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

[Anonymous]

This is a classic case of DCUM bubble

The vast majority of people still have kids in their 20s

UMC people are valuing their careers/location over families

[Anonymous]

Well, I would have had kid's sooner, but didn't find someone to marry until I was 30. I don't blame that on society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a classic case of DCUM bubble

The vast majority of people still have kids in their 20s

UMC people are valuing their careers/location over families

In the Midwest and South, they do. On the coasts and in big cities, not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a classic case of DCUM bubble

The vast majority of people still have kids in their 20s

UMC people are valuing their careers/location over families

The average age was 21 in the 70's it is now 26 ... in the whole US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

In the past childcare was performed by unpaid or underpaid labor by the permanent underclass: women. If we want a society where women can have professional and financial equality, then we either leave childcare to the free market (our current approach and childcare costs are skyrocketing as wages now have to compete with other industries), or we subsidize childcare to encourage people to sustain population levels.

[Anonymous]

I would have been a terrible parent in my 20's. I've never regretted having children in my 30's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a classic case of DCUM bubble

The vast majority of people still have kids in their 20s

UMC people are valuing their careers/location over families

The average age was 21 in the 70's it is now 26 ... in the whole US.

because most UMC folks are waiting until their 30s vs right after college in prior generations

[Anonymous]

My parents had us in their mid20s. They were newlyweds with starter jobs and no savings. Sure, it worked out fine but I have no doubt my kids are better off having parents that have careers, savings, stability.

I am in the camp that thinks getting married in your early 20s is usually a bad idea and evidence is starting to prove out those who get married later divorce less. Which is better for kids? I would argue for 'older' parents.

[Anonymous]

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here - some people have kids at 23 and are very happy; some are miserable. Same goes for 33 and, hell, even 43.

I will say, however, that I find the "I want to know my grandkids" argument to be kind of overinflated here. I mean yes, getting to know my grandkids late in life sounds fun and I hope I'm around for their childhood. I guess that's an argument in favor of 33 (if me plus my kid had a kid at 33, I'd be a 66 year old new grandparent) instead of 43 (86).

But I find it very strange to plan your ENTIRE LIFE around the hope of a relationship with your adult grandchildren in your 80s. I mean, are 20 year olds seriously spending that much time with their grandparents? In my experience, even in the best relationships, they're doing maybe a phone call a week and a handful of visits per year. I understand that it will be sad someday to die and leave my grandchildren behind, but I'm not sure it's less sad if they are 25 when that happens versus if they are 15. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice, it just seems to be really overvalued?

If I end up living long enough to know my grandchildren into their 20s and 30s, then what a blessing that is. But I don't feel like it is so important that I should base life decisions in the prime of my life on the possibility. I care a lot more about being there for my kids until they are fully settled into adulthood, but after that the rest is just a cherry on top. I personally prioritize things like being financially stable when I have young children, having career flexibility, etc. over that.

That's not to say that I advocate for waiting forever - on the other end of childrearing, I want them out of the house while I'm still young enough to enjoy myself. But my point is more in response to the oddly high posts about knowing your grandchildren for a long time. That's not a guarantee and so risky to base your whole life around IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, OP. My husband's father always told him not to have kids before 35, and my husband listened. I wasn't in a huge hurry either - we traveled, partied, focused on ourselves and enjoyed a DINK life before having our kids at 36 and 38. Honestly we wish we would've started at least 5 years earlier. We have wonderful kids but we are exhausted and still have many years of dealing with little ones ahead of us.

So the two of you made a bad decision. Don't blame society or your FIL. He/ we didn't get a say on whether you decided to take birth control or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, OP. My husband's father always told him not to have kids before 35, and my husband listened. I wasn't in a huge hurry either - we traveled, partied, focused on ourselves and enjoyed a DINK life before having our kids at 36 and 38. Honestly we wish we would've started at least 5 years earlier. We have wonderful kids but we are exhausted and still have many years of dealing with little ones ahead of us.

Having two young kids is exhausting no matter how old you are. I am 33 with two young kids and I envy my friends who are waiting because they aren't dealing with this shlt right now. I don't think you're ever like "Yes! This is awesome! Nothing I'd rather do!" haha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here - some people have kids at 23 and are very happy; some are miserable. Same goes for 33 and, hell, even 43.

I will say, however, that I find the "I want to know my grandkids" argument to be kind of overinflated here. I mean yes, getting to know my grandkids late in life sounds fun and I hope I'm around for their childhood. I guess that's an argument in favor of 33 (if me plus my kid had a kid at 33, I'd be a 66 year old new grandparent) instead of 43 (86).

But I find it very strange to plan your ENTIRE LIFE around the hope of a relationship with your adult grandchildren in your 80s. I mean, are 20 year olds seriously spending that much time with their grandparents? In my experience, even in the best relationships, they're doing maybe a phone call a week and a handful of visits per year. I understand that it will be sad someday to die and leave my grandchildren behind, but I'm not sure it's less sad if they are 25 when that happens versus if they are 15. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice, it just seems to be really overvalued?

If I end up living long enough to know my grandchildren into their 20s and 30s, then what a blessing that is. But I don't feel like it is so important that I should base life decisions in the prime of my life on the possibility. I care a lot more about being there for my kids until they are fully settled into adulthood, but after that the rest is just a cherry on top. I personally prioritize things like being financially stable when I have young children, having career flexibility, etc. over that.

That's not to say that I advocate for waiting forever - on the other end of childrearing, I want them out of the house while I'm still young enough to enjoy myself. But my point is more in response to the oddly high posts about knowing your grandchildren for a long time. That's not a guarantee and so risky to base your whole life around IMO.

Very well put. There's so many decisions that go into "the right time" (as if there's a magic number) that I'd put ahead of living to see my grandchildren. And of course there's no guarantees, my mother was 24 when she had me and one would fully expect her to see her grandchildren. She died at 50, when I was 26.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As a biologist, I wish more people understood that fertility peaks in your early 20s. Emphasis on early.

However, that is too young for many people to have a stable source of income without depending on a spouse, parents or the government. We should not encourage people to have kids they cannot support.

It's a case of biology vs. economics.

I am 42. My daughter is 16 and was an accident. I was absolutely NOT mature enough to have her when I did. I wish I could have waited until around 38 or so. That's when I felt like I really had a handle on being an adult I felt good about, not just faking it by doing adult things. Never mind that I was on welfare and food stamps and DD has food insecurity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

You could, you just don’t want to.

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

Well, really all you have to do for college is to live in a state with a good flagship university and your kids would be fine. But nowadays we don’t want to do that, these are our new ways. We want flashy private colleges for our kids and that costs big bucks.

[Anonymous]

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

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