The divide gets bigger as you get older...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as you're happy and have a fulfilling career, so what?

That's exactly what I thought at 25, but I didn't realize how much of a difference income makes on every area of your life. Where you can live, where your kids go to school, when or if you can ever retire, if you can travel, if you can afford certain types of healthcare, how you live, the security you feel, the security you can offer your family (parents or children), etc.

It never ends.

My best friend from college and I both got advanced degrees the same year, she went to a top MBA program and I went to a top public policy school. Fast forward over 20 years and she has a luxurious vacation home, huge savings, multiple kids in private school, and lots of luxuries. I’m doing fine as a GS-15 but our paths diverged a little and then a lot.

Major life decisions and accomplishments that look subtle compound overtime.

Unfortunately so do losses, mistakes and regrets.

agree.

By age 26-28, people should come to a realization about the life they really want and course correct if they need to do regarding their careers and major life decisions that impact their finances.

What? At 28 I was dating and living a bohemiam life moving from city to city. I had no idea how much freaking $$$$ I would need for a very basic lifestyle of reasonable commute, decent schools, and kids in boring SFH.

This reminds me that a big part of the divide can be how soon you got married and had kids. Big difference in your early 40s between a couple with kids in middle school who bought a house 15 years ago and a couple in the thick of the hugely expensive nanny-or-double-daycare years squished into a condo because neither of them ever wanted a house until five years ago.

I agree with what you’re saying, but I thought you were going to talk about the divide between parents/families that had kid(s) too young and never recovered financially or socially. I know too many folks who ended up with a kid at 24 or earlier and just can’t catch a break.

Same. I'm 40 and I've seen this go both ways. I have a few friends who remained active in their faith and they married and had kids young. They have been stay at home moms since college, so no child care costs. One married a police officer, and they bought their first home at ~ 23 and traded up twice. They live in a nice home now. Their kids are older teenagers now, and she just recently started a career because she can. I don't think they have a ton of money saved for their kids' college or retirement, but they have a pretty nice house with a pretty small mortgage, and he'll have a police pension. They're planning various fun trips over the next decade because they'll be empty nesters by ~45. On the other hand, most of my law school friends had kids in their late thirties, but we've all been saving since we graduated law school at 25yo. I still bought a house in my twenties, and because I had kids later, I was in a financial position to superfund their college funds. I don't get to take all the great trips in my 40s that my friend who had her kids really young will take because I have toddlers who don't travel well. I don't think either approach is superior. There are pros and cons. Sometimes I wish I had kids younger just so I could maximize my time on earth with them.

I also think the vast majority of people fall between having kids at 23 and having toddlers in their 40s. Even having kids in your mid 30s offers a lot of freedom on both ends--you enjoy freedom in your 20s and early 30s, grow as an individual person, grow your career and your financial wealth, have kids and then in your 40s have older kids and the financial means to do things with them and then often become a grandparent in your early retirement when you have lots of energy and free time and the highest amount of money saved up. If you have your kids too young, you often start having grandkids before you're retired and unless your kids settle nearby it can be challenging to build a strong connection with them when you're in the busiest part of your career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it simply becomes harder to HIDE that you haven’t saved or accumulated any money.

The first big shift is couples buying their first home. Then it’s upgrading to a nicer home. Later, it’s when you can retire.

I have a number of friends who continue to rent a fancy lifestyle. They may have high earnings but can’t save any or much. Still don’t own a home. We make less but bought a while ago and have since upgraded. It is becoming more and move obvious that certain couples haven’t saved any money especially if they can’t even buy a house or apartment.

I know the type of friends you're talking about - as I have that type in NYC - renting the 5-7k/mo apartment and thus not saving much or at all despite high salaries but when they consider buying, given the down payments they have saved despite high salaries they'd have to buy "regular" apartments - built in the 80s, shared laundry etc. even though they're doormen buildings in a good part of town and then it's ew I'm not buying THAT, have you seen the views from my luxury apartment and my all granite kitchen? I get it but then the cycle continues and equity doesn't get built at all.

Outside of NYC though IDK maybe it's just because I know fewer people here [moved here only five years ago], somehow I don't assume that people who haven't bought can't afford it. I mean maybe they can't but it doesn't seem like renting a fancy life is THAT expensive here. I always assume they aren't buying and just investing a ton maybe to buy someplace else.

Yes. I live here in DC and I rent. I have a high salary but just continue to save and invest until I get married. Currently dating someone now so if we end up marrying we should be fine.

Same. I don't think renting esp in this area where salaries are high is a sign that someone is poor/can't afford a down payment. I think of it as a sign that they are invested to the hilt - as some of my apartment dwelling friends are and/or aren't looking to stay here more than x years so they aren't focused on buying here. But yeah the divide gets bigger if someone is making money and not doing anything with it besides spending on luxury living - so you have to own a home or if not owning then invest a TON more than people who do own etc.

Yep! And my issue is I do not want to go down on any investments on tax advantaged accounts so I continue to grow my career and invest. I have so many friends that barely have much saved in retirement, lower incomes and are buying homes.

Renting with significant networth is unusual. Yes, there are some people in HCOL locations who decide to continue renting while saving a lot. However statistically, renters have much much lower net worths than homeowners. This is especially true once you’ve formed a family.

Anecdotally, every friend I have still renting hasn’t bought because they simply can’t sacrifice their standard of living. They often rent an apartment or row house they couldn’t afford to buy. They also spend a lot on vacations, entertainment etc.

The population of people who are renting and socking away money is a very, very small group of people.

It just depends on what kind of apartment complex you live in. Usually, if you are in a semi-wealthy or wealthy area, the people living in the top few luxury apartment buildings are probably better off than 90% of the homeowners. For example, I lived in an apartment building in Austin and my neighbors were driving aston martins, lambos, porsche 911 turbos (multiple). I lived in an apartment in McLean and just ONE of my neighbors had a porsche Cayenne and two ferraris. My literal next door neighbor drove a bentley. They usually take extravagant vacations too. I make a good chunk of change and I would give anything to be back to apartment living. I hate having to schedule maintenance on my house, have someone take care of the yard, etc. I also much prefer my cars to be in an underground garage with elevator access. The unfortunate fact is that they just don't make apartments big enough for families in the U.S. (unlike in Asia and Europe). I have three kids and need a guest room. The largest apartments in Nova are three bedrooms and there are almost none, and none are in the most desirable buildings

Forgive my ignorance, but could you not buy a condo, instead of renting an apartment?

Also, could you not just buy two adjacent condos and join them? People in NY do this.

Why must you rent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as you're happy and have a fulfilling career, so what?

That's exactly what I thought at 25, but I didn't realize how much of a difference income makes on every area of your life. Where you can live, where your kids go to school, when or if you can ever retire, if you can travel, if you can afford certain types of healthcare, how you live, the security you feel, the security you can offer your family (parents or children), etc.

It never ends.

My best friend from college and I both got advanced degrees the same year, she went to a top MBA program and I went to a top public policy school. Fast forward over 20 years and she has a luxurious vacation home, huge savings, multiple kids in private school, and lots of luxuries. I’m doing fine as a GS-15 but our paths diverged a little and then a lot.

Major life decisions and accomplishments that look subtle compound overtime.

Unfortunately so do losses, mistakes and regrets.

agree.

By age 26-28, people should come to a realization about the life they really want and course correct if they need to do regarding their careers and major life decisions that impact their finances.

What? At 28 I was dating and living a bohemiam life moving from city to city. I had no idea how much freaking $$$$ I would need for a very basic lifestyle of reasonable commute, decent schools, and kids in boring SFH.

This reminds me that a big part of the divide can be how soon you got married and had kids. Big difference in your early 40s between a couple with kids in middle school who bought a house 15 years ago and a couple in the thick of the hugely expensive nanny-or-double-daycare years squished into a condo because neither of them ever wanted a house until five years ago.

I agree with what you’re saying, but I thought you were going to talk about the divide between parents/families that had kid(s) too young and never recovered financially or socially. I know too many folks who ended up with a kid at 24 or earlier and just can’t catch a break.

Same. I'm 40 and I've seen this go both ways. I have a few friends who remained active in their faith and they married and had kids young. They have been stay at home moms since college, so no child care costs. One married a police officer, and they bought their first home at ~ 23 and traded up twice. They live in a nice home now. Their kids are older teenagers now, and she just recently started a career because she can. I don't think they have a ton of money saved for their kids' college or retirement, but they have a pretty nice house with a pretty small mortgage, and he'll have a police pension. They're planning various fun trips over the next decade because they'll be empty nesters by ~45. On the other hand, most of my law school friends had kids in their late thirties, but we've all been saving since we graduated law school at 25yo. I still bought a house in my twenties, and because I had kids later, I was in a financial position to superfund their college funds. I don't get to take all the great trips in my 40s that my friend who had her kids really young will take because I have toddlers who don't travel well. I don't think either approach is superior. There are pros and cons. Sometimes I wish I had kids younger just so I could maximize my time on earth with them.

I think a lot about how it seems easier for someone who had kids in their 20s to get additional education and start a career in their mid-late 30s vs. someone who took a break from their career in their late 30s to reenter the workforce or start a new career in their mid-late 40s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the sentiment. From my college/post-college friend group there are three tracks. All three sets are in the top 20% of national income, but reflect the realities of a post-ivy education.

1) Non-profit world or similar. Lower incomes, but interesting jobs. But clearly needs to watch spending, and can't really do blow out european trips regularly. Can't afford expensive housing markets like DC and either rent or move to further out suburbs. We're talking <150K/year, so not poor by any means.

2) successful, but not too stressed. got that law degree or med school degree, but in-house or is a HMO pediatrician. good incomes and a decent amount of time to enjoy their lives. Travels frequently abroad (but not always first class, unless they have lots of airline miles) and own a home in nice inner suburbs or the city. Is thinking about a modest vacation cabin on the lake or a small boat. Usually still married to first spouse. Can afford an elite private school, but it is their biggest expense. Think more like 400K/year as a midpoint for a dual-income couple, with one spouse on a 'parent-track' job.

3) uber-professionally successful. went into private equity or is a high stress surgeon type with their own practice. honestly I don't see these friends much anymore, but most have had multiple weddings. They don't really see their kids too often, but their trips seem to be first class/private vacations to exotic locals. Eats out very frequently at the best places. Not clear if they own or rent properties, but they live in great locations. We're in the 2M+ range of salary. Note: a few friends are in the category since they inherited wealth.

We're in the middle of the pack. I do sometimes get resentful of the last category when my flight gets delayed and I wish I could just charter my own jet. But I'm very happy with our life. We own a nice 4bd/3ba on a leafy street that is walking distance to the office and schools. I'm not just cut out for the high stress life.

My friend group is different. I would say low end is 200k, mid is 500 and high is $1m+. We are in the higher group and I guess we are working rich. We look at people who sold a company or made a killing in crypto and know we will never earn that much. We probably earn the most but we are not the richest. I consider ourselves UMC. I feel the rich are mostly generational wealth or the crypto millionaires.

This is my circle in a nutshell. We are all in our mid 30s and most are pulling in 300-600k HHI. None of our friends have stay at home spouses and are all professionals. We are probably on the higher end but some of our friends will get 10M + inheritances so obviously that will change things. We are starting to see a slight divide between the low end and mid-to higher end. The mid to higher end all belong to golf clubs, host each other at the course/pools, private school for young kids, live closer due to home prices, discuss our tax strategies, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as you're happy and have a fulfilling career, so what?

That's exactly what I thought at 25, but I didn't realize how much of a difference income makes on every area of your life. Where you can live, where your kids go to school, when or if you can ever retire, if you can travel, if you can afford certain types of healthcare, how you live, the security you feel, the security you can offer your family (parents or children), etc.

It never ends.

My best friend from college and I both got advanced degrees the same year, she went to a top MBA program and I went to a top public policy school. Fast forward over 20 years and she has a luxurious vacation home, huge savings, multiple kids in private school, and lots of luxuries. I’m doing fine as a GS-15 but our paths diverged a little and then a lot.

Major life decisions and accomplishments that look subtle compound overtime.

Unfortunately so do losses, mistakes and regrets.

agree.

By age 26-28, people should come to a realization about the life they really want and course correct if they need to do regarding their careers and major life decisions that impact their finances.

What? At 28 I was dating and living a bohemiam life moving from city to city. I had no idea how much freaking $$$$ I would need for a very basic lifestyle of reasonable commute, decent schools, and kids in boring SFH.

This reminds me that a big part of the divide can be how soon you got married and had kids. Big difference in your early 40s between a couple with kids in middle school who bought a house 15 years ago and a couple in the thick of the hugely expensive nanny-or-double-daycare years squished into a condo because neither of them ever wanted a house until five years ago.

I agree with what you’re saying, but I thought you were going to talk about the divide between parents/families that had kid(s) too young and never recovered financially or socially. I know too many folks who ended up with a kid at 24 or earlier and just can’t catch a break.

Same. I'm 40 and I've seen this go both ways. I have a few friends who remained active in their faith and they married and had kids young. They have been stay at home moms since college, so no child care costs. One married a police officer, and they bought their first home at ~ 23 and traded up twice. They live in a nice home now. Their kids are older teenagers now, and she just recently started a career because she can. I don't think they have a ton of money saved for their kids' college or retirement, but they have a pretty nice house with a pretty small mortgage, and he'll have a police pension. They're planning various fun trips over the next decade because they'll be empty nesters by ~45. On the other hand, most of my law school friends had kids in their late thirties, but we've all been saving since we graduated law school at 25yo. I still bought a house in my twenties, and because I had kids later, I was in a financial position to superfund their college funds. I don't get to take all the great trips in my 40s that my friend who had her kids really young will take because I have toddlers who don't travel well. I don't think either approach is superior. There are pros and cons. Sometimes I wish I had kids younger just so I could maximize my time on earth with them.

I think a lot about how it seems easier for someone who had kids in their 20s to get additional education and start a career in their mid-late 30s vs. someone who took a break from their career in their late 30s to reenter the workforce or start a new career in their mid-late 40s.

This sounds smart, but I think is not a very common thing to do. The extra money for graduate education often isn't there and often if your whole adult life has been raising kids you usually feel like they need you to drive them around and arrange activities as they get older. There used to be FA benefits to having a parent enroll in college when a kid is in college, but no longer true. I think most people who take a break in their careers and want to go back in, keep a foot in--or they don't take a very long break (or any) when having kids. There's just no perfect way--I think you do what works for you and then solve the problems it creates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as you're happy and have a fulfilling career, so what?

That's exactly what I thought at 25, but I didn't realize how much of a difference income makes on every area of your life. Where you can live, where your kids go to school, when or if you can ever retire, if you can travel, if you can afford certain types of healthcare, how you live, the security you feel, the security you can offer your family (parents or children), etc.

It never ends.

My best friend from college and I both got advanced degrees the same year, she went to a top MBA program and I went to a top public policy school. Fast forward over 20 years and she has a luxurious vacation home, huge savings, multiple kids in private school, and lots of luxuries. I’m doing fine as a GS-15 but our paths diverged a little and then a lot.

Major life decisions and accomplishments that look subtle compound overtime.

Unfortunately so do losses, mistakes and regrets.

agree.

By age 26-28, people should come to a realization about the life they really want and course correct if they need to do regarding their careers and major life decisions that impact their finances.

What? At 28 I was dating and living a bohemiam life moving from city to city. I had no idea how much freaking $$$$ I would need for a very basic lifestyle of reasonable commute, decent schools, and kids in boring SFH.

This reminds me that a big part of the divide can be how soon you got married and had kids. Big difference in your early 40s between a couple with kids in middle school who bought a house 15 years ago and a couple in the thick of the hugely expensive nanny-or-double-daycare years squished into a condo because neither of them ever wanted a house until five years ago.

I agree with what you’re saying, but I thought you were going to talk about the divide between parents/families that had kid(s) too young and never recovered financially or socially. I know too many folks who ended up with a kid at 24 or earlier and just can’t catch a break.

Same. I'm 40 and I've seen this go both ways. I have a few friends who remained active in their faith and they married and had kids young. They have been stay at home moms since college, so no child care costs. One married a police officer, and they bought their first home at ~ 23 and traded up twice. They live in a nice home now. Their kids are older teenagers now, and she just recently started a career because she can. I don't think they have a ton of money saved for their kids' college or retirement, but they have a pretty nice house with a pretty small mortgage, and he'll have a police pension. They're planning various fun trips over the next decade because they'll be empty nesters by ~45. On the other hand, most of my law school friends had kids in their late thirties, but we've all been saving since we graduated law school at 25yo. I still bought a house in my twenties, and because I had kids later, I was in a financial position to superfund their college funds. I don't get to take all the great trips in my 40s that my friend who had her kids really young will take because I have toddlers who don't travel well. I don't think either approach is superior. There are pros and cons. Sometimes I wish I had kids younger just so I could maximize my time on earth with them.

I also think the vast majority of people fall between having kids at 23 and having toddlers in their 40s. Even having kids in your mid 30s offers a lot of freedom on both ends--you enjoy freedom in your 20s and early 30s, grow as an individual person, grow your career and your financial wealth, have kids and then in your 40s have older kids and the financial means to do things with them and then often become a grandparent in your early retirement when you have lots of energy and free time and the highest amount of money saved up. If you have your kids too young, you often start having grandkids before you're retired and unless your kids settle nearby it can be challenging to build a strong connection with them when you're in the busiest part of your career.

+1. I had all my kids in my 20’s and I wouldn’t advise anyone else to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Ehhh...

My DH and I both have midlevel jobs in our early 40s. I could stay where I am happily for the rest of my life. There is only one "one up" for my career, where I'd be the director of my dept, or maybe a "two up" where I'd be the director of my dept for multiple sites, but otherwise, that's it. I have NO desire to move into that role. I otherwise do my midlevel job well, like my boss, have great job flexibility, reasonable hours, and fair pay.

DH has a midlevel job, just below a senior role. He does his job well, is happy where he is, but has NO desire to be promoted. I think it's inevitable for him as he does his job extremely well, but also know he'd be perfectly happy to not take on that stress (stress is already enough of a problem for him in his current role).

Quality of life is a big thing for us. we have two kids, we both struggle with anxiety. As long as we can live very comfortably in our current salaries, that's fine.

We both can easily look at friends who are moving to senior roles in very successful and lucrative careers - but see their quality of life struggles - in some cases, affecting marriages, happiness, etc. - and say, "no thanks".

[Anonymous]

Ehh, but so long as we live reasonably comfortably without fear for the roof over our heads, food in our stomachs...

we're all just spending time figuring out what's for dinner and what to watch next on Netflix... right?

I mean all the rest is just what's in your head from comparing to others and how it makes you feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as you're happy and have a fulfilling career, so what?

That's exactly what I thought at 25, but I didn't realize how much of a difference income makes on every area of your life. Where you can live, where your kids go to school, when or if you can ever retire, if you can travel, if you can afford certain types of healthcare, how you live, the security you feel, the security you can offer your family (parents or children), etc.

It never ends.

My best friend from college and I both got advanced degrees the same year, she went to a top MBA program and I went to a top public policy school. Fast forward over 20 years and she has a luxurious vacation home, huge savings, multiple kids in private school, and lots of luxuries. I’m doing fine as a GS-15 but our paths diverged a little and then a lot.

Major life decisions and accomplishments that look subtle compound overtime.

Could you explain why

Unfortunately so do losses, mistakes and regrets.

agree.

By age 26-28, people should come to a realization about the life they really want and course correct if they need to do regarding their careers and major life decisions that impact their finances.

What? At 28 I was dating and living a bohemiam life moving from city to city. I had no idea how much freaking $$$$ I would need for a very basic lifestyle of reasonable commute, decent schools, and kids in boring SFH.

This reminds me that a big part of the divide can be how soon you got married and had kids. Big difference in your early 40s between a couple with kids in middle school who bought a house 15 years ago and a couple in the thick of the hugely expensive nanny-or-double-daycare years squished into a condo because neither of them ever wanted a house until five years ago.

I agree with what you’re saying, but I thought you were going to talk about the divide between parents/families that had kid(s) too young and never recovered financially or socially. I know too many folks who ended up with a kid at 24 or earlier and just can’t catch a break.

Same. I'm 40 and I've seen this go both ways. I have a few friends who remained active in their faith and they married and had kids young. They have been stay at home moms since college, so no child care costs. One married a police officer, and they bought their first home at ~ 23 and traded up twice. They live in a nice home now. Their kids are older teenagers now, and she just recently started a career because she can. I don't think they have a ton of money saved for their kids' college or retirement, but they have a pretty nice house with a pretty small mortgage, and he'll have a police pension. They're planning various fun trips over the next decade because they'll be empty nesters by ~45. On the other hand, most of my law school friends had kids in their late thirties, but we've all been saving since we graduated law school at 25yo. I still bought a house in my twenties, and because I had kids later, I was in a financial position to superfund their college funds. I don't get to take all the great trips in my 40s that my friend who had her kids really young will take because I have toddlers who don't travel well. I don't think either approach is superior. There are pros and cons. Sometimes I wish I had kids younger just so I could maximize my time on earth with them.

I also think the vast majority of people fall between having kids at 23 and having toddlers in their 40s. Even having kids in your mid 30s offers a lot of freedom on both ends--you enjoy freedom in your 20s and early 30s, grow as an individual person, grow your career and your financial wealth, have kids and then in your 40s have older kids and the financial means to do things with them and then often become a grandparent in your early retirement when you have lots of energy and free time and the highest amount of money saved up. If you have your kids too young, you often start having grandkids before you're retired and unless your kids settle nearby it can be challenging to build a strong connection with them when you're in the busiest part of your career.

+1. I had all my kids in my 20’s and I wouldn’t advise anyone else to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as you're happy and have a fulfilling career, so what?

That's exactly what I thought at 25, but I didn't realize how much of a difference income makes on every area of your life. Where you can live, where your kids go to school, when or if you can ever retire, if you can travel, if you can afford certain types of healthcare, how you live, the security you feel, the security you can offer your family (parents or children), etc.

It never ends.

My best friend from college and I both got advanced degrees the same year, she went to a top MBA program and I went to a top public policy school. Fast forward over 20 years and she has a luxurious vacation home, huge savings, multiple kids in private school, and lots of luxuries. I’m doing fine as a GS-15 but our paths diverged a little and then a lot.

Major life decisions and accomplishments that look subtle compound overtime.

Unfortunately so do losses, mistakes and regrets.

agree.

By age 26-28, people should come to a realization about the life they really want and course correct if they need to do regarding their careers and major life decisions that impact their finances.

What? At 28 I was dating and living a bohemiam life moving from city to city. I had no idea how much freaking $$$$ I would need for a very basic lifestyle of reasonable commute, decent schools, and kids in boring SFH.

This reminds me that a big part of the divide can be how soon you got married and had kids. Big difference in your early 40s between a couple with kids in middle school who bought a house 15 years ago and a couple in the thick of the hugely expensive nanny-or-double-daycare years squished into a condo because neither of them ever wanted a house until five years ago.

I agree with what you’re saying, but I thought you were going to talk about the divide between parents/families that had kid(s) too young and never recovered financially or socially. I know too many folks who ended up with a kid at 24 or earlier and just can’t catch a break.

Same. I'm 40 and I've seen this go both ways. I have a few friends who remained active in their faith and they married and had kids young. They have been stay at home moms since college, so no child care costs. One married a police officer, and they bought their first home at ~ 23 and traded up twice. They live in a nice home now. Their kids are older teenagers now, and she just recently started a career because she can. I don't think they have a ton of money saved for their kids' college or retirement, but they have a pretty nice house with a pretty small mortgage, and he'll have a police pension. They're planning various fun trips over the next decade because they'll be empty nesters by ~45. On the other hand, most of my law school friends had kids in their late thirties, but we've all been saving since we graduated law school at 25yo. I still bought a house in my twenties, and because I had kids later, I was in a financial position to superfund their college funds. I don't get to take all the great trips in my 40s that my friend who had her kids really young will take because I have toddlers who don't travel well. I don't think either approach is superior. There are pros and cons. Sometimes I wish I had kids younger just so I could maximize my time on earth with them.

I also think the vast majority of people fall between having kids at 23 and having toddlers in their 40s. Even having kids in your mid 30s offers a lot of freedom on both ends--you enjoy freedom in your 20s and early 30s, grow as an individual person, grow your career and your financial wealth, have kids and then in your 40s have older kids and the financial means to do things with them and then often become a grandparent in your early retirement when you have lots of energy and free time and the highest amount of money saved up. If you have your kids too young, you often start having grandkids before you're retired and unless your kids settle nearby it can be challenging to build a strong connection with them when you're in the busiest part of your career.

+1. I had all my kids in my 20’s and I wouldn’t advise anyone else to do the same.

Why

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as you're happy and have a fulfilling career, so what?

That's exactly what I thought at 25, but I didn't realize how much of a difference income makes on every area of your life. Where you can live, where your kids go to school, when or if you can ever retire, if you can travel, if you can afford certain types of healthcare, how you live, the security you feel, the security you can offer your family (parents or children), etc.

It never ends.

My best friend from college and I both got advanced degrees the same year, she went to a top MBA program and I went to a top public policy school. Fast forward over 20 years and she has a luxurious vacation home, huge savings, multiple kids in private school, and lots of luxuries. I’m doing fine as a GS-15 but our paths diverged a little and then a lot.

Major life decisions and accomplishments that look subtle compound overtime.

Could you explain why

Unfortunately so do losses, mistakes and regrets.

agree.

By age 26-28, people should come to a realization about the life they really want and course correct if they need to do regarding their careers and major life decisions that impact their finances.

What? At 28 I was dating and living a bohemiam life moving from city to city. I had no idea how much freaking $$$$ I would need for a very basic lifestyle of reasonable commute, decent schools, and kids in boring SFH.

This reminds me that a big part of the divide can be how soon you got married and had kids. Big difference in your early 40s between a couple with kids in middle school who bought a house 15 years ago and a couple in the thick of the hugely expensive nanny-or-double-daycare years squished into a condo because neither of them ever wanted a house until five years ago.

I agree with what you’re saying, but I thought you were going to talk about the divide between parents/families that had kid(s) too young and never recovered financially or socially. I know too many folks who ended up with a kid at 24 or earlier and just can’t catch a break.

Same. I'm 40 and I've seen this go both ways. I have a few friends who remained active in their faith and they married and had kids young. They have been stay at home moms since college, so no child care costs. One married a police officer, and they bought their first home at ~ 23 and traded up twice. They live in a nice home now. Their kids are older teenagers now, and she just recently started a career because she can. I don't think they have a ton of money saved for their kids' college or retirement, but they have a pretty nice house with a pretty small mortgage, and he'll have a police pension. They're planning various fun trips over the next decade because they'll be empty nesters by ~45. On the other hand, most of my law school friends had kids in their late thirties, but we've all been saving since we graduated law school at 25yo. I still bought a house in my twenties, and because I had kids later, I was in a financial position to superfund their college funds. I don't get to take all the great trips in my 40s that my friend who had her kids really young will take because I have toddlers who don't travel well. I don't think either approach is superior. There are pros and cons. Sometimes I wish I had kids younger just so I could maximize my time on earth with them.

I also think the vast majority of people fall between having kids at 23 and having toddlers in their 40s. Even having kids in your mid 30s offers a lot of freedom on both ends--you enjoy freedom in your 20s and early 30s, grow as an individual person, grow your career and your financial wealth, have kids and then in your 40s have older kids and the financial means to do things with them and then often become a grandparent in your early retirement when you have lots of energy and free time and the highest amount of money saved up. If you have your kids too young, you often start having grandkids before you're retired and unless your kids settle nearby it can be challenging to build a strong connection with them when you're in the busiest part of your career.

+1. I had all my kids in my 20’s and I wouldn’t advise anyone else to do the same.

I had my kids in my late 20s and it was perfect. Huge difference from 20 and no degree versus 28-29.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as you're happy and have a fulfilling career, so what?

That's exactly what I thought at 25, but I didn't realize how much of a difference income makes on every area of your life. Where you can live, where your kids go to school, when or if you can ever retire, if you can travel, if you can afford certain types of healthcare, how you live, the security you feel, the security you can offer your family (parents or children), etc.

It never ends.

My best friend from college and I both got advanced degrees the same year, she went to a top MBA program and I went to a top public policy school. Fast forward over 20 years and she has a luxurious vacation home, huge savings, multiple kids in private school, and lots of luxuries. I’m doing fine as a GS-15 but our paths diverged a little and then a lot.

Major life decisions and accomplishments that look subtle compound overtime.

Unfortunately so do losses, mistakes and regrets.

agree.

By age 26-28, people should come to a realization about the life they really want and course correct if they need to do regarding their careers and major life decisions that impact their finances.

What? At 28 I was dating and living a bohemiam life moving from city to city. I had no idea how much freaking $$$$ I would need for a very basic lifestyle of reasonable commute, decent schools, and kids in boring SFH.

This reminds me that a big part of the divide can be how soon you got married and had kids. Big difference in your early 40s between a couple with kids in middle school who bought a house 15 years ago and a couple in the thick of the hugely expensive nanny-or-double-daycare years squished into a condo because neither of them ever wanted a house until five years ago.

I agree with what you’re saying, but I thought you were going to talk about the divide between parents/families that had kid(s) too young and never recovered financially or socially. I know too many folks who ended up with a kid at 24 or earlier and just can’t catch a break.

Same. I'm 40 and I've seen this go both ways. I have a few friends who remained active in their faith and they married and had kids young. They have been stay at home moms since college, so no child care costs. One married a police officer, and they bought their first home at ~ 23 and traded up twice. They live in a nice home now. Their kids are older teenagers now, and she just recently started a career because she can. I don't think they have a ton of money saved for their kids' college or retirement, but they have a pretty nice house with a pretty small mortgage, and he'll have a police pension. They're planning various fun trips over the next decade because they'll be empty nesters by ~45. On the other hand, most of my law school friends had kids in their late thirties, but we've all been saving since we graduated law school at 25yo. I still bought a house in my twenties, and because I had kids later, I was in a financial position to superfund their college funds. I don't get to take all the great trips in my 40s that my friend who had her kids really young will take because I have toddlers who don't travel well. I don't think either approach is superior. There are pros and cons. Sometimes I wish I had kids younger just so I could maximize my time on earth with them.

I think a lot about how it seems easier for someone who had kids in their 20s to get additional education and start a career in their mid-late 30s vs. someone who took a break from their career in their late 30s to reenter the workforce or start a new career in their mid-late 40s.

This sounds smart, but I think is not a very common thing to do. The extra money for graduate education often isn't there and often if your whole adult life has been raising kids you usually feel like they need you to drive them around and arrange activities as they get older. There used to be FA benefits to having a parent enroll in college when a kid is in college, but no longer true. I think most people who take a break in their careers and want to go back in, keep a foot in--or they don't take a very long break (or any) when having kids. There's just no perfect way--I think you do what works for you and then solve the problems it creates.

I don't know how common or uncommon it is. From my perspective it comes down to ageism and that an employer is more willing to hire someon in their 30s for an entry level position than someone in their late 40s. In theory this should be changing as more parents want to down shift in some way while kids are young, and COVID has taken a big toll on the workforce, but I don't know.

Anecdotally I know two women who had kids young then went to law school (on loans) while their partner worked full time and their kids were in school. I have no idea how the division of labor went for these families WRT child care, but both women have since been VERY successful so I assume they did well in law school. I also know became a nurse, and another who became a social worker. The nurse was able to start her path by taking one class at a time (she had a BA in an unrelated field). The social worker had her graduate degree before having kids but did all her certification after having kids. She was able to do it gradually as well. Obviously this gradual approach doesn't work with all careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In our 20s, my peer group consisted of non-profits, consultants, law school students, first and second-year lawyers, and a few engineers. The differences between us didn't seem huge, we went to bars, lived in apartments and group houses, dated, went on lame vacations with our parents or not at all... you all know that life. Were all basically kind of the same poor"ish". A few of my friends threw down lots of money shopping, or had slightly nicer apartments, but the financial differences between us all seemed minimal.

But I'm 45 now, and the discrepancies between those who chose high-paying careers and those who didn't seem huge. The differences in earnings just compounded over time. If I had been able to fully internalize and visualize the difference between a for-profit and non-profit career.

It’s called the miracle of compounding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the sentiment. From my college/post-college friend group there are three tracks. All three sets are in the top 20% of national income, but reflect the realities of a post-ivy education.

1) Non-profit world or similar. Lower incomes, but interesting jobs. But clearly needs to watch spending, and can't really do blow out european trips regularly. Can't afford expensive housing markets like DC and either rent or move to further out suburbs. We're talking <150K/year, so not poor by any means.

2) successful, but not too stressed. got that law degree or med school degree, but in-house or is a HMO pediatrician. good incomes and a decent amount of time to enjoy their lives. Travels frequently abroad (but not always first class, unless they have lots of airline miles) and own a home in nice inner suburbs or the city. Is thinking about a modest vacation cabin on the lake or a small boat. Usually still married to first spouse. Can afford an elite private school, but it is their biggest expense. Think more like 400K/year as a midpoint for a dual-income couple, with one spouse on a 'parent-track' job.

3) uber-professionally successful. went into private equity or is a high stress surgeon type with their own practice. honestly I don't see these friends much anymore, but most have had multiple weddings. They don't really see their kids too often, but their trips seem to be first class/private vacations to exotic locals. Eats out very frequently at the best places. Not clear if they own or rent properties, but they live in great locations. We're in the 2M+ range of salary. Note: a few friends are in the category since they inherited wealth.

We're in the middle of the pack. I do sometimes get resentful of the last category when my flight gets delayed and I wish I could just charter my own jet. But I'm very happy with our life. We own a nice 4bd/3ba on a leafy street that is walking distance to the office and schools. I'm not just cut out for the high stress life.

My friend group is different. I would say low end is 200k, mid is 500 and high is $1m+. We are in the higher group and I guess we are working rich. We look at people who sold a company or made a killing in crypto and know we will never earn that much. We probably earn the most but we are not the richest. I consider ourselves UMC. I feel the rich are mostly generational wealth or the crypto millionaires.

This is my circle in a nutshell. We are all in our mid 30s and most are pulling in 300-600k HHI. None of our friends have stay at home spouses and are all professionals. We are probably on the higher end but some of our friends will get 10M + inheritances so obviously that will change things. We are starting to see a slight divide between the low end and mid-to higher end. The mid to higher end all belong to golf clubs, host each other at the course/pools, private school for young kids, live closer due to home prices, discuss our tax strategies, etc.

This is what PP posters were talking about in a nutshell. All of you are UMC+ by definition but you feel a divide is stark among you because you're looking at the range within your particular circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is true. Early start is key. Focus on careers that help you establish yourself and are the best /most profitable match for your skill set.

We both went to a top 15 school - met after college through friends - big law/finance dual income in 20s and 30s. By mid 40s, we are senior in our respective careers with hhi of $4-7m per year.
Money is a non issue in our life.
Time is a more valuable commodity.

This is so much money, but it doesn’t set off any jealousy in me at all. We earn 250k, split right down the middle between DH and myself, and we have ample time. With our kids, with each other, with friends, with our aging parents. We own our house, have short commutes, will be able to retire and never live in poverty. Why do people contort their lives for vast amounts of money and then sacrifice the things that make life good?