People with $5M+ NW, why do you still choose to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Women should not be having kids over the age of 35.

Or what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s weird that so many are working for generational wealth. Future generations will not know you or care about you, and your money will be gone quicker than you can imagine.

Not trying to be a jerk, but every wealth study shows that large inheritances are quickly separated and spent by indulged kids who didn’t work for the money, don’t understand how to make it, and feel undermined by it.

Think about it: if most people work because it’s a necessity and later because they’re good at something, a big inheritance just stops many from even trying.

This isn’t to say that you can’t help your kids, but doing everything for them and your grandchildren before they even try isn’t really a gift; it’s about you showing them how great you are.

We have two children. One will blow through the inheritance and the other will save every penny of it. I like the idea of the one who spends to at least have a home that’s paid for. They make enough to support themselves but spend every extra dollar they have. The saver will end up with a nice home and create even more generational wealth. Raised them the same but boy did they turn out differently.

Have you talked to your estate lawyer about this? There are ways you could structure the inheritance to make it so the spender can't blow it all. Like, say he only gets the income from the trust until a certain age after which he can only take a certain amount of principal out per age, or give him the ability to disperse the income but put a corporate or other independent trustee in charge of the principal distributions.

+1

With a trust, you can document how it can be used, and ensure it's not wasted away. Even put what it can and cannot be used for.

You can, but you need to have a trustee you trust a lot to manage this for many years. It is much more complex than just giving the money to children, it costs money, there are tax consequences, etc. Most people should try to control the future less from the grave. My parent left a single complex instruction in their will to generation skip an asset, and it means that I have to maintain a trust ownership for the rest of my life jointly with siblings. It's going to cost money and time, and I have to work with the other trust holders on every decision and deal with taxes separately. It definitely complicates holding these assets more than the parent probably thought it would.

This is true BUT typically assets can be divided into separate trusts for descendants. For example my siblings each have our own trusts and are our own trustees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

Sorry you didn’t get to enjoy your youth and now like to be smug towards women who had children later

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

+1

Everyone gets to choose, but then you must live with the consequences of your choices. Having at kid at45 means you are 67 when they graduate college. If you live to see grandkids, you might not be able to actually do much physically with them.

But being in your early 50s and kids out of college is awesome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

I had my last child at 40 and live is still great now at 55. Even if I had a 5 year old at home today, my live would still be great.
I don't know what you are talking about.

Well I'm 55, healthy and active, but no way would I be happy about having to chase a 5 year old around at this age. I enjoyed my last year where I spent over 140 days on the road traveling the world. I cannot imagine having to be at home with a young kid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

Sorry you didn’t get to enjoy your youth and now like to be smug towards women who had children later

DP: Had first kid at 29, 2nd at 34. I got to enjoy my youth (married at 22). And now get to enjoy retirement at 55 with way more than $5M to spend

Everyone can do what works for them. But fact remains the older you are the more risks of complications for mom and kids. And the fact you might still need to be working at 65+ because you still have kids in college/needing insurance/etc.
And fact that you might not be around to enjoy your kids getting married and having grand kids.

[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:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

I had my last child at 40 and live is still great now at 55. Even if I had a 5 year old at home today, my live would still be great.
I don't know what you are talking about.

Well I'm 55, healthy and active, but no way would I be happy about having to chase a 5 year old around at this age. I enjoyed my last year where I spent over 140 days on the road traveling the world. I cannot imagine having to be at home with a young kid

As someone who had children young and plans to retire early, I find your post smug and insufferable.

[Anonymous]

Damn, this thread took a turn. Dear god some of you are really awful. Smug and insufferable nails it.

[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:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

I had my last child at 40 and live is still great now at 55. Even if I had a 5 year old at home today, my live would still be great.
I don't know what you are talking about.

Well I'm 55, healthy and active, but no way would I be happy about having to chase a 5 year old around at this age. I enjoyed my last year where I spent over 140 days on the road traveling the world. I cannot imagine having to be at home with a young kid

As someone who had children young and plans to retire early, I find your post smug and insufferable.

So don't read it.

Was just stating my opinion that I wouldn't want to be chasing a 5 year old around as my job at this age on a daily basis. And yes, I'd rather be traveling the world.
Not sure why my opinion bothers you so much

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

+1

Everyone gets to choose, but then you must live with the consequences of your choices. Having at kid at45 means you are 67 when they graduate college. If you live to see grandkids, you might not be able to actually do much physically with them.

But being in your early 50s and kids out of college is awesome.

Having kids at 45 for some people means they lived an amazing life before the age of 45 that you, who were raising kids, did not live at all. They lived this life in their 20s and 30s unencumbered by responsibilities, which is not even close to the same experience as being in your early 50s with an empty nest. It's just different. I would ask yourself why you are so committed to being convinced your way is the best and the "consequences of your choices" are the correct path. In my experience, only insecure people feel the need to think this way. YMMV.

And no, I didn't have my kids at 45 or anywhere close so no need to lob that insult. Just humble enough to realize there a lot of ways to live a life and many pros and cons to all the lives.

[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:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

+1

Everyone gets to choose, but then you must live with the consequences of your choices. Having at kid at45 means you are 67 when they graduate college. If you live to see grandkids, you might not be able to actually do much physically with them.

But being in your early 50s and kids out of college is awesome.

Having kids at 45 for some people means they lived an amazing life before the age of 45 that you, who were raising kids, did not live at all. They lived this life in their 20s and 30s unencumbered by responsibilities, which is not even close to the same experience as being in your early 50s with an empty nest. It's just different. I would ask yourself why you are so committed to being convinced your way is the best and the "consequences of your choices" are the correct path. In my experience, only insecure people feel the need to think this way. YMMV.

And no, I didn't have my kids at 45 or anywhere close so no need to lob that insult. Just humble enough to realize there a lot of ways to live a life and many pros and cons to all the lives.

So you do you. Whatever people want to do is fine with me. But I'm still allowed to have opinions on what I'd like to do.

I also know people who had kids at age 20 and were grandparents by 42. I agree it's just a different way of life, but one I wouldn't personally choose for myself. Because I watched that option---the dad had to quit college after AA degree and keep a job to raise the family. Met him at a large company where he was doing well. But he was definitely held back/restricted from not having his 4 year degree (for no reason other than that---he could do the work and was excellent). So his career suffered as well, had he been able to finish college he would have advanced faster and more easily for the next 30+ years. People with a 4 year degree at the same age as him were definitely way ahead in terms of their positions (this company had 15-20 levels at both Technical and management, and it was well known how long you typically last at each level---he was at the high end or above many time simply because the lack of college degree)

[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:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.

Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.

Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.

65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.

It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.

whatever. i had my kid at 47. it's fine. happier to have had them late than not at all. we're only at $3M liquid net, so will probably work for another decade or so.

Except having a kid at age 47 means a significantly higher chance of health issues for the kid. Anything over 35 means an increased risk, but over 40 is much higher. So yeah, it's not really the best idea to have a kid at 40+

Can you imagine saying this to someone in real life? That they shouldn’t have had their already-born children so late?

I have said something similar to friends in real life. A good friend was trying for her first in her 40s. We talked about how difficult it would be to raise that child and how not getting pregnant may be a blessing. She did get pregnant and baby and she are healthy. And she is also aware of the potential struggles that younger moms dont face. Her parents were older and both passed when she was in college, so its surprising to me that she made this choice knowing she will likely die before they reach full adult age.

You see posts on here all the time about women who are exhausted, suffering health issues, having marital problems, having life problems and then it comes out that they are 49 and have a 3 year old and its like, well yeah, duh. Your life stage is not compatible to being a mother of young kids. With lots of money you can alleviate the struggle. But it should be discussed and explained. Women in their 40s should generally not be encouraged to give birth.

I know this is off topic, sorry OP!

You sound jealous.

Where did you read jealousy? I'm PP and had my last child at age 30. I am now close to retirement and empty nest at nearing 50. Live is great. I feel bad for women who didnt have children younger.

+1

Everyone gets to choose, but then you must live with the consequences of your choices. Having at kid at45 means you are 67 when they graduate college. If you live to see grandkids, you might not be able to actually do much physically with them.

But being in your early 50s and kids out of college is awesome.

Having kids at 45 for some people means they lived an amazing life before the age of 45 that you, who were raising kids, did not live at all. They lived this life in their 20s and 30s unencumbered by responsibilities, which is not even close to the same experience as being in your early 50s with an empty nest. It's just different. I would ask yourself why you are so committed to being convinced your way is the best and the "consequences of your choices" are the correct path. In my experience, only insecure people feel the need to think this way. YMMV.

And no, I didn't have my kids at 45 or anywhere close so no need to lob that insult. Just humble enough to realize there a lot of ways to live a life and many pros and cons to all the lives.

So you do you. Whatever people want to do is fine with me. But I'm still allowed to have opinions on what I'd like to do.

I also know people who had kids at age 20 and were grandparents by 42. I agree it's just a different way of life, but one I wouldn't personally choose for myself. Because I watched that option---the dad had to quit college after AA degree and keep a job to raise the family. Met him at a large company where he was doing well. But he was definitely held back/restricted from not having his 4 year degree (for no reason other than that---he could do the work and was excellent). So his career suffered as well, had he been able to finish college he would have advanced faster and more easily for the next 30+ years. People with a 4 year degree at the same age as him were definitely way ahead in terms of their positions (this company had 15-20 levels at both Technical and management, and it was well known how long you typically last at each level---he was at the high end or above many time simply because the lack of college degree)

Of course you're allowed to have opinions on what you want to do. What you should not do is crap on other people's life choices when you have no idea what the actual hell you are talking about. Again, humble yourself that you do not know everything and have not experienced everything.

And no, your hard to follow babble that I think is a story about someone who was held back professionally from having kids too young, does not make the point that YOU did everything right and OTHER people are wrong. It's just some bad story about one person.

[Anonymous]

To borrow a quote from good old Rumsfeld, why we still work:

You’ve got your knowns. Then you’ve got your known unknowns. Then you’ve got your unknown unknowns.

Basically, we just don’t know what’s coming politically, with AI, with climate change, with global pandemics. We just don’t know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To borrow a quote from good old Rumsfeld, why we still work:

You’ve got your knowns. Then you’ve got your known unknowns. Then you’ve got your unknown unknowns.

Basically, we just don’t know what’s coming politically, with AI, with climate change, with global pandemics. We just don’t know.

Here’s the quote. And it’s funny the way he says it but it’s how I feel!

https://youtu.be/REWeBzGuzCc?si=P-ojhaJ51hQe5rk6