have a beach house and a Stay at home wife

You don’t need money to have kids. If anything being poor is a great motivator.

DCUM is weird, look at JD Vance. You might hate him but dude grew up poor as shit. The next prez might be trailor park trash.

James Donald Bowman. Use his name assigned at birth. I insist.

[Anonymous]

WSJ usually does better work than this. The premise was good but the example was weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow OP, you are REALLY out of touch with reality. This is not third world country-level poverty, this is AMERICA. A lot of people live this way and a lot of people make these choices. Just because you didn't, and because you don't know anyone like this, doesn't mean people (MOST PEOPLE) don't live like this. Grow up and learn more about the country you live in, you damn elitist.

The vast majority of people in the US don’t live like this. Only 5% of mothers have 5+ kids and most people with 5+ kids definitely don’t have a 2 bedroom house.

[Anonymous]

These are the new “welfare queens”. 80% of the counties most dependent on government handouts are deep red.

This is why rural America loves socialist policies as much as anyone.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]My parents both with a 6th grade education who got married in 1957 in Bronx had four kids. My Mom was a SAHM, my Dad worked 60 hour work weeks. We had a rent controlled shithole 750sf rental that was two bedroom. Girls got second small bedroom. Brother and I slept on mattress on living room floor.

All four kids got masters degree and all four multi millionaires. Heck I live in a two million dollar home, have a beach house and a Stay at home wife

You don’t need money to have kids. If [b]anything being poor is a great motivator.
[/b]
DCUM is weird, look at JD Vance. You might hate him but dude grew up poor as shit. The next prez might be trailor park trash. [/quote]
Then why did you get a masters degree and become a millionaire? How are your kids going to be successful now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These are the new “welfare queens”. 80% of the counties most dependent on government handouts are deep red.

This is why rural America loves socialist policies as much as anyone.

+100. But it's "different" for them! They shouldn't be proud of this, they aren't really "affording" a big family on 40k, they're reliant on government assistance that will potentially be cut, probably by the party they vote for. I don't know how people live like this, they're one unexpected bill away from total ruin and also extremely short sighted and frankly, delusional about the future. They're crowing on about saving money with breastfeeding and second hand clothes with babies but they have NOTHING for them when older. For every 1/1000 kids for whom this is a motivator to succeed, it's really just entrenching generational poverty for the rest. I can't believe the woman who hasn't worked in years and was making minimum wage working at Home Depot thinks her 40k in loans for a crappy interior design degree is going to get her some plum gig when she wants to work 3 years from now. Crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the new “welfare queens”. 80% of the counties most dependent on government handouts are deep red.

This is why rural America loves socialist policies as much as anyone.

+100. But it's "different" for them! They shouldn't be proud of this, they aren't really "affording" a big family on 40k, they're reliant on government assistance that will potentially be cut, probably by the party they vote for. I don't know how people live like this, they're one unexpected bill away from total ruin and also extremely short sighted and frankly, delusional about the future. They're crowing on about saving money with breastfeeding and second hand clothes with babies but they have NOTHING for them when older. For every 1/1000 kids for whom this is a motivator to succeed, it's really just entrenching generational poverty for the rest. I can't believe the woman who hasn't worked in years and was making minimum wage working at Home Depot thinks her 40k in loans for a crappy interior design degree is going to get her some plum gig when she wants to work 3 years from now. Crazy.

WSJ is just putting the proles on display for their readership. Most of the new crypto ventures are just Republicans fleecing MAGA rubes. It's a tried and true successful platform for Republicans and their donors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the new “welfare queens”. 80% of the counties most dependent on government handouts are deep red.

This is why rural America loves socialist policies as much as anyone.

+100. But it's "different" for them! They shouldn't be proud of this, they aren't really "affording" a big family on 40k, they're reliant on government assistance that will potentially be cut, probably by the party they vote for. I don't know how people live like this, they're one unexpected bill away from total ruin and also extremely short sighted and frankly, delusional about the future. They're crowing on about saving money with breastfeeding and second hand clothes with babies but they have NOTHING for them when older. For every 1/1000 kids for whom this is a motivator to succeed, it's really just entrenching generational poverty for the rest. I can't believe the woman who hasn't worked in years and was making minimum wage working at Home Depot thinks her 40k in loans for a crappy interior design degree is going to get her some plum gig when she wants to work 3 years from now. Crazy.

But isn’t this what progressives want? Shower everyone with assistance, vetting be damned. And why shouldn’t this family get aid? Or do you want ideological purity tests before reallocating taxpayer money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the new “welfare queens”. 80% of the counties most dependent on government handouts are deep red.

This is why rural America loves socialist policies as much as anyone.

+100. But it's "different" for them! They shouldn't be proud of this, they aren't really "affording" a big family on 40k, they're reliant on government assistance that will potentially be cut, probably by the party they vote for. I don't know how people live like this, they're one unexpected bill away from total ruin and also extremely short sighted and frankly, delusional about the future. They're crowing on about saving money with breastfeeding and second hand clothes with babies but they have NOTHING for them when older. For every 1/1000 kids for whom this is a motivator to succeed, it's really just entrenching generational poverty for the rest. I can't believe the woman who hasn't worked in years and was making minimum wage working at Home Depot thinks her 40k in loans for a crappy interior design degree is going to get her some plum gig when she wants to work 3 years from now. Crazy.

But isn’t this what progressives want? Shower everyone with assistance, vetting be damned. And why shouldn’t this family get aid? Or do you want ideological purity tests before reallocating taxpayer money?

I'm fine with the aid because I don't want her kids to starve or die from lack of medical care but they dont escape judgement and they probably shouldn't have held themselves out as some kind of "how to live the trad lifestyle" example when they are sucking from the govt teat to do so. It was a poor editorial choice from the WSJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the new “welfare queens”. 80% of the counties most dependent on government handouts are deep red.

This is why rural America loves socialist policies as much as anyone.

+100. But it's "different" for them! They shouldn't be proud of this, they aren't really "affording" a big family on 40k, they're reliant on government assistance that will potentially be cut, probably by the party they vote for. I don't know how people live like this, they're one unexpected bill away from total ruin and also extremely short sighted and frankly, delusional about the future. They're crowing on about saving money with breastfeeding and second hand clothes with babies but they have NOTHING for them when older. For every 1/1000 kids for whom this is a motivator to succeed, it's really just entrenching generational poverty for the rest. I can't believe the woman who hasn't worked in years and was making minimum wage working at Home Depot thinks her 40k in loans for a crappy interior design degree is going to get her some plum gig when she wants to work 3 years from now. Crazy.

But isn’t this what progressives want? Shower everyone with assistance, vetting be damned. And why shouldn’t this family get aid? Or do you want ideological purity tests before reallocating taxpayer money?

I'm fine with the aid because I don't want her kids to starve or die from lack of medical care but they dont escape judgement and they probably shouldn't have held themselves out as some kind of "how to live the trad lifestyle" example when they are sucking from the govt teat to do so. It was a poor editorial choice from the WSJ.

I'm not, that woman voted for Medicaid work requirements. Her handouts need to stop until she starts working in fields or driving Uber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the new “welfare queens”. 80% of the counties most dependent on government handouts are deep red.

This is why rural America loves socialist policies as much as anyone.

+100. But it's "different" for them! They shouldn't be proud of this, they aren't really "affording" a big family on 40k, they're reliant on government assistance that will potentially be cut, probably by the party they vote for. I don't know how people live like this, they're one unexpected bill away from total ruin and also extremely short sighted and frankly, delusional about the future. They're crowing on about saving money with breastfeeding and second hand clothes with babies but they have NOTHING for them when older. For every 1/1000 kids for whom this is a motivator to succeed, it's really just entrenching generational poverty for the rest. I can't believe the woman who hasn't worked in years and was making minimum wage working at Home Depot thinks her 40k in loans for a crappy interior design degree is going to get her some plum gig when she wants to work 3 years from now. Crazy.

But isn’t this what progressives want? Shower everyone with assistance, vetting be damned. And why shouldn’t this family get aid? Or do you want ideological purity tests before reallocating taxpayer money?

I'm fine with the aid because I don't want her kids to starve or die from lack of medical care but they dont escape judgement and they probably shouldn't have held themselves out as some kind of "how to live the trad lifestyle" example when they are sucking from the govt teat to do so. It was a poor editorial choice from the WSJ.

If the goal was to convince bleeding heart liberals that aid recipients are undeserving, they are succeeding. This is like the inner city welfare mom in a Cadillac translated to 2025.

Maybe a little hunger and preventable death would encourage more responsible decision making among the MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://apple.news/Aufcdrb9tSU2X2_SBCbNyew

“ What It’s Really Like to Support a Big Family on a Modest Income in America
More Americans are choosing to put off having children—or not having them at all. The Ivys are an exception. ‘It is hard. But it’s not impossible.’”

Neither went to college, the DH is 34 and DW is 20 when they get married. 5 children. Not saving any money for college, they feel kids don’t need college since they did fine without it.

He managed to buy a house in 2002 in Cincinnati on his own, right before housing prices exploded but loaning standards were super loose (he was 20!). But more importantly because he has a UNION construction job that pays $30/hr.

Health insurance is of course Medicaid for the expensive medical issues the family faces.

They are a family of 7 in a two bedroom. This is like a developing nation.

The WSJ holds this up as an example of how a modest income family can afford children.

It’s an example as in an illustration. I didn’t read it as example as in something to strive for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WSJ usually does better work than this. The premise was good but the example was weak.

The premise is bad, there are very few ways to afford a large family on a working class salary. Even with employer provided health insurance, copays for a family of 6 or 7 with any normal health issues will be excessive, and they obviously won’t be saving for college for that many kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://apple.news/Aufcdrb9tSU2X2_SBCbNyew

“ What It’s Really Like to Support a Big Family on a Modest Income in America
More Americans are choosing to put off having children—or not having them at all. The Ivys are an exception. ‘It is hard. But it’s not impossible.’”

Neither went to college, the DH is 34 and DW is 20 when they get married. 5 children. Not saving any money for college, they feel kids don’t need college since they did fine without it.

He managed to buy a house in 2002 in Cincinnati on his own, right before housing prices exploded but loaning standards were super loose (he was 20!). But more importantly because he has a UNION construction job that pays $30/hr.

Health insurance is of course Medicaid for the expensive medical issues the family faces.

They are a family of 7 in a two bedroom. This is like a developing nation.

The WSJ holds this up as an example of how a modest income family can afford children.

It’s an example as in an illustration. I didn’t read it as example as in something to strive for.

Read the subtitle: More Americans are choosing to put off having children—or not having them at all. The Ivys are an exception. ‘It is hard. But it’s not impossible

The title is chiding Americans for not having enough kids, and then again look at this working class family doing it, they make it work with effort — as other families view it as impossible because they won’t do the hard work.

Meanwhile, the Ivys have all these impossible advantages like buying a house 20 years ago, and government hand outs.