Reply to Downsizing when you age or empty nesters?

Forum Index » Money and Finances

Reply to "Downsizing when you age or empty nesters?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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?[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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

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+[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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.

[/quote]

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.  
[/quote]

+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. [/quote]

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[/quote]

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.  
 [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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? [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

For you it would have been tough. For others it's not.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics