Downsizing when you age or empty nesters?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is more of a finance question than a real estate or midlife one, so posting here.
What are you doing with your real estate options when you get to say 55, or when you are empty nesters? Are you downsizing? Moving to a TH? Aging in place? Keeping a larger home for family gatherings, grandkids? What’s your plan?

Is this post from 1975? Empty Nestor at 55 ready to retire?

That was back when my Uncles were cops and Firemen married HS sweethearts young and by 55 a full pension and kids long gone. Kids just went an inexpensive local college.

Today men and women are having kids much later. Their kids are having kids much later and college costs are insane.

When I was 55 I had a 16, 14 and 10 year old at home.

Hence the issue downsizing no longer works

My youngest graduates college when I am 67 and then wants to move home for grad school.

Then until they are married with kids I am still hosting holidays.

I thought I was an old parent but tons and tons parents my age at school.

My friend is 61 with a 13, 11 and 6 year old at home. Had last kid he was 55, wife 45.

55 year olds are still having kids and 25-30 years from retirement.

There are also plenty of people that age who become empty nesters, retire, and downsize.

Yup! Did have kid until almost 30, was done by 35, by 52 last kid was off to college.
Sold big family home and moved into our 2 bed/2bath condo in the city. Won't retire until kid is done with college but we could if we really wanted to, the money is ready and waiting

DOn't know about most people, but I don't want to be over 60 and still have kids on my payroll/supporting my kids because they are not yet out of college. So we chose not to have a kid at 40+

Also your body and your circumstances allowed you to “choose” that path. What a smug response that indicates lack of awareness of the realities of other people’s lives.

DP here - I think it was more of a response to the poster calling us child brides for having a baby at 30.

You are a child bride. When did you marry?

I would hate for my daughters to waste their youth getting knocked up and being a servant to some bum in exchange for when they are 55 can be an empty Nestor. You can’t be 25 at 55.

To be honest if I was a widower at 70 and met a hot 42 year who wanted a kid I have another.

Didn't waste my youth. Got married at 22, first kid at 30, fully lived life before kids, once kids arrived and now really enjoying empty nesting in my early 50s. But have friends who had kids at 22, done by 24 and living life fully in their 40s without kids around. Either way, you do what works for you.


Also, my son or daughter are allowed to select what to do in life themselves.

+1. There are so many insecure people on DCUM. I would never attack someone for having a child at an age they deemed appropriate for them. I find that on DCUM women who had children at older ages seem to need to attack women who had children at younger ages. I never see this flipped unless someone is responding to a rude comment. Everything doesn't need to be endlessly picked over and compared and analyzed. We are all doing our best and because we are different people in different circumstances with different resources our best and how we even determine what our best is will be different but no one should feel superior or inferior to anyone based on the timing of when they had children.

Yes, you do what works for you. There are advantages to every scenario. I know people who had kids at 20/21. That is likely the "least attractive" solution to me. It typically means the woman quit college to raise the kid. Sometimes it means the guy did as well to have a job to support the family. The perks are that by time you are 40/42, your kids are out of the house and you are still able to travel and do so much. But the issue is, typically with that path, you struggled to get started and likely don't make as much as you would if you waited until 28-30 to have first kid.

28-30 for first kid is the "sweet spot" IMO. You can be done having them by 34/35 and empty nesters by 55. You were able to start your career (unless doctor or lawyer) and be well established, thus allowing you to stay at home for a bit, work PT, etc. With careers well established, you can afford to live a better life than someone at 22 having a kid and still retire/be empty nesters while still able to really enjoy life/be healthy.

35-40 for having kids, works just fine, but fact is you run risk of higher possibility for health issues with mom/baby. You will be 60 or so possibly older when your last kid exits the house after college. So you might need to work until 62/65 just because you have kids still under your care. At 65+ you might not be able to travel and do same things as if you were empty nesters at 55.

Pick whatever works for you. Life is too short to worry about others

35-40 is very very young to stop having kids. I had my last kid at 45. I am still a very very young Dad next to my friends having kids in their 50s.
Billy Joel has a six year old
Rod Stewart has a kid at 78
Al Pacino had a kid at 83

Steve Martin had his first kid at 67

Naomi Campbell naturally had a baby at 53 and Hillary Swank had a kid at 48. Brigitte Nielsen at 54

And retirement no longer exists. I heard yesterday the oldest muscian still performing started his band as a teen in the 1930s, He is 100 and still doing shows.

It's not very young whatsoever. I don't know why you think it's a flex to be a 60-year old with a teenager, and yeah it's a lot worse having kids in your 50s.

You are listing a bunch of celebrities that I am sure you know are outsourcing nearly every facet of raising a kid, right? They have a FT nanny and housekeeper and lots of $$$s.

So, the moral of your story is to first get very rich (and probably famous)...and then just keep popping them out because it's not like you will be changing any diapers.

Agree with earlier PP. 35-40 is young to stop having kids. I had my second at 37. Most people I know are still having kids into their early 40s. I know one person with surprise twins at 45.

I won't have kids in college until my mid-50s. I don't suspect grandparenting will even begin before age 65. I think 70 is more likely.

The ones I know regret it and will tell their kids to start earlier and the twins are usually IVF babies which nobody thinks was a pleasant surprise.

My kids in my 30s were not planned. I was not planning them at all so I certainly would not have wanted them younger!!

My friend was one and done and shocked with twins at 45. She thought she was in menopause for missing a period. She was pregnant.

My great grandma had her last whoops baby at age 42 in the 1930s.

Most of my friends had their first kids ages 40-45. I had my first at 34 and was the youngest. Second surprise at 37.

Also, I don’t care about grandchildren. Irrelevant. Still telling my kids not to have kids until at least 30 at the youngest.

So, you are encouraging your kids to have kids younger than you or your friends. 30 is younger than when you had them and much younger than 40-45. You agree with me.

Sorry, your friend with twins at 45 won’t be super happy parenting 15 year olds at 60…not sure how or why you are trying to spin any of this. They will be the weird old people that everyone thinks are grandparents and ignores at social functions…or they will just be absent parents.

You will actually be an empty nester at 55…so again, your own circumstance is different.

I am encouraging my kids not to consider marriage or kids until at least age 30. I am also encouraging them to consider not having kids at at all. I don't think it is worth it for women now. I think it sucks. Old gender norms I can see advantages. Now, it sucks.

I could care less about the 45-year-old parent with twins born then. They did not plan it. Not like they wanted to be old. They did not want to abort. Most people I know who had first kids at 40-45 now have between 4 and 10 year olds and are very happy with their choice.

I know several people very glad they don't really have an "empty nest" stage. When kids leave they will be retiring rather than working 15-20 years with the "empty nest" thing.

The point is that there are a lot of people still having kids up to age 45 or so. It is not true that age 35-40 is old to have kids. Many, many people are having first kids then.

There are some people having kids up to age 45, probably more prominently in DCUM land, but not lots. Considering I live in Bethesda and have a 17 year old...there is only one set of parents 60+, with the vast majority around 50, and definitely more in late 40s than 60+. These are the younger siblings for the most part.

Nothing of what you says makes much sense. You know several people who are very glad that they will have to raise kids when they are old vs. enjoying their lives when they are still at an age when they can do so? What are they glad about? Are you implying they jet setted around the globe when they were 30 and delayed having kids?

First, the original response was to the post that said ages 35-40 is OLD to stop having kids. My response was NO 35-40 it is not old to stop having kids and then I pointed out that several people I know had their first kids between 40-45 (and accidental second pregnancies). Bottom line: 35-40 is not old to have kids and many people have them then.

Everyone I know who had kids 40-45 is very happy with that choice. The alternative was not having kids at all. I know many people that really enjoyed being childfree as long as they did and now they have more money for childraising. And yes, at least two people I know did jet set around the globe before age 40.

I don’t know anyone who had kids 40-45 by their own choice. All of them either had prolonged infertility or married very late.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is more of a finance question than a real estate or midlife one, so posting here.
What are you doing with your real estate options when you get to say 55, or when you are empty nesters? Are you downsizing? Moving to a TH? Aging in place? Keeping a larger home for family gatherings, grandkids? What’s your plan?

Is this post from 1975? Empty Nestor at 55 ready to retire?

That was back when my Uncles were cops and Firemen married HS sweethearts young and by 55 a full pension and kids long gone. Kids just went an inexpensive local college.

Today men and women are having kids much later. Their kids are having kids much later and college costs are insane.

When I was 55 I had a 16, 14 and 10 year old at home.

Hence the issue downsizing no longer works

My youngest graduates college when I am 67 and then wants to move home for grad school.

Then until they are married with kids I am still hosting holidays.

I thought I was an old parent but tons and tons parents my age at school.

My friend is 61 with a 13, 11 and 6 year old at home. Had last kid he was 55, wife 45.

55 year olds are still having kids and 25-30 years from retirement.

There are also plenty of people that age who become empty nesters, retire, and downsize.

Yup! Did have kid until almost 30, was done by 35, by 52 last kid was off to college.
Sold big family home and moved into our 2 bed/2bath condo in the city. Won't retire until kid is done with college but we could if we really wanted to, the money is ready and waiting

DOn't know about most people, but I don't want to be over 60 and still have kids on my payroll/supporting my kids because they are not yet out of college. So we chose not to have a kid at 40+

Also your body and your circumstances allowed you to “choose” that path. What a smug response that indicates lack of awareness of the realities of other people’s lives.

DP here - I think it was more of a response to the poster calling us child brides for having a baby at 30.

You are a child bride. When did you marry?

I would hate for my daughters to waste their youth getting knocked up and being a servant to some bum in exchange for when they are 55 can be an empty Nestor. You can’t be 25 at 55.

To be honest if I was a widower at 70 and met a hot 42 year who wanted a kid I have another.

Didn't waste my youth. Got married at 22, first kid at 30, fully lived life before kids, once kids arrived and now really enjoying empty nesting in my early 50s. But have friends who had kids at 22, done by 24 and living life fully in their 40s without kids around. Either way, you do what works for you.


Also, my son or daughter are allowed to select what to do in life themselves.

+1. There are so many insecure people on DCUM. I would never attack someone for having a child at an age they deemed appropriate for them. I find that on DCUM women who had children at older ages seem to need to attack women who had children at younger ages. I never see this flipped unless someone is responding to a rude comment. Everything doesn't need to be endlessly picked over and compared and analyzed. We are all doing our best and because we are different people in different circumstances with different resources our best and how we even determine what our best is will be different but no one should feel superior or inferior to anyone based on the timing of when they had children.

Yes, you do what works for you. There are advantages to every scenario. I know people who had kids at 20/21. That is likely the "least attractive" solution to me. It typically means the woman quit college to raise the kid. Sometimes it means the guy did as well to have a job to support the family. The perks are that by time you are 40/42, your kids are out of the house and you are still able to travel and do so much. But the issue is, typically with that path, you struggled to get started and likely don't make as much as you would if you waited until 28-30 to have first kid.

28-30 for first kid is the "sweet spot" IMO. You can be done having them by 34/35 and empty nesters by 55. You were able to start your career (unless doctor or lawyer) and be well established, thus allowing you to stay at home for a bit, work PT, etc. With careers well established, you can afford to live a better life than someone at 22 having a kid and still retire/be empty nesters while still able to really enjoy life/be healthy.

35-40 for having kids, works just fine, but fact is you run risk of higher possibility for health issues with mom/baby. You will be 60 or so possibly older when your last kid exits the house after college. So you might need to work until 62/65 just because you have kids still under your care. At 65+ you might not be able to travel and do same things as if you were empty nesters at 55.

Pick whatever works for you. Life is too short to worry about others

35-40 is very very young to stop having kids. I had my last kid at 45. I am still a very very young Dad next to my friends having kids in their 50s.
Billy Joel has a six year old
Rod Stewart has a kid at 78
Al Pacino had a kid at 83

Steve Martin had his first kid at 67

Naomi Campbell naturally had a baby at 53 and Hillary Swank had a kid at 48. Brigitte Nielsen at 54

And retirement no longer exists. I heard yesterday the oldest muscian still performing started his band as a teen in the 1930s, He is 100 and still doing shows.

It's not very young whatsoever. I don't know why you think it's a flex to be a 60-year old with a teenager, and yeah it's a lot worse having kids in your 50s.

You are listing a bunch of celebrities that I am sure you know are outsourcing nearly every facet of raising a kid, right? They have a FT nanny and housekeeper and lots of $$$s.

So, the moral of your story is to first get very rich (and probably famous)...and then just keep popping them out because it's not like you will be changing any diapers.

Agree with earlier PP. 35-40 is young to stop having kids. I had my second at 37. Most people I know are still having kids into their early 40s. I know one person with surprise twins at 45.

I won't have kids in college until my mid-50s. I don't suspect grandparenting will even begin before age 65. I think 70 is more likely.

Meanwhile I was done at 34, my last kid went to college when I was 52 and will be out by time I’m 56.

We prefer to have ability to travel and retire by mid 50.ms. We still had our 20s to live then started family at 30.

I might have grandkids by 65 (my kid will be 35 and 32) while I can still enjoy my geandkids

Ok. So you planned kids. Not everyone does. I did not. Also, I could care less about grandchildren. In fact, I would prefer not to have them.

I don't plan to retire until mid 60s. I don't like to travel.

Not everything in life goes according to plan. Good for you that it did and your timing seems to be what you want.

I planned on being childfree and self-employed by 40 and working until 66 or 67. Not happening due to kids. It is what it is.

Yes some of us plan for events in life. Yes we adjust as needed but for major events, we managed to plan fairly well. There was no ooops baby at 40+, because we made certain it want going to happen—there are simple ways to do this.
Similarly I didn’t have a kid at 20/22, because we actively planned for that.
Just like we saved for college and retirement.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is more of a finance question than a real estate or midlife one, so posting here.
What are you doing with your real estate options when you get to say 55, or when you are empty nesters? Are you downsizing? Moving to a TH? Aging in place? Keeping a larger home for family gatherings, grandkids? What’s your plan?

Is this post from 1975? Empty Nestor at 55 ready to retire?

That was back when my Uncles were cops and Firemen married HS sweethearts young and by 55 a full pension and kids long gone. Kids just went an inexpensive local college.

Today men and women are having kids much later. Their kids are having kids much later and college costs are insane.

When I was 55 I had a 16, 14 and 10 year old at home.

Hence the issue downsizing no longer works

My youngest graduates college when I am 67 and then wants to move home for grad school.

Then until they are married with kids I am still hosting holidays.

I thought I was an old parent but tons and tons parents my age at school.

My friend is 61 with a 13, 11 and 6 year old at home. Had last kid he was 55, wife 45.

55 year olds are still having kids and 25-30 years from retirement.

There are also plenty of people that age who become empty nesters, retire, and downsize.

Yup! Did have kid until almost 30, was done by 35, by 52 last kid was off to college.
Sold big family home and moved into our 2 bed/2bath condo in the city. Won't retire until kid is done with college but we could if we really wanted to, the money is ready and waiting

DOn't know about most people, but I don't want to be over 60 and still have kids on my payroll/supporting my kids because they are not yet out of college. So we chose not to have a kid at 40+

Also your body and your circumstances allowed you to “choose” that path. What a smug response that indicates lack of awareness of the realities of other people’s lives.

DP here - I think it was more of a response to the poster calling us child brides for having a baby at 30.

You are a child bride. When did you marry?

I would hate for my daughters to waste their youth getting knocked up and being a servant to some bum in exchange for when they are 55 can be an empty Nestor. You can’t be 25 at 55.

To be honest if I was a widower at 70 and met a hot 42 year who wanted a kid I have another.

Didn't waste my youth. Got married at 22, first kid at 30, fully lived life before kids, once kids arrived and now really enjoying empty nesting in my early 50s. But have friends who had kids at 22, done by 24 and living life fully in their 40s without kids around. Either way, you do what works for you.


Also, my son or daughter are allowed to select what to do in life themselves.

+1. There are so many insecure people on DCUM. I would never attack someone for having a child at an age they deemed appropriate for them. I find that on DCUM women who had children at older ages seem to need to attack women who had children at younger ages. I never see this flipped unless someone is responding to a rude comment. Everything doesn't need to be endlessly picked over and compared and analyzed. We are all doing our best and because we are different people in different circumstances with different resources our best and how we even determine what our best is will be different but no one should feel superior or inferior to anyone based on the timing of when they had children.

Yes, you do what works for you. There are advantages to every scenario. I know people who had kids at 20/21. That is likely the "least attractive" solution to me. It typically means the woman quit college to raise the kid. Sometimes it means the guy did as well to have a job to support the family. The perks are that by time you are 40/42, your kids are out of the house and you are still able to travel and do so much. But the issue is, typically with that path, you struggled to get started and likely don't make as much as you would if you waited until 28-30 to have first kid.

28-30 for first kid is the "sweet spot" IMO. You can be done having them by 34/35 and empty nesters by 55. You were able to start your career (unless doctor or lawyer) and be well established, thus allowing you to stay at home for a bit, work PT, etc. With careers well established, you can afford to live a better life than someone at 22 having a kid and still retire/be empty nesters while still able to really enjoy life/be healthy.

35-40 for having kids, works just fine, but fact is you run risk of higher possibility for health issues with mom/baby. You will be 60 or so possibly older when your last kid exits the house after college. So you might need to work until 62/65 just because you have kids still under your care. At 65+ you might not be able to travel and do same things as if you were empty nesters at 55.

Pick whatever works for you. Life is too short to worry about others

35-40 is very very young to stop having kids. I had my last kid at 45. I am still a very very young Dad next to my friends having kids in their 50s.
Billy Joel has a six year old
Rod Stewart has a kid at 78
Al Pacino had a kid at 83

Steve Martin had his first kid at 67

Naomi Campbell naturally had a baby at 53 and Hillary Swank had a kid at 48. Brigitte Nielsen at 54

And retirement no longer exists. I heard yesterday the oldest muscian still performing started his band as a teen in the 1930s, He is 100 and still doing shows.

More power to you. We will absolutely be retiring at 55. Maybe sooner. We had our second and final child at 31.

No kid relate - but I busted my butt to get my first big job at 44. Why the heck would I throw it all away at 55 to sit home all day in a tiny shoebox when I downsize watching soap operas and reality TV waiting to die.

Instead I got a bigger job at 55. Was pretty exciting working on a two billion dollar project at a start up and seeing it through launch. So much that when it ended I did a second start up at 58. Finally at 61 my start up life ended and I decided I wanted to do something political in DC on the Hill. Which I am doing, exciting energy working on Capital Hill

My career was and is most exciting post 55.

I also bought a huge trade up home at 55 moving from 1,600 sf to 6,100 sf.

I am thinking maybe 63 I could try CEO or run for office.

Then I was thinking around 67 join a few boards.

Why be in a rush to die. I heard that retired men die with 5-7 years regardless of year you retire. Men who retire younger just die younger.

All the old men on my block work at least part time. My neighbor a psychologist works part time and had people over for Super Bowl at his 7,000 sf house and he is 90. Was he supposed to downsize and retire 35 years ago?

My last kid won’t be out till I am 70. I am not packing up a 6,100 sf house just to make some child brides happy. Until kids are married with kids thanksgiving, Xmas, graduations, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day all at my house.

Well spouse was in c suite from age 32+. Ceo at 43. By 52 had successfully manage to get two private equity owners companies sold. So been in those “exciting jobs” since late 20s. With $30m+, still working to possible get another $30-40m but mainly because they still live the job.

However, plans to cut back/retire in next 2-3 years.
We won’t be sitting at home in a shoebox. We will be going between our two homes, traveling monthly to explore the world and enjoying what we love.
At the level spouse is at, they will be able to consult/sit on boards as little or as much as they want for “retirement”

Says the wife who didn’t do any of the work.

It's my wife who is the CEO

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is more of a finance question than a real estate or midlife one, so posting here.
What are you doing with your real estate options when you get to say 55, or when you are empty nesters? Are you downsizing? Moving to a TH? Aging in place? Keeping a larger home for family gatherings, grandkids? What’s your plan?

Is this post from 1975? Empty Nestor at 55 ready to retire?

That was back when my Uncles were cops and Firemen married HS sweethearts young and by 55 a full pension and kids long gone. Kids just went an inexpensive local college.

Today men and women are having kids much later. Their kids are having kids much later and college costs are insane.

When I was 55 I had a 16, 14 and 10 year old at home.

Hence the issue downsizing no longer works

My youngest graduates college when I am 67 and then wants to move home for grad school.

Then until they are married with kids I am still hosting holidays.

I thought I was an old parent but tons and tons parents my age at school.

My friend is 61 with a 13, 11 and 6 year old at home. Had last kid he was 55, wife 45.

55 year olds are still having kids and 25-30 years from retirement.

There are also plenty of people that age who become empty nesters, retire, and downsize.

Yup! Did have kid until almost 30, was done by 35, by 52 last kid was off to college.
Sold big family home and moved into our 2 bed/2bath condo in the city. Won't retire until kid is done with college but we could if we really wanted to, the money is ready and waiting

DOn't know about most people, but I don't want to be over 60 and still have kids on my payroll/supporting my kids because they are not yet out of college. So we chose not to have a kid at 40+

Also your body and your circumstances allowed you to “choose” that path. What a smug response that indicates lack of awareness of the realities of other people’s lives.

DP here - I think it was more of a response to the poster calling us child brides for having a baby at 30.

You are a child bride. When did you marry?

I would hate for my daughters to waste their youth getting knocked up and being a servant to some bum in exchange for when they are 55 can be an empty Nestor. You can’t be 25 at 55.

To be honest if I was a widower at 70 and met a hot 42 year who wanted a kid I have another.

Didn't waste my youth. Got married at 22, first kid at 30, fully lived life before kids, once kids arrived and now really enjoying empty nesting in my early 50s. But have friends who had kids at 22, done by 24 and living life fully in their 40s without kids around. Either way, you do what works for you.


Also, my son or daughter are allowed to select what to do in life themselves.

+1. There are so many insecure people on DCUM. I would never attack someone for having a child at an age they deemed appropriate for them. I find that on DCUM women who had children at older ages seem to need to attack women who had children at younger ages. I never see this flipped unless someone is responding to a rude comment. Everything doesn't need to be endlessly picked over and compared and analyzed. We are all doing our best and because we are different people in different circumstances with different resources our best and how we even determine what our best is will be different but no one should feel superior or inferior to anyone based on the timing of when they had children.

Yes, you do what works for you. There are advantages to every scenario. I know people who had kids at 20/21. That is likely the "least attractive" solution to me. It typically means the woman quit college to raise the kid. Sometimes it means the guy did as well to have a job to support the family. The perks are that by time you are 40/42, your kids are out of the house and you are still able to travel and do so much. But the issue is, typically with that path, you struggled to get started and likely don't make as much as you would if you waited until 28-30 to have first kid.

28-30 for first kid is the "sweet spot" IMO. You can be done having them by 34/35 and empty nesters by 55. You were able to start your career (unless doctor or lawyer) and be well established, thus allowing you to stay at home for a bit, work PT, etc. With careers well established, you can afford to live a better life than someone at 22 having a kid and still retire/be empty nesters while still able to really enjoy life/be healthy.

35-40 for having kids, works just fine, but fact is you run risk of higher possibility for health issues with mom/baby. You will be 60 or so possibly older when your last kid exits the house after college. So you might need to work until 62/65 just because you have kids still under your care. At 65+ you might not be able to travel and do same things as if you were empty nesters at 55.

Pick whatever works for you. Life is too short to worry about others

35-40 is very very young to stop having kids. I had my last kid at 45. I am still a very very young Dad next to my friends having kids in their 50s.
Billy Joel has a six year old
Rod Stewart has a kid at 78
Al Pacino had a kid at 83

Steve Martin had his first kid at 67

Naomi Campbell naturally had a baby at 53 and Hillary Swank had a kid at 48. Brigitte Nielsen at 54

And retirement no longer exists. I heard yesterday the oldest muscian still performing started his band as a teen in the 1930s, He is 100 and still doing shows.

More power to you. We will absolutely be retiring at 55. Maybe sooner. We had our second and final child at 31.

No kid relate - but I busted my butt to get my first big job at 44. Why the heck would I throw it all away at 55 to sit home all day in a tiny shoebox when I downsize watching soap operas and reality TV waiting to die.

Instead I got a bigger job at 55. Was pretty exciting working on a two billion dollar project at a start up and seeing it through launch. So much that when it ended I did a second start up at 58. Finally at 61 my start up life ended and I decided I wanted to do something political in DC on the Hill. Which I am doing, exciting energy working on Capital Hill

My career was and is most exciting post 55.

I also bought a huge trade up home at 55 moving from 1,600 sf to 6,100 sf.

I am thinking maybe 63 I could try CEO or run for office.

Then I was thinking around 67 join a few boards.

Why be in a rush to die. I heard that retired men die with 5-7 years regardless of year you retire. Men who retire younger just die younger.

All the old men on my block work at least part time. My neighbor a psychologist works part time and had people over for Super Bowl at his 7,000 sf house and he is 90. Was he supposed to downsize and retire 35 years ago?

My last kid won’t be out till I am 70. I am not packing up a 6,100 sf house just to make some child brides happy. Until kids are married with kids thanksgiving, Xmas, graduations, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day all at my house.

Well spouse was in c suite from age 32+. Ceo at 43. By 52 had successfully manage to get two private equity owners companies sold. So been in those “exciting jobs” since late 20s. With $30m+, still working to possible get another $30-40m but mainly because they still live the job.

However, plans to cut back/retire in next 2-3 years.
We won’t be sitting at home in a shoebox. We will be going between our two homes, traveling monthly to explore the world and enjoying what we love.
At the level spouse is at, they will be able to consult/sit on boards as little or as much as they want for “retirement”

You are confusing money with work. I don’t work for the money. I work as I love work. I drive a used car and hardly spend money or travel. I work cause I like building things. Literally by Sunday around 3 pm every week am
miserable. Being trapped at home during Covid was like a prison camp. It was my own personal Vietnam. I still have PTSD from 2020-2022.

I think everyone who retired early should be rounded up and deported to work camps in third world counties to make the world a better place.

Why?!?!? If you want to work until you are near death, go for that. My spouse enjoys working---otherwise they wouldn't still be working full time---I think 30M is more than enough. But they are not ready to cut back yet, and more importantly have made a commitment to their employees to be around for another 3-4+ years and they value that commitment.

However, covid was not a Prison camp. We were not "trapped at home". sure work happened from home, but ultimately it meant no commute, so when we were not working we were fully engaged with the family.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is more of a finance question than a real estate or midlife one, so posting here.
What are you doing with your real estate options when you get to say 55, or when you are empty nesters? Are you downsizing? Moving to a TH? Aging in place? Keeping a larger home for family gatherings, grandkids? What’s your plan?

Is this post from 1975? Empty Nestor at 55 ready to retire?

That was back when my Uncles were cops and Firemen married HS sweethearts young and by 55 a full pension and kids long gone. Kids just went an inexpensive local college.

Today men and women are having kids much later. Their kids are having kids much later and college costs are insane.

When I was 55 I had a 16, 14 and 10 year old at home.

Hence the issue downsizing no longer works

My youngest graduates college when I am 67 and then wants to move home for grad school.

Then until they are married with kids I am still hosting holidays.

I thought I was an old parent but tons and tons parents my age at school.

My friend is 61 with a 13, 11 and 6 year old at home. Had last kid he was 55, wife 45.

55 year olds are still having kids and 25-30 years from retirement.

There are also plenty of people that age who become empty nesters, retire, and downsize.

Yup! Did have kid until almost 30, was done by 35, by 52 last kid was off to college.
Sold big family home and moved into our 2 bed/2bath condo in the city. Won't retire until kid is done with college but we could if we really wanted to, the money is ready and waiting

DOn't know about most people, but I don't want to be over 60 and still have kids on my payroll/supporting my kids because they are not yet out of college. So we chose not to have a kid at 40+

Also your body and your circumstances allowed you to “choose” that path. What a smug response that indicates lack of awareness of the realities of other people’s lives.

DP here - I think it was more of a response to the poster calling us child brides for having a baby at 30.

You are a child bride. When did you marry?

I would hate for my daughters to waste their youth getting knocked up and being a servant to some bum in exchange for when they are 55 can be an empty Nestor. You can’t be 25 at 55.

To be honest if I was a widower at 70 and met a hot 42 year who wanted a kid I have another.

Didn't waste my youth. Got married at 22, first kid at 30, fully lived life before kids, once kids arrived and now really enjoying empty nesting in my early 50s. But have friends who had kids at 22, done by 24 and living life fully in their 40s without kids around. Either way, you do what works for you.


Also, my son or daughter are allowed to select what to do in life themselves.

+1. There are so many insecure people on DCUM. I would never attack someone for having a child at an age they deemed appropriate for them. I find that on DCUM women who had children at older ages seem to need to attack women who had children at younger ages. I never see this flipped unless someone is responding to a rude comment. Everything doesn't need to be endlessly picked over and compared and analyzed. We are all doing our best and because we are different people in different circumstances with different resources our best and how we even determine what our best is will be different but no one should feel superior or inferior to anyone based on the timing of when they had children.

Yes, you do what works for you. There are advantages to every scenario. I know people who had kids at 20/21. That is likely the "least attractive" solution to me. It typically means the woman quit college to raise the kid. Sometimes it means the guy did as well to have a job to support the family. The perks are that by time you are 40/42, your kids are out of the house and you are still able to travel and do so much. But the issue is, typically with that path, you struggled to get started and likely don't make as much as you would if you waited until 28-30 to have first kid.

28-30 for first kid is the "sweet spot" IMO. You can be done having them by 34/35 and empty nesters by 55. You were able to start your career (unless doctor or lawyer) and be well established, thus allowing you to stay at home for a bit, work PT, etc. With careers well established, you can afford to live a better life than someone at 22 having a kid and still retire/be empty nesters while still able to really enjoy life/be healthy.

35-40 for having kids, works just fine, but fact is you run risk of higher possibility for health issues with mom/baby. You will be 60 or so possibly older when your last kid exits the house after college. So you might need to work until 62/65 just because you have kids still under your care. At 65+ you might not be able to travel and do same things as if you were empty nesters at 55.

Pick whatever works for you. Life is too short to worry about others

35-40 is very very young to stop having kids. I had my last kid at 45. I am still a very very young Dad next to my friends having kids in their 50s.
Billy Joel has a six year old
Rod Stewart has a kid at 78
Al Pacino had a kid at 83

Steve Martin had his first kid at 67

Naomi Campbell naturally had a baby at 53 and Hillary Swank had a kid at 48. Brigitte Nielsen at 54

And retirement no longer exists. I heard yesterday the oldest muscian still performing started his band as a teen in the 1930s, He is 100 and still doing shows.

It's not very young whatsoever. I don't know why you think it's a flex to be a 60-year old with a teenager, and yeah it's a lot worse having kids in your 50s.

You are listing a bunch of celebrities that I am sure you know are outsourcing nearly every facet of raising a kid, right? They have a FT nanny and housekeeper and lots of $$$s.

So, the moral of your story is to first get very rich (and probably famous)...and then just keep popping them out because it's not like you will be changing any diapers.

Agree with earlier PP. 35-40 is young to stop having kids. I had my second at 37. Most people I know are still having kids into their early 40s. I know one person with surprise twins at 45.

I won't have kids in college until my mid-50s. I don't suspect grandparenting will even begin before age 65. I think 70 is more likely.

The ones I know regret it and will tell their kids to start earlier and the twins are usually IVF babies which nobody thinks was a pleasant surprise.

My kids in my 30s were not planned. I was not planning them at all so I certainly would not have wanted them younger!!

My friend was one and done and shocked with twins at 45. She thought she was in menopause for missing a period. She was pregnant.

My great grandma had her last whoops baby at age 42 in the 1930s.

Most of my friends had their first kids ages 40-45. I had my first at 34 and was the youngest. Second surprise at 37.

Also, I don’t care about grandchildren. Irrelevant. Still telling my kids not to have kids until at least 30 at the youngest.

So, you are encouraging your kids to have kids younger than you or your friends. 30 is younger than when you had them and much younger than 40-45. You agree with me.

Sorry, your friend with twins at 45 won’t be super happy parenting 15 year olds at 60…not sure how or why you are trying to spin any of this. They will be the weird old people that everyone thinks are grandparents and ignores at social functions…or they will just be absent parents.

You will actually be an empty nester at 55…so again, your own circumstance is different.

I am encouraging my kids not to consider marriage or kids until at least age 30. I am also encouraging them to consider not having kids at at all. I don't think it is worth it for women now. I think it sucks. Old gender norms I can see advantages. Now, it sucks.

I could care less about the 45-year-old parent with twins born then. They did not plan it. Not like they wanted to be old. They did not want to abort. Most people I know who had first kids at 40-45 now have between 4 and 10 year olds and are very happy with their choice.

I know several people very glad they don't really have an "empty nest" stage. When kids leave they will be retiring rather than working 15-20 years with the "empty nest" thing.

The point is that there are a lot of people still having kids up to age 45 or so. It is not true that age 35-40 is old to have kids. Many, many people are having first kids then.

There are some people having kids up to age 45, probably more prominently in DCUM land, but not lots. Considering I live in Bethesda and have a 17 year old...there is only one set of parents 60+, with the vast majority around 50, and definitely more in late 40s than 60+. These are the younger siblings for the most part.

Nothing of what you says makes much sense. You know several people who are very glad that they will have to raise kids when they are old vs. enjoying their lives when they are still at an age when they can do so? What are they glad about? Are you implying they jet setted around the globe when they were 30 and delayed having kids?

DP everyone is different.

Some people want to be empty nesters sooner rather than later so they can go travel and do fun things in their 50s and 60s.

Some people traveled, worked abroad, and did fun things in their 20s and early 30s and didn't have their kids until their later 30s or 40s and welcome having kids at home in their 50s and 60s.

Some people are sad at any age when their kids age out of the house.

My mother used to say kids kept you young. Not everyone believes that but for some parents it's true.

Vive la difference.

[Anonymous]

We never "upsized," have been in our single family home for 25 years. No plans to move anytime soon. 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, not far outside the Beltway.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is more of a finance question than a real estate or midlife one, so posting here.
What are you doing with your real estate options when you get to say 55, or when you are empty nesters? Are you downsizing? Moving to a TH? Aging in place? Keeping a larger home for family gatherings, grandkids? What’s your plan?

Is this post from 1975? Empty Nestor at 55 ready to retire?

That was back when my Uncles were cops and Firemen married HS sweethearts young and by 55 a full pension and kids long gone. Kids just went an inexpensive local college.

Today men and women are having kids much later. Their kids are having kids much later and college costs are insane.

When I was 55 I had a 16, 14 and 10 year old at home.

Hence the issue downsizing no longer works

My youngest graduates college when I am 67 and then wants to move home for grad school.

Then until they are married with kids I am still hosting holidays.

I thought I was an old parent but tons and tons parents my age at school.

My friend is 61 with a 13, 11 and 6 year old at home. Had last kid he was 55, wife 45.

55 year olds are still having kids and 25-30 years from retirement.

There are also plenty of people that age who become empty nesters, retire, and downsize.

Yup! Did have kid until almost 30, was done by 35, by 52 last kid was off to college.
Sold big family home and moved into our 2 bed/2bath condo in the city. Won't retire until kid is done with college but we could if we really wanted to, the money is ready and waiting

DOn't know about most people, but I don't want to be over 60 and still have kids on my payroll/supporting my kids because they are not yet out of college. So we chose not to have a kid at 40+

Also your body and your circumstances allowed you to “choose” that path. What a smug response that indicates lack of awareness of the realities of other people’s lives.

DP here - I think it was more of a response to the poster calling us child brides for having a baby at 30.

You are a child bride. When did you marry?

I would hate for my daughters to waste their youth getting knocked up and being a servant to some bum in exchange for when they are 55 can be an empty Nestor. You can’t be 25 at 55.

To be honest if I was a widower at 70 and met a hot 42 year who wanted a kid I have another.

Didn't waste my youth. Got married at 22, first kid at 30, fully lived life before kids, once kids arrived and now really enjoying empty nesting in my early 50s. But have friends who had kids at 22, done by 24 and living life fully in their 40s without kids around. Either way, you do what works for you.


Also, my son or daughter are allowed to select what to do in life themselves.

+1. There are so many insecure people on DCUM. I would never attack someone for having a child at an age they deemed appropriate for them. I find that on DCUM women who had children at older ages seem to need to attack women who had children at younger ages. I never see this flipped unless someone is responding to a rude comment. Everything doesn't need to be endlessly picked over and compared and analyzed. We are all doing our best and because we are different people in different circumstances with different resources our best and how we even determine what our best is will be different but no one should feel superior or inferior to anyone based on the timing of when they had children.

Yes, you do what works for you. There are advantages to every scenario. I know people who had kids at 20/21. That is likely the "least attractive" solution to me. It typically means the woman quit college to raise the kid. Sometimes it means the guy did as well to have a job to support the family. The perks are that by time you are 40/42, your kids are out of the house and you are still able to travel and do so much. But the issue is, typically with that path, you struggled to get started and likely don't make as much as you would if you waited until 28-30 to have first kid.

28-30 for first kid is the "sweet spot" IMO. You can be done having them by 34/35 and empty nesters by 55. You were able to start your career (unless doctor or lawyer) and be well established, thus allowing you to stay at home for a bit, work PT, etc. With careers well established, you can afford to live a better life than someone at 22 having a kid and still retire/be empty nesters while still able to really enjoy life/be healthy.

35-40 for having kids, works just fine, but fact is you run risk of higher possibility for health issues with mom/baby. You will be 60 or so possibly older when your last kid exits the house after college. So you might need to work until 62/65 just because you have kids still under your care. At 65+ you might not be able to travel and do same things as if you were empty nesters at 55.

Pick whatever works for you. Life is too short to worry about others

35-40 is very very young to stop having kids. I had my last kid at 45. I am still a very very young Dad next to my friends having kids in their 50s.
Billy Joel has a six year old
Rod Stewart has a kid at 78
Al Pacino had a kid at 83

Steve Martin had his first kid at 67

Naomi Campbell naturally had a baby at 53 and Hillary Swank had a kid at 48. Brigitte Nielsen at 54

And retirement no longer exists. I heard yesterday the oldest muscian still performing started his band as a teen in the 1930s, He is 100 and still doing shows.

It's not very young whatsoever. I don't know why you think it's a flex to be a 60-year old with a teenager, and yeah it's a lot worse having kids in your 50s.

You are listing a bunch of celebrities that I am sure you know are outsourcing nearly every facet of raising a kid, right? They have a FT nanny and housekeeper and lots of $$$s.

So, the moral of your story is to first get very rich (and probably famous)...and then just keep popping them out because it's not like you will be changing any diapers.

Agree with earlier PP. 35-40 is young to stop having kids. I had my second at 37. Most people I know are still having kids into their early 40s. I know one person with surprise twins at 45.

I won't have kids in college until my mid-50s. I don't suspect grandparenting will even begin before age 65. I think 70 is more likely.

The ones I know regret it and will tell their kids to start earlier and the twins are usually IVF babies which nobody thinks was a pleasant surprise.

My kids in my 30s were not planned. I was not planning them at all so I certainly would not have wanted them younger!!

My friend was one and done and shocked with twins at 45. She thought she was in menopause for missing a period. She was pregnant.

My great grandma had her last whoops baby at age 42 in the 1930s.

Most of my friends had their first kids ages 40-45. I had my first at 34 and was the youngest. Second surprise at 37.

Also, I don’t care about grandchildren. Irrelevant. Still telling my kids not to have kids until at least 30 at the youngest.

So, you are encouraging your kids to have kids younger than you or your friends. 30 is younger than when you had them and much younger than 40-45. You agree with me.

Sorry, your friend with twins at 45 won’t be super happy parenting 15 year olds at 60…not sure how or why you are trying to spin any of this. They will be the weird old people that everyone thinks are grandparents and ignores at social functions…or they will just be absent parents.

You will actually be an empty nester at 55…so again, your own circumstance is different.

I am encouraging my kids not to consider marriage or kids until at least age 30. I am also encouraging them to consider not having kids at at all. I don't think it is worth it for women now. I think it sucks. Old gender norms I can see advantages. Now, it sucks.

I could care less about the 45-year-old parent with twins born then. They did not plan it. Not like they wanted to be old. They did not want to abort. Most people I know who had first kids at 40-45 now have between 4 and 10 year olds and are very happy with their choice.

I know several people very glad they don't really have an "empty nest" stage. When kids leave they will be retiring rather than working 15-20 years with the "empty nest" thing.

The point is that there are a lot of people still having kids up to age 45 or so. It is not true that age 35-40 is old to have kids. Many, many people are having first kids then.

There are some people having kids up to age 45, probably more prominently in DCUM land, but not lots. Considering I live in Bethesda and have a 17 year old...there is only one set of parents 60+, with the vast majority around 50, and definitely more in late 40s than 60+. These are the younger siblings for the most part.

Nothing of what you says makes much sense. You know several people who are very glad that they will have to raise kids when they are old vs. enjoying their lives when they are still at an age when they can do so? What are they glad about? Are you implying they jet setted around the globe when they were 30 and delayed having kids?

DP everyone is different.

Some people want to be empty nesters sooner rather than later so they can go travel and do fun things in their 50s and 60s.

Some people traveled, worked abroad, and did fun things in their 20s and early 30s and didn't have their kids until their later 30s or 40s and welcome having kids at home in their 50s and 60s.

Some people are sad at any age when their kids age out of the house.

My mother used to say kids kept you young. Not everyone believes that but for some parents it's true.

Vive la difference.

Of course, but still. My three kids will either be in college or out of college when I'm 55 and my husband is 61. I'm very happy about that. I spent my 20s living and working abroad for two years, attending grad school, becoming a certified yoga teacher on the side because I wanted to, etc. I had a great time but I didn't need to live that lifestyle for another decade before having children. I was able to have three children while rising through the ranks of corporate America. I've never wanted to leave the workforce so I could be a stay at home mom and from what I've seen having children in your 40s or 50s doesn't actually makes it easier to juggle work and life. If anything what I see is that there is a willingness to outsource every aspect of childcare whether it be night nurses from the get-go or weekend nannies or what have you. Parents in their 40s seem less capable of putting some of their personal needs aside to parent so they insulate themselves with an armada of nannies and babysitters. That's fine for - viva la difference - but I wouldn't want that. I also wouldn't want to be parenting kids in elementary school in my 50s. When I turn 50 my kids will be 14, 16, and 18. I can't imagine if when I turned 50 my kids were 5, 7, and 9. Seeing all of my peers shifting to the second part of their life when I knew that I'd be buying back to school supplies for 13 more years before dealing with college for four years. That would be tough.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is more of a finance question than a real estate or midlife one, so posting here.
What are you doing with your real estate options when you get to say 55, or when you are empty nesters? Are you downsizing? Moving to a TH? Aging in place? Keeping a larger home for family gatherings, grandkids? What’s your plan?

Is this post from 1975? Empty Nestor at 55 ready to retire?

That was back when my Uncles were cops and Firemen married HS sweethearts young and by 55 a full pension and kids long gone. Kids just went an inexpensive local college.

Today men and women are having kids much later. Their kids are having kids much later and college costs are insane.

When I was 55 I had a 16, 14 and 10 year old at home.

Hence the issue downsizing no longer works

My youngest graduates college when I am 67 and then wants to move home for grad school.

Then until they are married with kids I am still hosting holidays.

I thought I was an old parent but tons and tons parents my age at school.

My friend is 61 with a 13, 11 and 6 year old at home. Had last kid he was 55, wife 45.

55 year olds are still having kids and 25-30 years from retirement.

There are also plenty of people that age who become empty nesters, retire, and downsize.

Yup! Did have kid until almost 30, was done by 35, by 52 last kid was off to college.
Sold big family home and moved into our 2 bed/2bath condo in the city. Won't retire until kid is done with college but we could if we really wanted to, the money is ready and waiting

DOn't know about most people, but I don't want to be over 60 and still have kids on my payroll/supporting my kids because they are not yet out of college. So we chose not to have a kid at 40+

Also your body and your circumstances allowed you to “choose” that path. What a smug response that indicates lack of awareness of the realities of other people’s lives.

DP here - I think it was more of a response to the poster calling us child brides for having a baby at 30.

You are a child bride. When did you marry?

I would hate for my daughters to waste their youth getting knocked up and being a servant to some bum in exchange for when they are 55 can be an empty Nestor. You can’t be 25 at 55.

To be honest if I was a widower at 70 and met a hot 42 year who wanted a kid I have another.

Didn't waste my youth. Got married at 22, first kid at 30, fully lived life before kids, once kids arrived and now really enjoying empty nesting in my early 50s. But have friends who had kids at 22, done by 24 and living life fully in their 40s without kids around. Either way, you do what works for you.


Also, my son or daughter are allowed to select what to do in life themselves.

+1. There are so many insecure people on DCUM. I would never attack someone for having a child at an age they deemed appropriate for them. I find that on DCUM women who had children at older ages seem to need to attack women who had children at younger ages. I never see this flipped unless someone is responding to a rude comment. Everything doesn't need to be endlessly picked over and compared and analyzed. We are all doing our best and because we are different people in different circumstances with different resources our best and how we even determine what our best is will be different but no one should feel superior or inferior to anyone based on the timing of when they had children.

Yes, you do what works for you. There are advantages to every scenario. I know people who had kids at 20/21. That is likely the "least attractive" solution to me. It typically means the woman quit college to raise the kid. Sometimes it means the guy did as well to have a job to support the family. The perks are that by time you are 40/42, your kids are out of the house and you are still able to travel and do so much. But the issue is, typically with that path, you struggled to get started and likely don't make as much as you would if you waited until 28-30 to have first kid.

28-30 for first kid is the "sweet spot" IMO. You can be done having them by 34/35 and empty nesters by 55. You were able to start your career (unless doctor or lawyer) and be well established, thus allowing you to stay at home for a bit, work PT, etc. With careers well established, you can afford to live a better life than someone at 22 having a kid and still retire/be empty nesters while still able to really enjoy life/be healthy.

35-40 for having kids, works just fine, but fact is you run risk of higher possibility for health issues with mom/baby. You will be 60 or so possibly older when your last kid exits the house after college. So you might need to work until 62/65 just because you have kids still under your care. At 65+ you might not be able to travel and do same things as if you were empty nesters at 55.

Pick whatever works for you. Life is too short to worry about others

35-40 is very very young to stop having kids. I had my last kid at 45. I am still a very very young Dad next to my friends having kids in their 50s.
Billy Joel has a six year old
Rod Stewart has a kid at 78
Al Pacino had a kid at 83

Steve Martin had his first kid at 67

Naomi Campbell naturally had a baby at 53 and Hillary Swank had a kid at 48. Brigitte Nielsen at 54

And retirement no longer exists. I heard yesterday the oldest muscian still performing started his band as a teen in the 1930s, He is 100 and still doing shows.

It's not very young whatsoever. I don't know why you think it's a flex to be a 60-year old with a teenager, and yeah it's a lot worse having kids in your 50s.

You are listing a bunch of celebrities that I am sure you know are outsourcing nearly every facet of raising a kid, right? They have a FT nanny and housekeeper and lots of $$$s.

So, the moral of your story is to first get very rich (and probably famous)...and then just keep popping them out because it's not like you will be changing any diapers.

Agree with earlier PP. 35-40 is young to stop having kids. I had my second at 37. Most people I know are still having kids into their early 40s. I know one person with surprise twins at 45.

I won't have kids in college until my mid-50s. I don't suspect grandparenting will even begin before age 65. I think 70 is more likely.

The ones I know regret it and will tell their kids to start earlier and the twins are usually IVF babies which nobody thinks was a pleasant surprise.

My kids in my 30s were not planned. I was not planning them at all so I certainly would not have wanted them younger!!

My friend was one and done and shocked with twins at 45. She thought she was in menopause for missing a period. She was pregnant.

My great grandma had her last whoops baby at age 42 in the 1930s.

Most of my friends had their first kids ages 40-45. I had my first at 34 and was the youngest. Second surprise at 37.

Also, I don’t care about grandchildren. Irrelevant. Still telling my kids not to have kids until at least 30 at the youngest.

So, you are encouraging your kids to have kids younger than you or your friends. 30 is younger than when you had them and much younger than 40-45. You agree with me.

Sorry, your friend with twins at 45 won’t be super happy parenting 15 year olds at 60…not sure how or why you are trying to spin any of this. They will be the weird old people that everyone thinks are grandparents and ignores at social functions…or they will just be absent parents.

You will actually be an empty nester at 55…so again, your own circumstance is different.

I am encouraging my kids not to consider marriage or kids until at least age 30. I am also encouraging them to consider not having kids at at all. I don't think it is worth it for women now. I think it sucks. Old gender norms I can see advantages. Now, it sucks.

I could care less about the 45-year-old parent with twins born then. They did not plan it. Not like they wanted to be old. They did not want to abort. Most people I know who had first kids at 40-45 now have between 4 and 10 year olds and are very happy with their choice.

I know several people very glad they don't really have an "empty nest" stage. When kids leave they will be retiring rather than working 15-20 years with the "empty nest" thing.

The point is that there are a lot of people still having kids up to age 45 or so. It is not true that age 35-40 is old to have kids. Many, many people are having first kids then.

There are some people having kids up to age 45, probably more prominently in DCUM land, but not lots. Considering I live in Bethesda and have a 17 year old...there is only one set of parents 60+, with the vast majority around 50, and definitely more in late 40s than 60+. These are the younger siblings for the most part.

Nothing of what you says makes much sense. You know several people who are very glad that they will have to raise kids when they are old vs. enjoying their lives when they are still at an age when they can do so? What are they glad about? Are you implying they jet setted around the globe when they were 30 and delayed having kids?

DP everyone is different.

Some people want to be empty nesters sooner rather than later so they can go travel and do fun things in their 50s and 60s.

Some people traveled, worked abroad, and did fun things in their 20s and early 30s and didn't have their kids until their later 30s or 40s and welcome having kids at home in their 50s and 60s.

Some people are sad at any age when their kids age out of the house.

My mother used to say kids kept you young. Not everyone believes that but for some parents it's true.

Vive la difference.

Of course, but still. My three kids will either be in college or out of college when I'm 55 and my husband is 61. I'm very happy about that. I spent my 20s living and working abroad for two years, attending grad school, becoming a certified yoga teacher on the side because I wanted to, etc. I had a great time but I didn't need to live that lifestyle for another decade before having children. I was able to have three children while rising through the ranks of corporate America. I've never wanted to leave the workforce so I could be a stay at home mom and from what I've seen having children in your 40s or 50s doesn't actually makes it easier to juggle work and life. If anything what I see is that there is a willingness to outsource every aspect of childcare whether it be night nurses from the get-go or weekend nannies or what have you. Parents in their 40s seem less capable of putting some of their personal needs aside to parent so they insulate themselves with an armada of nannies and babysitters. That's fine for - viva la difference - but I wouldn't want that. I also wouldn't want to be parenting kids in elementary school in my 50s. When I turn 50 my kids will be 14, 16, and 18. I can't imagine if when I turned 50 my kids were 5, 7, and 9. Seeing all of my peers shifting to the second part of their life when I knew that I'd be buying back to school supplies for 13 more years before dealing with college for four years. That would be tough.

For you it would have been tough. For others it's not.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is more of a finance question than a real estate or midlife one, so posting here.
What are you doing with your real estate options when you get to say 55, or when you are empty nesters? Are you downsizing? Moving to a TH? Aging in place? Keeping a larger home for family gatherings, grandkids? What’s your plan?

Is this post from 1975? Empty Nestor at 55 ready to retire?

That was back when my Uncles were cops and Firemen married HS sweethearts young and by 55 a full pension and kids long gone. Kids just went an inexpensive local college.

Today men and women are having kids much later. Their kids are having kids much later and college costs are insane.

When I was 55 I had a 16, 14 and 10 year old at home.

Hence the issue downsizing no longer works

My youngest graduates college when I am 67 and then wants to move home for grad school.

Then until they are married with kids I am still hosting holidays.

I thought I was an old parent but tons and tons parents my age at school.

My friend is 61 with a 13, 11 and 6 year old at home. Had last kid he was 55, wife 45.

55 year olds are still having kids and 25-30 years from retirement.

There are also plenty of people that age who become empty nesters, retire, and downsize.

Yup! Did have kid until almost 30, was done by 35, by 52 last kid was off to college.
Sold big family home and moved into our 2 bed/2bath condo in the city. Won't retire until kid is done with college but we could if we really wanted to, the money is ready and waiting

DOn't know about most people, but I don't want to be over 60 and still have kids on my payroll/supporting my kids because they are not yet out of college. So we chose not to have a kid at 40+

Also your body and your circumstances allowed you to “choose” that path. What a smug response that indicates lack of awareness of the realities of other people’s lives.

DP here - I think it was more of a response to the poster calling us child brides for having a baby at 30.

You are a child bride. When did you marry?

I would hate for my daughters to waste their youth getting knocked up and being a servant to some bum in exchange for when they are 55 can be an empty Nestor. You can’t be 25 at 55.

To be honest if I was a widower at 70 and met a hot 42 year who wanted a kid I have another.

Didn't waste my youth. Got married at 22, first kid at 30, fully lived life before kids, once kids arrived and now really enjoying empty nesting in my early 50s. But have friends who had kids at 22, done by 24 and living life fully in their 40s without kids around. Either way, you do what works for you.


Also, my son or daughter are allowed to select what to do in life themselves.

+1. There are so many insecure people on DCUM. I would never attack someone for having a child at an age they deemed appropriate for them. I find that on DCUM women who had children at older ages seem to need to attack women who had children at younger ages. I never see this flipped unless someone is responding to a rude comment. Everything doesn't need to be endlessly picked over and compared and analyzed. We are all doing our best and because we are different people in different circumstances with different resources our best and how we even determine what our best is will be different but no one should feel superior or inferior to anyone based on the timing of when they had children.

Yes, you do what works for you. There are advantages to every scenario. I know people who had kids at 20/21. That is likely the "least attractive" solution to me. It typically means the woman quit college to raise the kid. Sometimes it means the guy did as well to have a job to support the family. The perks are that by time you are 40/42, your kids are out of the house and you are still able to travel and do so much. But the issue is, typically with that path, you struggled to get started and likely don't make as much as you would if you waited until 28-30 to have first kid.

28-30 for first kid is the "sweet spot" IMO. You can be done having them by 34/35 and empty nesters by 55. You were able to start your career (unless doctor or lawyer) and be well established, thus allowing you to stay at home for a bit, work PT, etc. With careers well established, you can afford to live a better life than someone at 22 having a kid and still retire/be empty nesters while still able to really enjoy life/be healthy.

35-40 for having kids, works just fine, but fact is you run risk of higher possibility for health issues with mom/baby. You will be 60 or so possibly older when your last kid exits the house after college. So you might need to work until 62/65 just because you have kids still under your care. At 65+ you might not be able to travel and do same things as if you were empty nesters at 55.

Pick whatever works for you. Life is too short to worry about others

35-40 is very very young to stop having kids. I had my last kid at 45. I am still a very very young Dad next to my friends having kids in their 50s.
Billy Joel has a six year old
Rod Stewart has a kid at 78
Al Pacino had a kid at 83

Steve Martin had his first kid at 67

Naomi Campbell naturally had a baby at 53 and Hillary Swank had a kid at 48. Brigitte Nielsen at 54

And retirement no longer exists. I heard yesterday the oldest muscian still performing started his band as a teen in the 1930s, He is 100 and still doing shows.

It's not very young whatsoever. I don't know why you think it's a flex to be a 60-year old with a teenager, and yeah it's a lot worse having kids in your 50s.

You are listing a bunch of celebrities that I am sure you know are outsourcing nearly every facet of raising a kid, right? They have a FT nanny and housekeeper and lots of $$$s.

So, the moral of your story is to first get very rich (and probably famous)...and then just keep popping them out because it's not like you will be changing any diapers.

Agree with earlier PP. 35-40 is young to stop having kids. I had my second at 37. Most people I know are still having kids into their early 40s. I know one person with surprise twins at 45.

I won't have kids in college until my mid-50s. I don't suspect grandparenting will even begin before age 65. I think 70 is more likely.

The ones I know regret it and will tell their kids to start earlier and the twins are usually IVF babies which nobody thinks was a pleasant surprise.

My kids in my 30s were not planned. I was not planning them at all so I certainly would not have wanted them younger!!

My friend was one and done and shocked with twins at 45. She thought she was in menopause for missing a period. She was pregnant.

My great grandma had her last whoops baby at age 42 in the 1930s.

Most of my friends had their first kids ages 40-45. I had my first at 34 and was the youngest. Second surprise at 37.

Also, I don’t care about grandchildren. Irrelevant. Still telling my kids not to have kids until at least 30 at the youngest.

So, you are encouraging your kids to have kids younger than you or your friends. 30 is younger than when you had them and much younger than 40-45. You agree with me.

Sorry, your friend with twins at 45 won’t be super happy parenting 15 year olds at 60…not sure how or why you are trying to spin any of this. They will be the weird old people that everyone thinks are grandparents and ignores at social functions…or they will just be absent parents.

You will actually be an empty nester at 55…so again, your own circumstance is different.

I am encouraging my kids not to consider marriage or kids until at least age 30. I am also encouraging them to consider not having kids at at all. I don't think it is worth it for women now. I think it sucks. Old gender norms I can see advantages. Now, it sucks.

I could care less about the 45-year-old parent with twins born then. They did not plan it. Not like they wanted to be old. They did not want to abort. Most people I know who had first kids at 40-45 now have between 4 and 10 year olds and are very happy with their choice.

I know several people very glad they don't really have an "empty nest" stage. When kids leave they will be retiring rather than working 15-20 years with the "empty nest" thing.

The point is that there are a lot of people still having kids up to age 45 or so. It is not true that age 35-40 is old to have kids. Many, many people are having first kids then.

There are some people having kids up to age 45, probably more prominently in DCUM land, but not lots. Considering I live in Bethesda and have a 17 year old...there is only one set of parents 60+, with the vast majority around 50, and definitely more in late 40s than 60+. These are the younger siblings for the most part.

Nothing of what you says makes much sense. You know several people who are very glad that they will have to raise kids when they are old vs. enjoying their lives when they are still at an age when they can do so? What are they glad about? Are you implying they jet setted around the globe when they were 30 and delayed having kids?

DP everyone is different.

Some people want to be empty nesters sooner rather than later so they can go travel and do fun things in their 50s and 60s.

Some people traveled, worked abroad, and did fun things in their 20s and early 30s and didn't have their kids until their later 30s or 40s and welcome having kids at home in their 50s and 60s.

Some people are sad at any age when their kids age out of the house.

My mother used to say kids kept you young. Not everyone believes that but for some parents it's true.

Vive la difference.

Of course, but still. My three kids will either be in college or out of college when I'm 55 and my husband is 61. I'm very happy about that. I spent my 20s living and working abroad for two years, attending grad school, becoming a certified yoga teacher on the side because I wanted to, etc. I had a great time but I didn't need to live that lifestyle for another decade before having children. I was able to have three children while rising through the ranks of corporate America. I've never wanted to leave the workforce so I could be a stay at home mom and from what I've seen having children in your 40s or 50s doesn't actually makes it easier to juggle work and life. If anything what I see is that there is a willingness to outsource every aspect of childcare whether it be night nurses from the get-go or weekend nannies or what have you. Parents in their 40s seem less capable of putting some of their personal needs aside to parent so they insulate themselves with an armada of nannies and babysitters. That's fine for - viva la difference - but I wouldn't want that. I also wouldn't want to be parenting kids in elementary school in my 50s. When I turn 50 my kids will be 14, 16, and 18. I can't imagine if when I turned 50 my kids were 5, 7, and 9. Seeing all of my peers shifting to the second part of their life when I knew that I'd be buying back to school supplies for 13 more years before dealing with college for four years. That would be tough.

For you it would have been tough. For others it's not.

+1. You are clearly projecting your own biases and feelings on to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We never "upsized," have been in our single family home for 25 years. No plans to move anytime soon. 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, not far outside the Beltway.

I think that is the perfect-sized house for the average family if you can find one that is affordable in your area. We went bigger due to lack of inventory and, post-pandemic, feels like too much house.