rank these reasons for having children from best to worst

childless wonder wrote:

3. You don't want to be lonely in your old age, want someone to look after you

This one always makes me laugh. If instead of having a kid, you devoted half of your would-be parenting hours to working and furthering your career, you could more than afford "someone to look after you" between the savings (kids are expensive) and the additional earnings.

opportunity cost wrote:

childless wonder wrote:

3. You don't want to be lonely in your old age, want someone to look after you

This one always makes me laugh. If instead of having a kid, you devoted half of your would-be parenting hours to working and furthering your career, you could more than afford "someone to look after you" between the savings (kids are expensive) and the additional earnings.

Yeah, because caregivers are just like family.

you moran wrote:

opportunity cost wrote:

This one always makes me laugh. If instead of having a kid, you devoted half of your would-be parenting hours to working and furthering your career, you could more than afford "someone to look after you" between the savings (kids are expensive) and the additional earnings.

Yeah, because caregivers are just like family.

You're right. Caregivers are professionals, so they give much better care and they really can't be compared to family members.

If you have a kid so that you'll have someone to take care of you, you are betting on the fact that they'll grow up to be a person who has the ability and desire to do so. They might. They also might grow up to be a person who still needs you to care for them when you're old. Kind of a silly gamble to make.

opportunity cost wrote:

you moran wrote:

Yeah, because caregivers are just like family.

You're right. Caregivers are professionals, so they give much better care and they really can't be compared to family members.

If you have a kid so that you'll have someone to take care of you, you are betting on the fact that they'll grow up to be a person who has the ability and desire to do so. They might. They also might grow up to be a person who still needs you to care for them when you're old. Kind of a silly gamble to make.

Yeah, because your parenting really has no effect on how your kids turn out.

PIO! wrote:

opportunity cost wrote:

You're right. Caregivers are professionals, so they give much better care and they really can't be compared to family members.

If you have a kid so that you'll have someone to take care of you, you are betting on the fact that they'll grow up to be a person who has the ability and desire to do so. They might. They also might grow up to be a person who still needs you to care for them when you're old. Kind of a silly gamble to make.

Yeah, because your parenting really has no effect on how your kids turn out.

I didn't say that it has no effect, but all kinds of things can happen that are out of your control. Your kid could have Down Syndrome. Your kid could end up being a heroin addict despite good parenting (it happens). On the other end of the spectrum, your kid could end up being incredibly career driven and not be willing to move home for a few years in their mid 30s if that's when you need to be cared for.

Do you have an elderly parent or grandparent who needs care? Caregivers are a crap shoot. Calling them professionals is kind of stretching the meaning. It's generally a minimum wage or near minimum wage kind of job. Usually they show up when they're supposed to. Now and again they don't. Some of them form real bonds with their patients. Some are less than fond of them. Most don't the kind of emotional attachment to their patients that children or grandchildren have. People are different. Situations are different. I'm glad that my 91 year old mum has family looking after her and keeping an eye on the caregivers.

HRE wrote:

Do you have an elderly parent or grandparent who needs care? Caregivers are a crap shoot. Calling them professionals is kind of stretching the meaning. It's generally a minimum wage or near minimum wage kind of job. Usually they show up when they're supposed to. Now and again they don't. Some of them form real bonds with their patients. Some are less than fond of them. Most don't the kind of emotional attachment to their patients that children or grandchildren have. People are different. Situations are different. I'm glad that my 91 year old mum has family looking after her and keeping an eye on the caregivers.

I don't know why "elderly" is a qualifier you choose to require. My mother was diagnosed with ALS in her 50s. Her condition doesn't count according to you because she was not elderly, but I still consider my experience to be valid, even if you choose not to.

I'm glad that my sister and I were able to help with my mother's care, but I would not suggest that our participation would have been valid as the sole motivation for having and raising us. Once she was on a ventilator, my mother hired nurses. Not minimum wage caretakers. Nurses who could have worked in an ICU if they hadn't preferred to build a relationship with a single patient. Their care was certainly better than anything that the family could have provided.

My whole point is that by not having kids, a person is in a better situation to hire professional care rather than relying on some minimum wage caretaker. The money saved/earned by not having kids would certainly be enough to pay for the upgrade for someone who couldn't otherwise afford quality nursing care.

So you've made your choice. Good.

Of course you realize that you needing a caretaker will require that someone else have a kid.

Someone has to breed wrote:

So you've made your choice. Good.

Of course you realize that you needing a caretaker will require that someone else have a kid.

Of course. I am not arguing that people should not have kids. I am arguing that having a kid because you want to have a caretaker in old age/poor health is a bad decision.

Serious response. I have been involved in eldercare for three parents and a grandparent.

My grandparent had technically the BEST care at the BEST eldercare facilities in my major metropolitan area.

My in-laws had 24/7 in-home care that cost ~$10,000 per MONTH.

In each case, the ONLY thing that kept them safe, happy and ALIVE was the interest/intervention of family members.

Don't kid yourselves: health care "professionals" aren't. In my experience, they couldn't care less.

Even at the "best" facilities, the staff become inured to the suffering and cries for help. Visiting was the most frightening and depressing experience ever, and family members did all possible to help those in "care" escape. (Grandparent contracted MIRSA while in "rehab" from a hip break, hence the facilitization.)

The in-home "caregivers" would ignore, uh, bodily functions, trying to leave the, uh, duty for the next shift. Only the intervention of offspring would keep them in line. "Caregivers" much more interested in their phones. Most (in my experience) do not speak English.

So, yes, having children will help in old age. Of course, dementia may keep you from caring.

And, yes, offspring are a repository for superior genetic material and accumulated wealth, IMO.

opportunity cost wrote:

Someone has to breed wrote:

So you've made your choice. Good.

Of course you realize that you needing a caretaker will require that someone else have a kid.

Of course. I am not arguing that people should not have kids. I am arguing that having a kid because you want to have a caretaker in old age/poor health is a bad decision.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that was the sole reason.

opportunity cost wrote:

you moran wrote:

Yeah, because caregivers are just like family.

You're right. Caregivers are professionals, so they give much better care and they really can't be compared to family members.

Ha, you have no idea what you're talking about. It's depressing when old people are withering away in their home or at the nursing home with nobody who cares about them. Friends unlike family move on with their lives when you're not healthy. It doesn't matter how good the 'professional' caregivers are (and many are not).

This ^ x100

Anyone who has direct knowledge of what goes on in nursing homes knows that health care professionals (HCP) are at best indifferent and neglectful - at worst abusive. Poster above correctly notes that the ONLY thing that keeps patients safe, happy and alive is the intervention of family members.

This is not to say that those who go into care giving professions are evil people. It is simply the inevitable result of the fact that humans are finite. There is no way that a HCP can continue to care day after day, patient after patient... Only family cares enough to not reach empathy exhaustion.

PIO! wrote:

Even at the "best" facilities, the staff become inured to the suffering and cries for help. Visiting was the most frightening and depressing experience ever, and family members did all possible to help those in "care" escape.

The first sentence is untrue, but I completely acknowledge and feel tremendous sadness for your experience and I know that what you have seen often does happen. And you are right on the money - often (although a terrible excuse), cutbacks and overworking cause many caregivers to become apathetic and in some cases, even abusive. But not always, as you seem to believe.

I am a nurse, and although I wanted to be an ER nurse when I first went to school, when I did placement I saw exactly what you saw and decided I wanted to be a "good" nurse to the elderly/dementia patients. These people are you and I someday. I was upset, too, just like you were. They deserve respect, empathy, and understanding.

I ended up working in a facility that is a long-term care hospital which specializes in the elderly. It isn't a hospice, but takes in the appearance of one at times. I chose my area of expertise because of the neglect and abuse I saw from some nurses, like you have. But since I have been doing this as a career, I have met some outstanding nurses who buck the trends and the norms and make me proud to be working alongside them. I have visited other facilities and witnessed both terrible treatment and excellent care and respect. Sometimes in the same building.

So have faith - we are out there.

childless wonder wrote:

1. Your genetic line has reproduced every generation for millions of years, by not reproducing you would be ceasing that entire process.

2. Family/social pressure to have kids

3. You don't want to be lonely in your old age, want someone to look after you

4. To make working/living "worth it" and have something to come home to, nourish and build.

Those are all terrible reasons to have a child. I can't even rank them because they are all awful and selfish. If those are the only reasons you would have to reproduce, please remain a childless wonder.

The only good reason to have a kid IMO is that you want nothing out of it.

Help bring another human being to its full potential and even then a lot of things are out of your control.

Endogenous: Pass on inheritable attributes and talent to help stem the tide of idiocracy/helplessness

Exogenous: Pass on privilege and wealth to a group over which progenitors have *some* control/influence

Increase odds of being "understood" (i.e., surround oneself with beings sufficiently far out on the bell curve)

Help with the family business(es) (i.e., increase the odds of finding someone who can be trusted; "blood is thicker than water")

But, still, these days it's mostly a health-maintenance issue...

I know I definitely want one of my offspring [themselves in their 60s/70s themselves] giving me a spongebath/catheter/cleaning my bedpan/checking for bedsores rather than a paid professional