> Diapering a child now takes about $1,000 a year for an average product.
That doesn't seem right. Are these people buying the smallest quantities possible? You can buy ~300 diapers for $30 on amazon. That's only $360 /year.
That doesn't seem right. Are these people buying the smallest quantities possible? You can buy ~300 diapers for $30 on amazon. That's only $360 /year.
Of course, that may be a bigger sum in 3rd world countries. But they don't have Amazon there at all and probably don't use diapers either.
Also, some people are just terrible at managing money.
Do you think poor people are stupid and can't plan even a week ahead? They're getting paid weekly or monthly in most cases after all.
In my experience, poor people are much better at managing money than better off folks. I could see plenty of people who couldn't bother to order bulk of diapers and then store them somewhere. But poor people usually go the extra mile even for couple bucks.
I may have worded it poorly or misread the context of the comment I was replying to, but the point I was trying to get across is that when you don't have much money, you have to be much more conscious about how you spend it. And if you aren't, then you go broke and don't eat for a while. It's an easy thing for well-off people to lose sight of.
Your point would be correct for bigger hundreds-or-thousands-of-dollars purchases though. But $30... Come on?
Some one who manages to get 40 hours a week of work at minimum wage of $7.25 minus 7.65% for FICA taxes is getting $1,116 a month. Take out rent, transportation and food and there is not going to be much left over for buying things that you don't need right away.
You seem to be completely out of touch with the way people in poverty live if you think people aren't living paycheck to paycheck and have money left over after paying essential expenses.
In my country lots of people make ~ $500. Or even less. With prices similar (or even in many cases higher) to flyover USA. Living paycheck to paycheck is the norm here. What people do, after getting paycheck(s) they put together a budget for the next month. And $30 once a month for essentials is definitely a better deal than paying $15 weekly for the same thing. As you said, they don't have much money left. Thus they take every possible bulk or coupon deal to save money.
Yes, poor people are having a harder time than your average HN folk. But vast majority of them are not dumb and can do math pretty well. I hate how US media is portraying poor people as unintelligible who can't think ahead. Yes they can. Unless US poor are somehow different?
What they need is more job security, better paying entry level jobs and more education opportunities (wether vocational or after-hours college). And better pay for infamous but educated jobs like librarian or teacher. Which are borderline minimal wage and borderline poor over there.
360 nappies will generally last for 2 months. If you can't afford a mere $30 for that, then it's a case of your priorities being wrong (e.g. buying alcohol, tobacco, Netflix etc before thinking about your kids' needs) - in which case you should probably give serious consideration over whether you should bring kids into the world.
She had a difficult pregnancy and thought this would be her only chance to have a child. She left her job to avoid being exposed to harsh chemicals that could jeopardize her pregnancy. On welfare, she was allotted only $180/mo for necessities beside food. When her partner got a job, she was disqualified for the assistance—he had to work 18 hours a month just to make up the aid they no longer received. She struggled to find a job herself but ultimately got one.
The article notes that the average diaper is $0.25, so your 360 would cost $90 on average, 1/4 of her monthly assistance on one item alone—assuming she only needs 6 diapers per day, which sounds like a low estimate. She did proactively seek out coupons and discounts, and decreased the frequency of changes—which had minor medical consequences.
The article is about the plight of a mother who faced adversity in providing for her son, but persevered the best she could. I defy you to justify your claim that her priorities were wrong, or that she was unfit to be a parent.
Perhaps the only disqualifying attribute for parenthood is the utter lack of empathy for another human being.
Parenting is to provide for the child, not just emotionally, which I'm sure this mother does a tremendous job of, given how much she has sacrificed for the child's well being, but also to provide physically as well.
It seems like the couple were on the border of poverty before the child was conceived, so it wasn't a wise financial decision to do so.
Yes it's a rough situation, but as many commenters have pointed out you can do cloth diapers, more tedious to clean, but saves you supposed $1,000. As others have also pointed out you can goto Church or various other organizations that provide support. And more importantly you could have budgeted and realized, though you want to have a child, this is probably a bad decision.
Kids get more expensive as they grow up, not less, so if there are already issues around diapers, the situation will only get worse as time goes on.
Just saying, this isn't an unwanted pregnancy, this was a predetermined choice, so certainly some accounting and pre-planning could have been involved to show, this is definitely a bad decision before hand and will create a tremendous amount of strain on the parents as well as eventually on the child.
Yes, I read it, but I was talking generally, and not passing judgement on this specific case... but since you mention it, this mother chose to have her child - it's her responsibility to ensure that she has the financial means to provide for it.
> The article notes that the average diaper is $0.25, so your 360 would cost $90 on average
So... don't buy the average-priced nappies - buy cheaper ones, such as those that one of the parent posters mentioned (the 360 for $30). Or (especially if she isn't working) , cloth nappies are a cheap option too.
> assuming she only needs 6 diapers per day, which sounds like a low estimate
I've got kids. 6 nappies a day is actually a high estimate. They need 6-8 for the first few weeks, sure, but then it goes down. My 1 year old needs 2-4 nappies a day.
> When her partner got a job, she was disqualified for the assistance—he had to work 18 hours a month just to make up the aid they no longer received. She struggled to find a job herself but ultimately got one.
> The article is about the plight of a mother who faced adversity in providing for her son, but persevered the best she could. I defy you to justify your claim that her priorities were wrong, or that she was unfit to be a parent.
As I explained, I was talking generally, not about this specific case. I do feel for this woman - it sounds like a really shitty situation (no pun intended!). Also, the benefits system (just as in the UK) can sometimes hurt, such as when her partner got a job. Also shitty.
> Perhaps the only disqualifying attribute for parenthood is the utter lack of empathy for another human being.
I don't lack empathy; I just don't like parents that don't prioritise their kids, and those that make the conscious decision to bring children into the world without thinking of whether they can actually provide for them, emotionally and financially - oh, and apologists for them.
Even if they're working illegally and getting paid daily, they probably get monthly welfare.
Let's say small packs cost $85/mo (as per $1k/year). Big monthly pack is $30. So weekly supplies in small packs are barely cheaper than buying in bulk for a month.
Do you really think poor people are that stupid? That's flat out insulting.
In my experience, poor people are fuckin great at managing money they got. Of course, some of them are barely functioning in a society due to illnesses or addictions. But there're plenty of well-off people who don't know jack shit about budgeting and live paycheck-to-paycheck.
I see the issue more about it being a moralistic simulator. (or if you prefer a simulator with a political agenda behind)
The kid needs $15 to go with a school excursion, I don't have them, the kid remains in school and the stupid simulator doesn't miss the occasion to remark this.
And surely my kid won't get them $100 sneakers!
And my family pet is not going to suffer, because I have NO family pets, I can't afford them.
By behaving as a total bastard, including having my pet suffering, having the kid become hungry because he is too proud to get the free lunch and deciding to ignore everything else including the medical check for chest pain, I can get to the end of the month.
But a number of questions and answers are clearly targeted to inducing the player into anti-consummerism (which maybe is a good thing) while on the other hand hard pressing on completely senseless society stigmas.
This: "You chose to live farther away from your job, so your rent is lower. But your gas costs are higher. In fact, for every dollar a working family saves on housing, they spend an additional 77 cents on transportation."
could have been written as:
"Congratulations, you know how to move a slider left and right, and choose the combination that costs less, between $855 living nearer and $760 living further you chose to save $95 per month or around 8% of your net income"
Nothing is more expensive than being poor.