Are we reaching a point where getting married/having children/owning home is just to damn expensive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be careful not to presume that things in the vast majority of the country are as expensive as they are in DC and its inner suburbs.

So true. It is kind of ridiculous that younger people want to start out living in an expensive city like DC, NY, SF, LA. Go live somewhere cheaper like Raleigh, Austin, Chatanooga, Detroit while you are young. The people who have kids and houses here in DC are older, not in their 20s.

This is a myth. Younger people don’t want to live in those places though. If you look at the data millenials have been leaving dc for the past few years and the fastest growing areas in that age range are suburbs outside of cheaper second tier cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, big tickets items like a college education and a home have become unaffordable. People feel like they can't get ahead.
This is why the birthrate in America has dropped to a historic low.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/06/30/the-u-s-fertility-rate-just-hit-a-historic-low-why-some-demographers-are-freaking-out/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dab498dcc68f

No, college education is not unaffordable. Community college and the cheapest state school you can find. Totally doable for families making 100K a year HHI. I do agree that for families living in poverty (HHI under 40K) any money towards school is nearly impossible.

But we are comparing affordability in the past and present. It would be more interesting to see how the cost of community college NOW compares to the cost of community college in the PAST. You can’t just declare college is affordable by declaring that now community college is college. That is apples and oranges. What you are suggesting is definitely a viable way to get around college being unaffordable but it isn’t the same thing as a college education itself being affordable.

[Anonymous]

Academic merit scholarships are way more accessible now then they were in the 80's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never understand this argument. We live an hour from Dc, but daycare in our town is $12k a year for an infant. If you’re working for minimum wage or very low paid (my sister was a private school kindergarten teacher making $21k a year 10 years ago), I get it. But my friends, neighbors who live in $400k 2500 single family homes, it’s not even 25% of their salary. Cost of living being what it is, salaries are higher, home prices are higher, daycare costs more but it’s not like the same $100k salary requires you to buy a $1M house and spend $30k/kid in daycare.

You live in the boonies. Daycare is much more expensive closer in.

+1

Where is this daycare?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never understand this argument. We live an hour from Dc, but daycare in our town is $12k a year for an infant. If you’re working for minimum wage or very low paid (my sister was a private school kindergarten teacher making $21k a year 10 years ago), I get it. But my friends, neighbors who live in $400k 2500 single family homes, it’s not even 25% of their salary. Cost of living being what it is, salaries are higher, home prices are higher, daycare costs more but it’s not like the same $100k salary requires you to buy a $1M house and spend $30k/kid in daycare.

You live in the boonies. Daycare is much more expensive closer in.

+1

Where is this daycare?????

I pay almost that exact amount in Silver Spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You people are delusional. In a marriage where there’s no house and no kids (because couple can’t afford it) what is there to divide? Alimony is a thing of the past and regardless of who makes more money both partners hold down jobs. So, tell me again why it’s too expensive to be married????

It's too expensive for MEN to be married.

[Anonymous]

We're in a good place with our 2 kids. But we got a lot of breaks financially and I'd be a jerk not to acknowledge them.

For most people, the costs of housing, healthcare and trying to raise children are really tough. Our society doesn't do anything for parents. Women can either be pushed out of the workforce or they can try to navigate the daycare nightmare. That makes it kinda tough when you need 2 incomes to make it. See the US falling fertility rate, which made the news last week. No big surprises there.

My husband and I both make decent middle class salaries. But just one would be tight. It's a good thing our kids are very widely spaced. We are going to try for a third. We can make it, but only because of the money we've been able to put aside over the years, due to the above mentioned good luck.

[Anonymous]

This article is several days old, but some of the commenters have echoed similar sentiments in this thread. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/17/us/fertility-rate-decline-united-states.html#commentsContainer

One comment in particular stood out:

"In short, many people of both sexes of prime childbearing age are not having children right now because they cannot afford all of the Big Four (housing, student loan payments, healthcare, daycare) at the same time, those that ARE having kids because they are making enough to make those four expenses bearable are only having one or two, and those who can afford to have three or more are not because they are working so many hours that they are too damn tired to even consider adding another crying baby to the mix."

[Anonymous]

I've been wildly fortunate so I say this as an observer and not as a critique, but it does seem people are willing to make fewer sacrifices for children.

Average house size has increased even as household size has decreased (honestly, given that population has grown one would expect house size to decrease or stay the same as we adapt to more people). People in their late 20s having or expecting to have children were generally NOT eating out at the types of restaurants you see in downtown DC nowadays in the 80s. There wasn't this restaurant scene among young professionals -- they were at home, cooking for their families. People did not fly for weekend trips unless they were visiting family.

The cost of education thing SUCKS and we need to fight it. But as long as people make a rational cost / benefit calculation of whether it's worth it or not it should be OK. My wife got a master's degree at night for free from her employer. Others I know lived with their parents and commuted to school. There are options there.

I also notice that white Americans (I am one) seem very adverse to living with family. Part of a general cultural trend of family breakdown and radical individualism. It's a waste of money to me and also just seems kind of sad.

If a kid can get a job out of college and live with their parents, they can save probably $15-20k after tax in rent, then anther few thousand in utilities and maybe another few thousand in food. Do that for three years and that's $100k, which could then either pay for graduate school or just compound in the market thereafter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I've been wildly fortunate so I say this as an observer and not as a critique, but it does seem people are willing to make fewer sacrifices for children.

Average house size has increased even as household size has decreased (honestly, given that population has grown one would expect house size to decrease or stay the same as we adapt to more people). People in their late 20s having or expecting to have children were generally NOT eating out at the types of restaurants you see in downtown DC nowadays in the 80s. There wasn't this restaurant scene among young professionals -- they were at home, cooking for their families. People did not fly for weekend trips unless they were visiting family.

The cost of education thing SUCKS and we need to fight it. But as long as people make a rational cost / benefit calculation of whether it's worth it or not it should be OK. My wife got a master's degree at night for free from her employer. Others I know lived with their parents and commuted to school. There are options there.

I also notice that white Americans (I am one) seem very adverse to living with family. Part of a general cultural trend of family breakdown and radical individualism. It's a waste of money to me and also just seems kind of sad.

If a kid can get a job out of college and live with their parents, they can save probably $15-20k after tax in rent, then anther few thousand in utilities and maybe another few thousand in food. Do that for three years and that's $100k, which could then either pay for graduate school or just compound in the market thereafter.

I’m the PP at 8:12 and while I stand my overall critique, you have a valid point. We put up with a lot to make our situation successful. For instance, we sleep in the living room. If we had a third, we would do three across in an old Toyota. Most of the people I know would consider these beyond the pale. But putting up with stuff like that saves big bucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I've been wildly fortunate so I say this as an observer and not as a critique, but it does seem people are willing to make fewer sacrifices for children.

Societal expectations of what parents should provide, both material and emotional, for their children have greatly increased. Parents are expected to spend more time with their children now than 40 years ago. Except most women work now. Kids are not really allowed to roam free. You can chalk this up to parental decisions, but this is a collective phenomena. So there are more scheduled activities, which require a personal chauffeur. And car seats are required, which require a bigger vehicle. You can't feed kids a turkey sandwich with chips anymore. And college. College is too expensive for kids to pay on their own. Guess who is expected to pay?

Don't tell me parents aren't making sacrifices for their children. Literally everything I do all day long with the exception of 30 minutes in the evening is for my children. You don't know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

PP here....my kids eats sandwiches with chips (and fruit) literally all the time. Some of this madness is self imposed. Not all, but some....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've been wildly fortunate so I say this as an observer and not as a critique, but it does seem people are willing to make fewer sacrifices for children.

Societal expectations of what parents should provide, both material and emotional, for their children have greatly increased. Parents are expected to spend more time with their children now than 40 years ago. Except most women work now. Kids are not really allowed to roam free. You can chalk this up to parental decisions, but this is a collective phenomena. So there are more scheduled activities, which require a personal chauffeur. And car seats are required, which require a bigger vehicle. You can't feed kids a turkey sandwich with chips anymore. And college. College is too expensive for kids to pay on their own. Guess who is expected to pay?

Don't tell me parents aren't making sacrifices for their children. Literally everything I do all day long with the exception of 30 minutes in the evening is for my children. You don't know what you are talking about.

This is truest thing I've read on DCUM. It causes enormous strain on families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here....my kids eats sandwiches with chips (and fruit) literally all the time. Some of this madness is self imposed. Not all, but some....

Sure. And I try to teach moderation. But luncheon meat causes cancer. I'm not eating it either.

[Anonymous]

PBJ, egg salad and tuna (I buy Safe Catch).