Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m a lifelong Dem who didn’t follow Kirk, so I don’t know each and every thing he ever said.

BUT

I do recall an extensive npr segment many years ago featuring an economist/sociologist basically said couples are “doing it wrong” when it comes to having kids and maximizing earning potential.

In short, the expert said the best move is to find a partner in your early 20s and quickly have a kid or two (if you want them). I think they suggested doing it by mid-20s. This way, you can opt to have a parent stay home until the kid (or younger kid) is in pre-k and you still have time to enter/reenter the workforce.

Again, the research was focused on the best financial choices and maximizing earning potential. It went beyond the typical anti poverty talking points to focus on educated people…again, essentially saying too many people are doing it wrong by waiting too long to marry and have kids by pointing out the impact to careers, high cost of childcare, etc.

Religion wasn’t part of the equation. Politics certainly weren’t discussed (this was a segment from many years ago before the US lost its collective mind and became so divided).

I had heard that at some point. And while they are probably right, society isn’t structured now in a way to make this easy. It was easier in the 50s when you married young, could be a SAHM, live on one income, etc etc. But things changed (for better and worse) and it just isn’t easy anymore. Most come out of college with debt, people want to play around rather than settle down in their 20s-there are myriad reasons. I got married at 26, and was on the younger end of most of my friends. Had my first at 28-felt like a teen mom in the DC area.

Understood.

But blindly criticizing a different perspective that actually has a lot of positive implications and is grounded in facts/research/data seems silly. But that’s where we are.

Values and priorities have changed. But they could shift a bit and that wouldn’t be crazy or the end of the world.

Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there since so many people are dismissing different perspectives right out of the gate simply because the messenger isn’t on the correct end of the political spectrum.

I think the thing people don’t like about right wing and/or religious pressure to marry young is the patriarchal messages behind it. Like women’s only purpose is to procreate and be a wife. Sorry, that’s gross.

Yes, biologically and by some financial perspectives, getting married and starting a family younger can be better. But I don’t know if there is an easy way to reverse the trends that have people delaying it.

There was a book years ago about "Red Families," "Blue Families," and their approach to family formation. Generally speaking, in conservative cultures, the expectation is that having a family would transform someone immature into an adult. Whereas, in liberal cultures, the expectation is that one would become an adult and only then have a family. ("Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture.")

"In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.” The expectation in red states is that people will have children early and the parents will grow into their responsibilities. The expectation in blue states is that people will wait to have families until their education and financial situation is more secure.

Huh. This absolutely does not apply to urban areas, which are completely blue.