jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (27 posts)

Is it better to have more money and less family members, or less money but more

  1. Alessio Ganci profile image64
    Alessio Ganciposted 20 months ago

    Is it better to have more money and less family members, or less money but more "love" around you?

    Try figuring these two scenarios:

    - You have a lot of money and only one person in your family (or even zero people): you don't have economic problems.

    - You have little money and a large family to maintain: you must work hard and do some waivers, but you have a lot of people who love you around you (I am talking about a family without problems, a "perfect" model of pure love)

    What of those scenarios would you prefer to live? More money but less people, or less money & more work, but more human relationships?

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12844114_f260.jpg

  2. gmwilliams profile image84
    gmwilliamsposted 20 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13045163_f260.jpg

    Intelligent, educated, & logical people know that it's MUCH BETTER to have more money & less family members.  In such families, there is a higher quality of life as there are no socioeconomic struggles.There are also opportunities for family members to develop their talents & to use their utmost human potential.There is also monies for these families to enjoy cultural & intellectual activities together.  There is more individualized attention & time spend w/each family member.  There is also less emotional, mental, & psychological strife because each family member has his/her space & there is more discretionary income. 

    In such families, children have the utmost care because there are monies for good food, clothing, schooling, & medical care which are expensive. Such children can attain the highest level of education as there are monies for such. There is more family harmony as there is less competition & infighting for familial resources. Parents in such families also have their individualized time to develop themselves.  There is also more couple interaction. In such a family milieu, there is more love to go around as there is a small population of family members so each can have access to each other.

    Uneducated, unaware, & unintelligent people would choose to have less money & more family members.In this familial milieu, there is constant struggle, even for the rudiments.Since monies are tight, they have to learn to consistently do without.There is more stress, even strife among family members because of constant worrying about making ends meet.In such households, there will be a higher incidence of abuse emotionally, verbally, & oftentimes physically because the familial socioeconomic situation is oftentimes precarious.

    Children routinely have no proper food, clothing, & medical care. Some children in the family must forego their education in order to supplement the very meager familial income.This familial environment is a harsh one, which emphasizes brute & primitive survival & never the higher human needs.  In this family milieu, talents, aspirations, & potentials won't be realized nor utilized because the money isn't there.There will be no couple nor parent time because the main emphasis will be on if they will socioeconomically another day. This will be a hard knock life equivalent to hell.Because of the crowded environment & little money, there will be MORE fierce & intense competition, even infighting for the familial crumbs. The 1st family type is heaven while the 2nd is......HELL....

    1. Alessio Ganci profile image64
      Alessio Ganciposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      That's good, thanks
      My views are similar to yours

    2. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      AG, are you from an affluent small family?  If so, that's is what you have those intelligent views.  I am from a small,affluent family also.  People from large families think the OPPOSITE....they rejoice in poverty as long as there're family.....

    3. Alessio Ganci profile image64
      Alessio Ganciposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Yeah my family (3 people) is completely corresponding to the first model. And the beautiful thing is that our family is also very united, I think more united than many large families having problems among brothers, arguments and so on!

    4. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Large families mean MORE competition/infighting for SCARCE resources.It's bullhockey that there is love although there's less..THE OPPOSITE is TRUE..Many oldest are BEYOND STRESSED.I know one who wished she's dead-ALL was on HER..

  3. nochance profile image93
    nochanceposted 20 months ago

    I have a very small family and I love it. It's so much easier and there's a lot less stress when it comes to family issues.

    Less family does not equal less love. If anything it means more love because it is much more focused.

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Told you that you DEFINITELY ARE an EXTREMELY SMART & INTELLIGENT woman.  Preach, YOU'RE a person after my own heart!!!!!

    2. Alessio Ganci profile image64
      Alessio Ganciposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      That's simply good, I'm happy many people have my same opinion!

    3. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Nochance, dashingscorpio, tamarawhite, & I have intelligent opinions.  We know the VALUE of small families.  However, you may get some distractors from large families w/nothing who will perversely glorify their impoverished, struggling state.

    4. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Intelligent people KNOW this.  However, people raised in large families fail to see this.  People from large families feel that small families mean less love which isn't true because the quality of love in higher between parents & child & parents & 2 children.  Of course, the love is more focused.  In large families, the love of parents towards their children is less focused w/ many children being neglected or cast aside. 

      Parents can provide love & help in ways that siblings can't.  Parents provide socioeconomic leverage for their children, siblings can't. Parents are FAR SUPERIOR to siblings; however, people from large families fail to see this.  It is stupid to believe that in large families, there is more love.  No it is not- there is LESS parental love & support.  Siblings can't do anything for you- they are just extra mouths to feed & poverty enhancers.  The more children per household, the higher the poverty rate.   People from large families are too obtuse & asinine to get this!  They have the herd mentality.

  4. dashingscorpio profile image87
    dashingscorpioposted 20 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13156709_f260.jpg

    Having a large number of people around you doesn't necessarily ensure one has more love. In fact the more people you have the higher the odds that some of them will be toxic, users, jealous, manipulators, gossipers, and bring more "drama" into your life.
    Quality trumps quantity every day of the week.
    People often think in terms of {either or} when it comes to love and money. Usually it's the people without money looking for ways to feel better about themselves. I suppose everyone has to find a way to count their blessings. In the end we all die! Might as well live rich!
    The reality is we can have both love and money!
    You only need a handful of genuine people to love you to be happy.
    I'd rather have a tight circle of family/friends and more money!
    The world may not owe you anything but you owe yourself the world!

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Spot on! My father had X siblings but he might as well be an only child-none of the siblings contacted him.My mother had X siblings-the parasites called when they WANTED $$-NONE were at her funeral.I'm an only child & have CARING people! SO THERE

  5. tamarawilhite profile image90
    tamarawilhiteposted 20 months ago

    This isn't a strict either/or situation.
    If you love your children, you want to have enough money to feed them properly, be able to go to the ER immediately if they are injured and take care of their needs like tutoring when failing in school.
    Go up the continuum, and spoiling children by giving them every want will ruin them.

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      But parents of large families couldn't give a ........about their children.  If they did, they would have less children to provide them proper food, clothing, education, & health care.  All these "parents" care about is .....AIMLESSLY REPRODUCING

  6. chuckandus6 profile image76
    chuckandus6posted 20 months ago

    I would answer by saying I would not trade any of the ones I love to have lots of money.
    Money is important to live but some people have all the money in the world and they do not have the love in their heart or sometimes no one to share in their life

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Alessio, told you that there will be distractors i.e. those who have little money but lots of children who will glorify socioeconomic struggle.........

    2. Alessio Ganci profile image64
      Alessio Ganciposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      In my family there are both, even if we are 3.

      However no problem Grace, I asked this to let all people express an opinion. I respect Nichol's opinion, even if it's different from mine (to be clear, I don't think money is more important of love)

    3. chuckandus6 profile image76
      chuckandus6posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      Thank u for respecting my opinion I would also stand up to those who would say to have no children at all, because you would have more money without even one more to care for but would you trade your child?

    4. Alessio Ganci profile image64
      Alessio Ganciposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      I think in these cases it would be good to have only a child: in addition, I think you can grow it up better, as you can hit all your attentions on him. But it is always up to everyone's preferences! In my case, I talk by experience (I'm only child)

    5. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      ONE CHILD is definitely enough.  This is the postmodern, post-computerized 21st century.  Large families are a total anathema in this day & age. Large families are socioeonomically burdensome. Large families always ask for handouts......

    6. Alessio Ganci profile image64
      Alessio Ganciposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      If you have only one child, you can give everything to him, if you have more than one child, giving the same importance to all the ones is very hard, even if you try it. Also between brothers it may happens one behaves good, and the other one doesn't

      1. gmwilliams profile image84
        gmwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        It is hard.  It is hard to allot money in multi-child families. Children in multi-child families (2-more children per household) won't have the myriad educational, cultural, & socioeconomic opportunities that only children have.  The larger the family, the LESS educational, cultural & socioeconomic opportunities children will have.  Also the larger the family, the increased percentage of socioeconomic poverty.  Larger families have less.

    7. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      It's hard to give equal love to more than 1 child. There is parental favoritism.  Only children have it BEST.  Those w/siblings not so good- the infighting, rivalry & parental favoritism. Also there is the FINANCIAL factor, more children= less mo

    8. chuckandus6 profile image76
      chuckandus6posted 20 months agoin reply to this

      I guess it depends my children get equal attention and are never jealous of one another and they are all well behaved and well mannered as matter fact school teachers for all of them have called me to tell me how caring and polite they are.

    9. Alessio Ganci profile image64
      Alessio Ganciposted 20 months agoin reply to this

      It surely depends on situations, and I am happy to know in your case there have never been problems among your children.

  7. gmwilliams profile image84
    gmwilliamsposted 2 months ago

    The question should be better rephrased to read why it is MUCH BETTER to have MORE MONEY and LESS FAMILY MEMBERS...
    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/7674227.jpg
    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/7626314.jpg
    than it is to have LESS MONEY and MORE FAMILY MEMBERS.........
    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/12185479.jpg
    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13411843.jpg
    because it is SO MUCH BETTER to have a small family & more money so that there is less socioeconomic stress & that children will have myriad opportunities.  More people in the household is equated to higher levels of  poverty which leads to familial stress which includes neglect & abuse because monies are tight & there is an overwhelming number of children to "take care of". Children live in squalor & do without. More people in the household creates strife because there is lack of privacy & people live on top of each other like animals- constantly fighting for space which is at a premium in the large family environment. 

    Also, a combination of poverty & crowding dehumanize the large family, reducing them to less than human status.  Many large families live like pack animals.  In small families, there is a higher standard of living because there is more money for family member to leave a civilized, cultivated life. No person wants to have less money & more family members living in the household- that creates a DEHUMANIZED environment where people live & act like animals.

    It is a myth that the MORE family members, the more "love"- it is oftentimes the opposite- the MORE family members, the less love because the concentration is on day to day survival.   Everything is reduced to a brutish animal existence where there is survival of the fittest.  When there is concentration on the lower human needs which is prevalent in large families, there is no room for love nor humanity.  The main concern is staying socioeconomically afloat & not falling into further poverty.   

    There is FAR MORE love in affluent small families because there isn't concentration on the lowest human needs but on the higher needs.  People live like human beings in small families, they have money for things beyond the basic rudiments.  They don't have poverty & struggle mentality.  They love & respect each other more because there is less people & therefore less competition.  There is also far less stress in small families because there is no socioeconomic struggle.  There is no worry in small families of staying socioeconomically afloat.   Socioeconomic levels is highly correlated to stress levels- the poorer, the more stress& the richer, the less stress.  In small families, the quality of love is so much BETTER than it is in large families where it is hard to give love & attention to a LARGE number of people.

 
working