Early thirties couples what are your finances like?

[Anonymous]

30 and 31. HHI $180k. $30k 401k. $8k savings. Own a home but we’re paying $3,200 monthly rent until last year. $40k student loan and $300 car payment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’re both 35. HHI 180k, 75k in student Loans. 5k savings. 2 kids. 80k TSP. 150k home equity.

I know we’re behind on retirement by a lot.

No you are normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re both 35. HHI 180k, 75k in student Loans. 5k savings. 2 kids. 80k TSP. 150k home equity.

I know we’re behind on retirement by a lot.

No you are normal.

Unfortunately I think you are both correct - both a bit behind ($40k per person at age 35) and a bit typical / normal unfortunately despite the conclusions one might come to about what is average / typical reading this board

[Anonymous]

28 and 30. HHI about $475k plus bonuses. Savings 100k, 401ks 70k. Student loans 200k. Paying those off about $3k/month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Delay instant gratification. This includes kids. I really can't stress this enough.

We didn't start having kids until our late 30s because we wanted to purchase a house, whittle away my students loans (still not paid off but the end is in sight), get our retirement investments on the right track, and get a few big promotions.

We are now in a great place to start a small family. The first child will be born this fall. We'll take 6-12 months with the first kid and re-assess.

Again, delay that instant gratification. This economy is unforgiving if you don't have a tech job with crazy salary+benefits or family money.

This is very bad advice and could lead to a lot of heartache. Yes, some people find themselves easily able to get pregnant in their late 30's, but this is NOT true for many people. Do not delay having children if you would like to have children.

+1. The first was easy at age 34. The second at age 38 involved medications, several IUIs, money, a couple chemical pregnancies, a lot of tears, stress and heartache. IVF would have been considerably more money, medications, and stress. Before I went through this, I had no idea what it's like to struggle with infertility and I was lucky in that I already has one child. I also wish we had started earlier as we would have figured it out.

I did IVF and would do it again in a heartbeat if it meant not having student loans in my 40s or not being able to retire. Some of you guys without enough in retirement and still making large SL payments later in life are in for a rude awakening. When you’re working at 70 all of a sudden some IVF shots won’t seem so bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Delay instant gratification. This includes kids. I really can't stress this enough.

We didn't start having kids until our late 30s because we wanted to purchase a house, whittle away my students loans (still not paid off but the end is in sight), get our retirement investments on the right track, and get a few big promotions.

We are now in a great place to start a small family. The first child will be born this fall. We'll take 6-12 months with the first kid and re-assess.

Again, delay that instant gratification. This economy is unforgiving if you don't have a tech job with crazy salary+benefits or family money.

Having kids earlier for us has helped us. Was done by late 20s. I'm the mom, no interruption is work (been maxing out 401k since age 23).

Oldest kid is 12, youngest 10. Now I'm 38, full career swing, no need for daycare anymore. Last kid off to college when were 46 and career is at its highest.

Frankly I'd not want to have the expense of daycare when I'm in my 40s. Without that, were saving (excluding retirement) 10k/mo.

Combined 401k , approx 750k, savings/investments 480k and we've been homeowners 12 years, on our 3rd and final house for the next 10 years with 50% equity.

It also was helpful we didn't go to grad school and didn't have student loans (state school)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re both 35. HHI 180k, 75k in student Loans. 5k savings. 2 kids. 80k TSP. 150k home equity.

I know we’re behind on retirement by a lot.

No you are normal.

Unfortunately I think you are both correct - both a bit behind ($40k per person at age 35) and a bit typical / normal unfortunately despite the conclusions one might come to about what is average / typical reading this board

Hmmm, you seem way behind. DH is 35 and I'm 33, he has $230k in his TSP and I have $200k. I think were a little behind. We have two kids and $3k in student loans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Delay instant gratification. This includes kids. I really can't stress this enough.

We didn't start having kids until our late 30s because we wanted to purchase a house, whittle away my students loans (still not paid off but the end is in sight), get our retirement investments on the right track, and get a few big promotions.

We are now in a great place to start a small family. The first child will be born this fall. We'll take 6-12 months with the first kid and re-assess.

Again, delay that instant gratification. This economy is unforgiving if you don't have a tech job with crazy salary+benefits or family money.

Having kids earlier for us has helped us. Was done by late 20s. I'm the mom, no interruption is work (been maxing out 401k since age 23).

Oldest kid is 12, youngest 10. Now I'm 38, full career swing, no need for daycare anymore. Last kid off to college when were 46 and career is at its highest.

Frankly I'd not want to have the expense of daycare when I'm in my 40s. Without that, were saving (excluding retirement) 10k/mo.

Combined 401k , approx 750k, savings/investments 480k and we've been homeowners 12 years, on our 3rd and final house for the next 10 years with 50% equity.

It also was helpful we didn't go to grad school and didn't have student loans (state school)

This is a major reason to delay having kids - not even being able to take a break in work. In your 20s you’re having to climb and prove yourself. It’s so much easier to wait until you’re older and at a point in a career where you have a lot of saved leave and can take a decent amount of time off for each kid. I can’t even imagine being use in my 20s.

PP sounds lower class. State schools, no grad school, kids in their 20s, thinks 750k in a 401k is something to brag about.

You’re doing a huge disservice trying to convince women that they should have kids early. Having children absolutely affects a woman’s future earnings. It helps a man’s career but not a woman’s career. Sounds like you are an exception, but this is hardly the norm.

[Anonymous]

We are 33 and 34. Our HHI base salary is $350,000, and we typically receive $90,000-$125,000 in bonuses between the two of us each year on top of the base.

We own our home - bought five years ago for about $450K (we live in a lower COL city than DC). We have a couple hundred thousand dollars saved between investments and retirement accounts. Our student loans will be paid off in the next year and a half, which will significantly free up income each month (our payments are essentially a second mortgage). Our children are very small, so we also spend nearly $5,000 a month on a nanny and preschool. After we get through the little kid years and clear our student loans, we will be able to aggressively save for retirement and college, and also do some home improvements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Delay instant gratification. This includes kids. I really can't stress this enough.

We didn't start having kids until our late 30s because we wanted to purchase a house, whittle away my students loans (still not paid off but the end is in sight), get our retirement investments on the right track, and get a few big promotions.

We are now in a great place to start a small family. The first child will be born this fall. We'll take 6-12 months with the first kid and re-assess.

Again, delay that instant gratification. This economy is unforgiving if you don't have a tech job with crazy salary+benefits or family money.

Having kids earlier for us has helped us. Was done by late 20s. I'm the mom, no interruption is work (been maxing out 401k since age 23).

Oldest kid is 12, youngest 10. Now I'm 38, full career swing, no need for daycare anymore. Last kid off to college when were 46 and career is at its highest.

Frankly I'd not want to have the expense of daycare when I'm in my 40s. Without that, were saving (excluding retirement) 10k/mo.

Combined 401k , approx 750k, savings/investments 480k and we've been homeowners 12 years, on our 3rd and final house for the next 10 years with 50% equity.

It also was helpful we didn't go to grad school and didn't have student loans (state school)

This is a major reason to delay having kids - not even being able to take a break in work. In your 20s you’re having to climb and prove yourself. It’s so much easier to wait until you’re older and at a point in a career where you have a lot of saved leave and can take a decent amount of time off for each kid. I can’t even imagine being use in my 20s.

PP sounds lower class. State schools, no grad school, kids in their 20s, thinks 750k in a 401k is something to brag about.

You’re doing a huge disservice trying to convince women that they should have kids early. Having children absolutely affects a woman’s future earnings. It helps a man’s career but not a woman’s career. Sounds like you are an exception, but this is hardly the norm.

LOL it’s not a “disservice” to anyone to point out that for some people having children younger may be the better option. It was for me, and I did go to a top tier undergrad and grad program, on scholarship no less. So that solved the student loan problem. And it’s not “lower class” to go to state schools and avoid graduate school. My husband did so and makes more than I do (and has been an equal partner as far as shouldering the burden of having kids). You sound like a snob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Delay instant gratification. This includes kids. I really can't stress this enough.

We didn't start having kids until our late 30s because we wanted to purchase a house, whittle away my students loans (still not paid off but the end is in sight), get our retirement investments on the right track, and get a few big promotions.

We are now in a great place to start a small family. The first child will be born this fall. We'll take 6-12 months with the first kid and re-assess.

Again, delay that instant gratification. This economy is unforgiving if you don't have a tech job with crazy salary+benefits or family money.

Having kids earlier for us has helped us. Was done by late 20s. I'm the mom, no interruption is work (been maxing out 401k since age 23).

Oldest kid is 12, youngest 10. Now I'm 38, full career swing, no need for daycare anymore. Last kid off to college when were 46 and career is at its highest.

Frankly I'd not want to have the expense of daycare when I'm in my 40s. Without that, were saving (excluding retirement) 10k/mo.

Combined 401k , approx 750k, savings/investments 480k and we've been homeowners 12 years, on our 3rd and final house for the next 10 years with 50% equity.

It also was helpful we didn't go to grad school and didn't have student loans (state school)

This is a major reason to delay having kids - not even being able to take a break in work. In your 20s you’re having to climb and prove yourself. It’s so much easier to wait until you’re older and at a point in a career where you have a lot of saved leave and can take a decent amount of time off for each kid. I can’t even imagine being use in my 20s.

PP sounds lower class. State schools, no grad school, kids in their 20s, thinks 750k in a 401k is something to brag about.

You’re doing a huge disservice trying to convince women that they should have kids early. Having children absolutely affects a woman’s future earnings. It helps a man’s career but not a woman’s career. Sounds like you are an exception, but this is hardly the norm.

Wait - in your opinion, parents who are a couple of years shy of 40, with $750k in a 401k, taxable investments of nearly $500k, and 50% equity in their home is "lower class?"

You're an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Delay instant gratification. This includes kids. I really can't stress this enough.

We didn't start having kids until our late 30s because we wanted to purchase a house, whittle away my students loans (still not paid off but the end is in sight), get our retirement investments on the right track, and get a few big promotions.

We are now in a great place to start a small family. The first child will be born this fall. We'll take 6-12 months with the first kid and re-assess.

Again, delay that instant gratification. This economy is unforgiving if you don't have a tech job with crazy salary+benefits or family money.

Having kids earlier for us has helped us. Was done by late 20s. I'm the mom, no interruption is work (been maxing out 401k since age 23).

Oldest kid is 12, youngest 10. Now I'm 38, full career swing, no need for daycare anymore. Last kid off to college when were 46 and career is at its highest.

Frankly I'd not want to have the expense of daycare when I'm in my 40s. Without that, were saving (excluding retirement) 10k/mo.

Combined 401k , approx 750k, savings/investments 480k and we've been homeowners 12 years, on our 3rd and final house for the next 10 years with 50% equity.

It also was helpful we didn't go to grad school and didn't have student loans (state school)

This is a major reason to delay having kids - not even being able to take a break in work. In your 20s you’re having to climb and prove yourself. It’s so much easier to wait until you’re older and at a point in a career where you have a lot of saved leave and can take a decent amount of time off for each kid. I can’t even imagine being use in my 20s.

PP sounds lower class. State schools, no grad school, kids in their 20s, thinks 750k in a 401k is something to brag about.

You’re doing a huge disservice trying to convince women that they should have kids early. Having children absolutely affects a woman’s future earnings. It helps a man’s career but not a woman’s career. Sounds like you are an exception, but this is hardly the norm.

LOL it’s not a “disservice” to anyone to point out that for some people having children younger may be the better option. It was for me, and I did go to a top tier undergrad and grad program, on scholarship no less. So that solved the student loan problem. And it’s not “lower class” to go to state schools and avoid graduate school. My husband did so and makes more than I do (and has been an equal partner as far as shouldering the burden of having kids). You sound like a snob.

For most women it is NOT the better option. Most college grads have student loans to pay off and having a child interrupts a woman’s career. Most professional careers require dedication in your 20s instead of needing to leave work at 5 pm, take sick days, maternity leave etc. Surely you realize this. It’s like someone trying to say that having kids in high school is a good idea. It’s just not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Delay instant gratification. This includes kids. I really can't stress this enough.

We didn't start having kids until our late 30s because we wanted to purchase a house, whittle away my students loans (still not paid off but the end is in sight), get our retirement investments on the right track, and get a few big promotions.

We are now in a great place to start a small family. The first child will be born this fall. We'll take 6-12 months with the first kid and re-assess.

Again, delay that instant gratification. This economy is unforgiving if you don't have a tech job with crazy salary+benefits or family money.

Having kids earlier for us has helped us. Was done by late 20s. I'm the mom, no interruption is work (been maxing out 401k since age 23).

Oldest kid is 12, youngest 10. Now I'm 38, full career swing, no need for daycare anymore. Last kid off to college when were 46 and career is at its highest.

Frankly I'd not want to have the expense of daycare when I'm in my 40s. Without that, were saving (excluding retirement) 10k/mo.

Combined 401k , approx 750k, savings/investments 480k and we've been homeowners 12 years, on our 3rd and final house for the next 10 years with 50% equity.

It also was helpful we didn't go to grad school and didn't have student loans (state school)

This is a major reason to delay having kids - not even being able to take a break in work. In your 20s you’re having to climb and prove yourself. It’s so much easier to wait until you’re older and at a point in a career where you have a lot of saved leave and can take a decent amount of time off for each kid. I can’t even imagine being use in my 20s.

PP sounds lower class. State schools, no grad school, kids in their 20s, thinks 750k in a 401k is something to brag about.

You’re doing a huge disservice trying to convince women that they should have kids early. Having children absolutely affects a woman’s future earnings. It helps a man’s career but not a woman’s career. Sounds like you are an exception, but this is hardly the norm.

LOL it’s not a “disservice” to anyone to point out that for some people having children younger may be the better option. It was for me, and I did go to a top tier undergrad and grad program, on scholarship no less. So that solved the student loan problem. And it’s not “lower class” to go to state schools and avoid graduate school. My husband did so and makes more than I do (and has been an equal partner as far as shouldering the burden of having kids). You sound like a snob.

For most women it is NOT the better option. Most college grads have student loans to pay off and having a child interrupts a woman’s career. Most professional careers require dedication in your 20s instead of needing to leave work at 5 pm, take sick days, maternity leave etc. Surely you realize this. It’s like someone trying to say that having kids in high school is a good idea. It’s just not.

Some of us don’t need to wait until our 30s to make director or VP-level. Why were you so incompetent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Delay instant gratification. This includes kids. I really can't stress this enough.

We didn't start having kids until our late 30s because we wanted to purchase a house, whittle away my students loans (still not paid off but the end is in sight), get our retirement investments on the right track, and get a few big promotions.

We are now in a great place to start a small family. The first child will be born this fall. We'll take 6-12 months with the first kid and re-assess.

Again, delay that instant gratification. This economy is unforgiving if you don't have a tech job with crazy salary+benefits or family money.

Having kids earlier for us has helped us. Was done by late 20s. I'm the mom, no interruption is work (been maxing out 401k since age 23).

Oldest kid is 12, youngest 10. Now I'm 38, full career swing, no need for daycare anymore. Last kid off to college when were 46 and career is at its highest.

Frankly I'd not want to have the expense of daycare when I'm in my 40s. Without that, were saving (excluding retirement) 10k/mo.

Combined 401k , approx 750k, savings/investments 480k and we've been homeowners 12 years, on our 3rd and final house for the next 10 years with 50% equity.

It also was helpful we didn't go to grad school and didn't have student loans (state school)

This is a major reason to delay having kids - not even being able to take a break in work. In your 20s you’re having to climb and prove yourself. It’s so much easier to wait until you’re older and at a point in a career where you have a lot of saved leave and can take a decent amount of time off for each kid. I can’t even imagine being use in my 20s.

PP sounds lower class. State schools, no grad school, kids in their 20s, thinks 750k in a 401k is something to brag about.

You’re doing a huge disservice trying to convince women that they should have kids early. Having children absolutely affects a woman’s future earnings. It helps a man’s career but not a woman’s career. Sounds like you are an exception, but this is hardly the norm.

LOL it’s not a “disservice” to anyone to point out that for some people having children younger may be the better option. It was for me, and I did go to a top tier undergrad and grad program, on scholarship no less. So that solved the student loan problem. And it’s not “lower class” to go to state schools and avoid graduate school. My husband did so and makes more than I do (and has been an equal partner as far as shouldering the burden of having kids). You sound like a snob.

For most women it is NOT the better option. Most college grads have student loans to pay off and having a child interrupts a woman’s career. Most professional careers require dedication in your 20s instead of needing to leave work at 5 pm, take sick days, maternity leave etc. Surely you realize this. It’s like someone trying to say that having kids in high school is a good idea. It’s just not.

Some of us don’t need to wait until our 30s to make director or VP-level. Why were you so incompetent?

Wow you clearly feel threatened by the fact that having children at a young age hurts women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Delay instant gratification. This includes kids. I really can't stress this enough.

We didn't start having kids until our late 30s because we wanted to purchase a house, whittle away my students loans (still not paid off but the end is in sight), get our retirement investments on the right track, and get a few big promotions.

We are now in a great place to start a small family. The first child will be born this fall. We'll take 6-12 months with the first kid and re-assess.

Again, delay that instant gratification. This economy is unforgiving if you don't have a tech job with crazy salary+benefits or family money.

Having kids earlier for us has helped us. Was done by late 20s. I'm the mom, no interruption is work (been maxing out 401k since age 23).

Oldest kid is 12, youngest 10. Now I'm 38, full career swing, no need for daycare anymore. Last kid off to college when were 46 and career is at its highest.

Frankly I'd not want to have the expense of daycare when I'm in my 40s. Without that, were saving (excluding retirement) 10k/mo.

Combined 401k , approx 750k, savings/investments 480k and we've been homeowners 12 years, on our 3rd and final house for the next 10 years with 50% equity.

It also was helpful we didn't go to grad school and didn't have student loans (state school)

This is a major reason to delay having kids - not even being able to take a break in work. In your 20s you’re having to climb and prove yourself. It’s so much easier to wait until you’re older and at a point in a career where you have a lot of saved leave and can take a decent amount of time off for each kid. I can’t even imagine being use in my 20s.

PP sounds lower class. State schools, no grad school, kids in their 20s, thinks 750k in a 401k is something to brag about.

You’re doing a huge disservice trying to convince women that they should have kids early. Having children absolutely affects a woman’s future earnings. It helps a man’s career but not a woman’s career. Sounds like you are an exception, but this is hardly the norm.

Wait - in your opinion, parents who are a couple of years shy of 40, with $750k in a 401k, taxable investments of nearly $500k, and 50% equity in their home is "lower class?"

You're an idiot.

Yes. I have more money than that and it didn’t require missing out on what is the most fun decade of your life.