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

Forum Index » Money and Finances

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

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]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.  [/quote]

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

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. 
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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+[/quote]

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

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![/quote]

You sound jealous.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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.[/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