I wish society didn't encourage people to put off having kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]I hope you support paid family leave and universal affordable childcare, and candidates that push for those policies.[/b]

I do, but in the past, everyone started having kids in their early 20's and none of these things existed.

But then a family could live on one salary and women weren't suppose to have careers outside their homes. We can't live on one salary anymore.

You could, you just don’t want to.

Sure, we could. Buy an inexpensive house in a neighborhood with poorly rated schools, pinch pennies, have all the basic needs met (food, shelter) but not be able to save for things like trips and college. And then our kids would be at a disadvantage when trying to find their way in this increasingly competitive society. Everyone wants to give their family the best possible start in life and for most, it's not possible on one income.

If everyone started living on one income, prices would adjust and it would be possible for families to live comfortably.

What are you smoking? That's not how a competitive economy works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the idea that 20+ year old people are not mature enough for marriage and children. They are, but they need to be in a society and a family that supports them. White American society unfortunately does not have that.

eh, not true. My 3 siblings all married and had kids in their 20's, as did our parents. I was the only one who waited until my 30's to marry and have kids.

Basically, this is a highly personal decision. We have to do what is best for ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because you have young kids now and feel you are old and busted, you want all of society to avoid your mistake? There is something seriously wrong with your thinking. I definitely don’t want my DD having kids until she gets to enjoy her own life first.

Yeah but if everyone does this, then no one gets to know their grandkids and vice versa. And lots of adults in their 40s-50's end up losing their parents - my own parents were in their 60's when their parents started dying. You have to wonder whether it's worth the trade off. Isn't it really family and relationships that life is all about?

My life is not about my relationship with my grandparents.

+1

People who have kids so that the kids will have living grandparents are incredibly myopic.

That's just one small example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]I hope you support paid family leave and universal affordable childcare, and candidates that push for those policies.[/b]

I do, but in the past, everyone started having kids in their early 20's and none of these things existed.

But then a family could live on one salary and women weren't suppose to have careers outside their homes. We can't live on one salary anymore.

You could, you just don’t want to.

Sure, we could. Buy an inexpensive house in a neighborhood with poorly rated schools, pinch pennies, have all the basic needs met (food, shelter) but not be able to save for things like trips and college. And then our kids would be at a disadvantage when trying to find their way in this increasingly competitive society. Everyone wants to give their family the best possible start in life and for most, it's not possible on one income.

If everyone started living on one income, prices would adjust and it would be possible for families to live comfortably.

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am 45 (almost 46!) and have an 11yo and a 6.5yo.

Your fine and there are plenty of other parents out there with similar age children. When I turned 45 I had an 11 and 9 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]I hope you support paid family leave and universal affordable childcare, and candidates that push for those policies.[/b]

I do, but in the past, everyone started having kids in their early 20's and none of these things existed.

But then a family could live on one salary and women weren't suppose to have careers outside their homes. We can't live on one salary anymore.

You could, you just don’t want to.

Sure, we could. Buy an inexpensive house in a neighborhood with poorly rated schools, pinch pennies, have all the basic needs met (food, shelter) but not be able to save for things like trips and college. And then our kids would be at a disadvantage when trying to find their way in this increasingly competitive society. Everyone wants to give their family the best possible start in life and for most, it's not possible on one income.

If everyone started living on one income, prices would adjust and it would be possible for families to live comfortably.

What are you smoking? That's not how a competitive economy works.

Couples today expect house in suburbs, newish cars and much more before having baby #1. They could start a lot earlier if they would do with less possessions. Biology doesn't change. Women should have babies in their 20s. Egg freezing only works about 40 percent of the time and late pregnancies are risky for mom and baby. Ask any OB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]I hope you support paid family leave and universal affordable childcare, and candidates that push for those policies.[/b]

I do, but in the past, everyone started having kids in their early 20's and none of these things existed.

But then a family could live on one salary and women weren't suppose to have careers outside their homes. We can't live on one salary anymore.

You could, you just don’t want to.

Sure, we could. Buy an inexpensive house in a neighborhood with poorly rated schools, pinch pennies, have all the basic needs met (food, shelter) but not be able to save for things like trips and college. And then our kids would be at a disadvantage when trying to find their way in this increasingly competitive society. Everyone wants to give their family the best possible start in life and for most, it's not possible on one income.

If everyone started living on one income, prices would adjust and it would be possible for families to live comfortably.

What are you smoking? That's not how a competitive economy works.

Couples today expect house in suburbs, newish cars and much more before having baby #1. They could start a lot earlier if they would do with less possessions. Biology doesn't change. Women should have babies in their 20s. Egg freezing only works about 40 percent of the time and late pregnancies are risky for mom and baby. Ask any OB.

People today don't understand the concept of a starter home

At the same time the two income trap is real. People with two incomes have driven up the cost of desirable real estate in most major metro areas combined with more student loans has delayed many people from adulting

Still outside of most major desirable areas of metro areas plenty of people have families in their 20s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]I hope you support paid family leave and universal affordable childcare, and candidates that push for those policies.[/b]

I do, but in the past, everyone started having kids in their early 20's and none of these things existed.

But then a family could live on one salary and women weren't suppose to have careers outside their homes. We can't live on one salary anymore.

You could, you just don’t want to.

Sure, we could. Buy an inexpensive house in a neighborhood with poorly rated schools, pinch pennies, have all the basic needs met (food, shelter) but not be able to save for things like trips and college. And then our kids would be at a disadvantage when trying to find their way in this increasingly competitive society. Everyone wants to give their family the best possible start in life and for most, it's not possible on one income.

If everyone started living on one income, prices would adjust and it would be possible for families to live comfortably.

What are you smoking? That's not how a competitive economy works.

Couples today expect house in suburbs, newish cars and much more before having baby #1. They could start a lot earlier if they would do with less possessions. Biology doesn't change. Women should have babies in their 20s. Egg freezing only works about 40 percent of the time and late pregnancies are risky for mom and baby. Ask any OB.

People today don't understand the concept of a starter home

At the same time the two income trap is real. People with two incomes have driven up the cost of desirable real estate in most major metro areas combined with more student loans has delayed many people from adulting

Still outside of most major desirable areas of metro areas plenty of people have families in their 20s.

Kids raised in McMansions, cars at 16, college all paid for. How are they going to survive as adults? Most of them have no idea how to "make do" and not all of them, by a long shot, will be able to live this lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

It’s one of the huge mistakes of today’s society and I silently shake my head in sad confusion whenever I see a pregnant person in their 40s or late 30s. It’s not right. Our bodies know it’s not right, but science makes it possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had my kids at 31 and 33, which according to current standards is about the perfect age. However, my own parent had me at 23 and 24 and it's weird to me to think that when my parents were my age (46), I was already out of college, whereas my own kids are 12 and 14. I'm a bit torn because I certainly enjoyed my childfree time in my 20's, but hate to think that my kids and future grandkids will be younger when I'm gone. I didn't lose my first grandparent, till I was in my 40s. I understand the benefits of delaying kids, but sometimes, I think society is doing a disservice to us by encouraging this.

My family is different. I had my children at 32 and 34 and I was younger than both my parents were when they had me and my sister. I never knew two of my grandparents because they died when my mother was 9 and 14.

Have your children when you are ready. Everything else is luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s one of the huge mistakes of today’s society and I silently shake my head in sad confusion whenever I see a pregnant person in their 40s or late 30s. It’s not right. Our bodies know it’s not right, but science makes it possible.

Woman had children that late all throughout time. It just usually wasn’t their first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not "less possible" to live on one income these days than when our grandparents had kids. People just have higher desires and expectations now. Head over to the "travel forum" on DCUM and see the kind of trips people are talking about. And these aren't "once in a life time" kind of trips--people are going on "big trips" like African safaris, Caribbean cruises, jaunts to Europe as a family multiple times each year! My grandparents (who had their kids in their early 20's) could have never dreamed of that! "Vacation" back then was a week or two camping at lake or something.

People aren't delaying kids because they HAVE TO to survive, they are doing it so they can afford kids AND extravagant lifestyle. That's their choice.

We have an HHI of $300k and literally no one in our circle vacations outside the U.S. Most people go camping or to the beach. We live in a modest townhouse with one car, and one kid who attends public school. These are not extravagant choices. The issues we deal with are things like long commutes that cut into family time, daycare that costs as much as our mortgage, and saving for retirement, college, and elder care. Those are things my grandparents couldn't and didn't imagine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]I hope you support paid family leave and universal affordable childcare, and candidates that push for those policies.[/b]

I do, but in the past, everyone started having kids in their early 20's and none of these things existed.

But then a family could live on one salary and women weren't suppose to have careers outside their homes. We can't live on one salary anymore.

You could, you just don’t want to.

Sure, we could. Buy an inexpensive house in a neighborhood with poorly rated schools, pinch pennies, have all the basic needs met (food, shelter) but not be able to save for things like trips and college. And then our kids would be at a disadvantage when trying to find their way in this increasingly competitive society. Everyone wants to give their family the best possible start in life and for most, it's not possible on one income.

If everyone started living on one income, prices would adjust and it would be possible for families to live comfortably.

What are you smoking? That's not how a competitive economy works.

Couples today expect house in suburbs, newish cars and much more before having baby #1. They could start a lot earlier if they would do with less possessions. Biology doesn't change. Women should have babies in their 20s. Egg freezing only works about 40 percent of the time and late pregnancies are risky for mom and baby. Ask any OB.

Honestly, shut up. It's one thing to prefer to have kids in your 20s for yourself, it's another to push your obnoxious opinion onto everyone else. I had my kids in my 30s and my life is f*cking awesome. I didn't want to start earlier. Your opinion is useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s one of the huge mistakes of today’s society and I silently shake my head in sad confusion whenever I see a pregnant person in their 40s or late 30s. It’s not right. Our bodies know it’s not right, but science makes it possible.

Well, I know a number of women that got pregnant late 30's/ early 40's without help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s one of the huge mistakes of today’s society and I silently shake my head in sad confusion whenever I see a pregnant person in their 40s or late 30s. It’s not right. Our bodies know it’s not right, but science makes it possible.

Well, I know a number of women that got pregnant late 30's/ early 40's without help.

Yup -- I fall into that category. Early 40's, and a whoops