Sure sounds like they can’t afford a family of 4 on that income. They have control over both variables in that situation.
So the other poster's argument that $50,000/year isn't so bad because of transfers, tax credits, subsidies, etc. doesn't hold up to real-world examples.
You can't get it in high cost states like CA, NY etc...
What's the size of the household? Could a single person in rural America making $50,000/year save up enough to buy a house? Sure. Could two adults in a $50,000/year as a household? Possibly if they're very frugal. Two people with 1-2 kids? This is where the situation changes dramatically.
A modest proposal?
And sadly, some states may not in fact give them control over that situation.
>Are there any roadblocks to condoms or contraceptives in any state in America?
A few states are working on restricting birth control, no worries.
"Should" is fine because I'm disputing the very idea that this is an issue society should be responsible for solving. If I want a 4 bedroom home or lobster for dinner, buy it, then complain that I've financially overextended myself, is that society's fault or did I go beyond my means?
>A few states are working on restricting birth control, no worries.
So there are no roadblocks preventing them from using contraception in the past or currently. Not much point in talking about "working on" if you're discussing families now...
>Should" is fine
"Should" is not what I'm arguing. If you want to make your theoreticals, find another discussion. I'm simply using this to highlight existing problems and the (lack of) solutions to it. "You should have X" is a dismissal of the problem (and quite frankly, an active show of malice), not a solution to problems caused by systematic issues.
Work harder, earn more, or make do with less - they chose to take on two 18 year financial commitments and now are complaining that despite the bevy of financial benefits society already gives them compared to individuals without children, it’s not enough.