4 ms·

"But what's the alternative here? 'Happy 13th birthday, son, now go get a job!'?" What's wrong with making 13 year-olds support themselves? Why do parents owe

by dpatru 18y ago

"But what's the alternative here? 'Happy 13th birthday, son, now go get a job!'?" What's wrong with making 13 year-olds support themselves? Why do parents owe their children support? Why should a single mom have to bust her butt to support her 13 year-old son who is bigger and stronger than she is so that he can have plenty of time to hang out with his friends, play video games, do sports, take drugs, etc.? In my mind adolescence is like venture capital. It only makes sense to fund a person (and thereby to excuse self-funding) if the person being funded works hard during the funding period so as to generate a payoff. Consider the numbers for a 13-year-old. $7k education/year $10k lost wages/year (assume the kid could get a job @$5/hr) $7k parental support/year = $24k /year Seems to me there are better ways of spending $24k than to force a kid who doesn't want to to stay in school and jobless for a year.

tdavis 18y ago
Why should a single mom have to bust her butt to support her 13 year-old son... Because she birthed him. Look, if a 13 year old kid wants to get a job, more power to them. However, if they don't, it's the parents' responsibility to provide for that child until they're an adult mainly because, at least in this society, kids aren't raised to be factory workers by 13. You're looking at it from a perhaps pragmatic point of view, but you're missing the human factor; children aren't some investment you can liquidate if it doesn't work out. Having a child is a conscious decision to bring another human being into this world -- a human being who never actually asked to be brought. Once you do that it becomes your responsibility to care for and raise that person (or find someone else who can) regardless of whether or not they provide a return on investment.
- jimbokun 18y ago
  "Once you do that it becomes your responsibility to care for and raise that person" Until when? I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not, but the post you are responding to isn't saying parents have no responsibilities to their children, only that a 13 year old could take on a whole lot more responsibility than is typical in our society. So, maybe "get a job and take care of yourself" is too harsh, but is there some middle position?

by dpatru 18y ago

tdavis 18y ago

Why should a single mom have to bust her butt to support her 13 year-old son... Because she birthed him. Look, if a 13 year old kid wants to get a job, more power to them. However, if they don't, it's the parents' responsibility to provide for that child until they're an adult mainly because, at least in this society, kids aren't raised to be factory workers by 13. You're looking at it from a perhaps pragmatic point of view, but you're missing the human factor; children aren't some investment you can liquidate if it doesn't work out. Having a child is a conscious decision to bring another human being into this world -- a human being who never actually asked to be brought. Once you do that it becomes your responsibility to care for and raise that person (or find someone else who can) regardless of whether or not they provide a return on investment.

jimbokun 18y ago
"Once you do that it becomes your responsibility to care for and raise that person" Until when? I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not, but the post you are responding to isn't saying parents have no responsibilities to their children, only that a 13 year old could take on a whole lot more responsibility than is typical in our society. So, maybe "get a job and take care of yourself" is too harsh, but is there some middle position?