system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: People who can't afford kids shouldn't have them.

I've seen this sentiment expressed from time to time and quite to my surprise it often generates a lot of anger and controversy. Why? According to the USDA it costs around $230,000 to raise a *single* kid from 0 to 18, and that figure doesn't even include college. That figure averages out to a little over $1,000/mo. 

*EDIT 4: I brought up these figures more to highlight the so far practically unargued point that having kids is expensive. As several people have pointed out, using the $230,000 figure is a bit misleading because that's just an average (some would say over inflated) for a certain category of people in one country; some kids will take less to raise, some will take more. So to kind of move away from a specific number I'd rather frame this issue in a series of questions. Questions like: can you afford to feed your child three meals a day? Will you be able to afford to house and clothe your child? Will you be able to cover healthcare costs when you child is sick, injured, or just needs routine check-ups? Will you be able to pay for some baseline extracurricular activities for your child so they can grow up to be a functional and well rounded adult? Will you be able to be present as a parent for your child or will you be too busy working three jobs? If the answer is "no" to these sorts of questions, that's what I'd define as not being able to afford children, not a specific $/mo.*

If, say, it was possible to engage in an 18 year lease agreement (one it's almost impossible to get out of) for a quarter of a million dollar car, costing the driver $1,000/mo for almost two decades, it would be a totally common sense and uncontroversial thing to say that people who cant afford that lease, particularly poorer and struggling people, should not enter that agreement, much less two, three, four, five + seperate agreements at $230,000 a pop. If someone is broke and struggling but also was leasing an Aston Martin and a Lamborghini, youd probably think they were making very poor financial decisions. But swap out that luxury vehicle with a child or three and suddenly people get upset when you suggest they're making poor decisions. Why? If anything, I'd think that it'd be better for poor people to pay for the car than the kid - having a kid, even beyond the sheer cost, makes your already struggling life even harder arbitrarily, and also worsens the quality of life for the child i.e. another human being; a luxury vehicle isn't going to wake you up crying every night, or your job doesnt have to be structured around what time the car gets out of daycare; the child's quality of life, in terms of health, academics, enjoyment, etc. is obviously lessened by having parents who cant actually properly afford their existence. 

And then, because (rightly) we dont want children to suffer unduly or die due to their parents irresponsible procreation choices, society has to step in and help foot the bill for their wellbeing. I'm not opposed to this happening, but it is worth noting it wouldnt generally even have to be a thing if people who cant afford kids didnt have them. 

**Also I'm not advocating for any kind of mandate, ban, or law. I just think it's a shitty financial decision. I think the same of a lot of financial decisions, but for whatever reason it seems there is pushback when these poor financial decisions pertain to children... I've never seen someone get up in arms over the suggestion that people who are struggling and poor probably shouldn't invest in bad timeshare contracts or whatever.** *(EDIT 6 was bolding this for emphasis - several people have responded like this paragraph didn't exist)*

Y'all know what to do. Cheers.

*EDIT 1: Should also note I'm viewing this subject through a lens of a concurrent, developed nation, particularly the US, which is where I live. Obviously in other parts of the world $230,000 could be enough to raise a thousand kids.*

*EDIT 2: We are currently experiencing higher than normal response volume. Your reply is important to us. Please be patient and a certified OP will be with you as soon as possible.*

*EDIT 3: One delta awarded so far for someone pointing out the utility and practicality of having children to stave off a low birth rate which is vital for a strong and functioning economy. My view was very much focused on individual choice and I hadn't considered societal need.*

*EDIT 5: Many people are bringing up that I ought to be more focused on creating a society where everyone who wants kids can afford them, and people have access to the education/birth control aspects of family planning. I don't disagree with those goals at all. BUT, until we create that society, if we ever do, we ought to be wise about the decisions we make in the current system, which is the gist of the OP.*

*EDIT 6: Frankly I'm not going to be able to get to all these replies, but there seem to be plenty of people chiming in from both sides of this issue, so hopefully this discussion will continue! I'll keep at this until my laptop battery dies (currently at 52%) and then I'm calling it quits for at least a few hours. Thanks to everyone for the good conversation so far.*
gpt
1) By the time they grow into working age adults, they will on average put more back into the economy than they took out.

2) The economy needs a growing population to function.

3) Therefore the government subsidizes childbirth, even for the poor, by footing some of the expenses associated with having children.

The government should be doing more. The more spent on children early on, the more productive they will be later on.