From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:49:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <1992Sep26.062058.6404@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins) writes:
>You know, we spend a lot on our daughter, and I don't see that
>I get a lot back from most of it.  I don't get a lot out of watching
>her eat or wear her clothes and her diapers  or go to daycare.  I'm glad
>she isn't starving, but the more she eats, the more she poops, and the
>more gross diapers there are to be changed.  I'm glad she wears clothes
>but the more clothes she wears, the more laundry there is to be done,
>and that adds up in time and money.   And I'm certainly not going to
>get anything out of the money in her college fund, which her father and
>I are funding, not her.  So, if I'm not getting anything
>out of it, and as far as I can tell, neither is her dad - after all,
>she's the one eating the food and wearing the clothes and playing
>with the toys and going to daycare - why don't we just stop paying
>for all this and spend our money on something we do personally get
>something out of, like clothes and food for ourselves?
>

	I think you've applied my analogy a bit too specifically.
	You know, "watching them eat".

>It seems to me the answer must be obvious to the first poster and
>oblivious to the second, that we do these things for our child, not
>for ourselves.  Even if we don't watch her do everything, not that
>watching a 2 year old eat is particularly enjoyable or fulfilling, she
>still has to eat and she still has to wear clothes and she still
>enjoys her toys and her daycare.  And her life will be easier because
>she won't have to foot the entire bill for her education.
>
	Yes but that includes relating to her as a person.  A person
	who you've developed a relationship with. What do I mean
	by relationship?  This is self evident.

	Why do married people live together?  Couldn't they be just
	as close living in seperate apartments?  Are married people
	who live together closer than those who work out-of-town
	all week and see each other on weekends?  Who bump into each 
	other daily on their way to bed?  To the bathroom?  At
	dinner?

>We love her.  We knew the job was dangerous when we took it.  We

	Ahh, that's it.  You *took* the job.

>also knew that it was expensive and we signed on for that, too, as
>well as the task of putting her needs ahead of ours much of the time.
>Out of my sight doesn't mean she doesn't eat or need clothes or shoes
>or dental and medical care.
>> 
>> 	How would you feel if a judge told you that from now on
>> 	every week when you got paid you should actively take
>> 	x $$$$  (some reasonable sum of money) and put it in the
>> 	trash.  Go ahead.  Next time you sit down to pay all those bills
>> 	try and play out the senario.  Subtract maybe $50-$200 per week.
>> 	And do it with the idea that you *really* don't have the money,
>> 	won't get it back, will have to keep doing it religiously for
>> 	maybe 10-18 years, and will never get anything out of it.
>
>Well, that would be the case whether the kids lived with you or not.
>We pay big bucks to be parents, and diapers, school fees, clothes,
>food, or whatever you're giving to this person aren't free just
>because you all live together.  Kids aren't much of a financial
>investment.

	You contradict yourself.  You begin by saying that you knew
	it would be expensive, and end by saying that kids aren't
	much of a financial burden.  I suppose you could argue
	both ways.  But does a single child consume 1/3 of your
	gross pay?  If you're divorced in the 90's they do.
	Does that seem like a lot?

	And you completely ignored my question about receiving
	benefit for what you pay for.  Our neighbor's food isn't
	free for them either.  No, we don't kive together, but
	I am not obliged to buy their food, either.
>
>If you think kids are too expensive a hobby, maybe you should have
>gotten a cat.
>
>Kate Perkins

	We have neighbors who have cats and others who have dogs.
	We hear the vet bill stories.  Funny thing is that the
	ones with the dogs may voluntarily never have kids.  But
	the $$$$$ & hassle of the dogs seems WAY more that our
	kid.
-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......