i think realisticly in this situation parent(s) need to sit down and crunch numbers-is daycare excessive such that it cancels out what one parent is making at work (and is the cost of working such that you spend more to do it than it results in bringing home???), is private school a necessity b/c of the care/schedual it provides or would you end up financialy ahead with one parent not working such that they would'nt need it? what are our expenses and how can we cut them back-are all the cars needed, can we downsize to less expensive ones? is the benefit of having a large home offset by the cost of maintaining it (and heating it, and paying taxes on it)-or does that size realy not matter b/c none of are ever realy together in it b/c we're always at work, kids are allways in daycare? can we end up saving in the long run by just selling our other home-even at a small loss, OR could we use that in the interim as the house the non custodial parent lives in during their non custodial time? do we REALY need to own a utah time share and pay those monthly maintainance fees and taxes?
People rarely do these sorts of things when they have already made up their minds that they want to "have their cake and eat it too.."
i look to the families (large and small) that have had extreeme financial downturns that lived where we used to live and where we live now-i was'nt nescessarily privey to their situations but as an outsider you could see what was going on because they all seemed to follow a familiar pattern that seems absent in the entire gosselin 'poor us' scenario-
first the highend leased vehicals were returned to the dealerships and either not replaced (if they had sufficient cars for the household) or replaced with much less expensive ones,
then the expensive 'toys' were sold off (including the kids atv's which cost them to insure),
then the service staff they used stopped coming (the lawn guy, the pest control, the pool maintainance...), newspapers stopped getting delivered (they used the internet),
then the kids stopped doing the costly extracurriculars, mom's nails showed no more salon trips or a more 'home styled' maintainace standard,
as the kids were getting bigger and outgrowing things there was a marked absence of the brand name logos on their clothes (still well clothed just not the expensive brands),
you did'nt see mom with shopping bags from whole earth or the other trendy higher end grocery stores-she was still shopping but at the more mainstream less expensive places,
definatly did'nt see the sitter there anymore during the hours mom/dad were traditionaly off work but tended to do their own extracurriculars/errands that were easier w/o the kids.
the second to the last step was usualy a large garage sale with the non essentials being sold off, the last was a real estate sign on the front lawn.
The people you speak of sound like intelligent, responsible parents doing what is best for the families - as opposed to spending every single day seeking fame and fortune - even if it means using their children as the "meal ticket"..
the gosselins seem to continue aquiring or planning to aquire consumer goods absolutly of no neccessity to the support of their children (atvs as bday gifts, diamond rings to replace wedding rings, rental properties for adults who have an entirely vacant home at their disposal). if they are able to do this or perceive they can then there is nothing occuring income wise that could endanger the current support of those kids-and if they are worried about the future they could be proactive and address it NOW; the money they save today could go a long way in providing for the many tomorrows.