Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them.

But my definition of “affording kids” differs from yours.

NP. I agree with the first poster. If you can't afford food, shelter, clothing and love for your children, you shouldn't be having them.

Disagree.

The average age of a woman having her first baby is 26. Twenty-six year olds, in general, don’t make jack. Their incomes will only climb.

LOL. The average avg used to be about 17, and the fact that women are most fertile at those ages hasn’t changed. Not saying I would have a kid at 17. I guess you think that people who make under $220k shouldn’t have kids. Again, my definition of affording kids differs from yours.

I bet the average age in DC is more like 35.

If people only had kids when they were ready, financially or otherwise, to have kids, there would be no kids.

if you are on welfare, dont have kids.

I bet you tell everyone you’re so liberal and accepting.

wut that's commonsense if you ca't afford to take care of yourself how the f are you going to afford to take care of another mouth

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Paying off mortgage is stupid“ comes to mind

+ 1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them.

But my definition of “affording kids” differs from yours.

NP. I agree with the first poster. If you can't afford food, shelter, clothing and love for your children, you shouldn't be having them.

Disagree.

The average age of a woman having her first baby is 26. Twenty-six year olds, in general, don’t make jack. Their incomes will only climb.

LOL. The average avg used to be about 17, and the fact that women are most fertile at those ages hasn’t changed. Not saying I would have a kid at 17. I guess you think that people who make under $220k shouldn’t have kids. Again, my definition of affording kids differs from yours.

I bet the average age in DC is more like 35.

If people only had kids when they were ready, financially or otherwise, to have kids, there would be no kids.

if you are on welfare, dont have kids.

I bet you tell everyone you’re so liberal and accepting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them.

But my definition of “affording kids” differs from yours.

NP. I agree with the first poster. If you can't afford food, shelter, clothing and love for your children, you shouldn't be having them.

Disagree.

The average age of a woman having her first baby is 26. Twenty-six year olds, in general, don’t make jack. Their incomes will only climb.

LOL. The average avg used to be about 17, and the fact that women are most fertile at those ages hasn’t changed. Not saying I would have a kid at 17. I guess you think that people who make under $220k shouldn’t have kids. Again, my definition of affording kids differs from yours.

I bet the average age in DC is more like 35.

If people only had kids when they were ready, financially or otherwise, to have kids, there would be no kids.

if you are on welfare, dont have kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them.

But my definition of “affording kids” differs from yours.

NP. I agree with the first poster. If you can't afford food, shelter, clothing and love for your children, you shouldn't be having them.

Disagree.

The average age of a woman having her first baby is 26. Twenty-six year olds, in general, don’t make jack. Their incomes will only climb.

LOL. The average avg used to be about 17, and the fact that women are most fertile at those ages hasn’t changed. Not saying I would have a kid at 17. I guess you think that people who make under $220k shouldn’t have kids. Again, my definition of affording kids differs from yours.

I bet the average age in DC is more like 35.

If people only had kids when they were ready, financially or otherwise, to have kids, there would be no kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got married at 36 to a 34 year old and wanted 3 three kids. We made 120k combined income. There is an old German saying “the baby brings the bread” Had three kids, wife left work after first one. Old saying unless the husband has a rock in his back he is not working. Well she threw the rock on, got a small promotion, got pregnant literally week of daughters first birthday three another rock on, this time got a good promotion, then four years later threw the last rock in and got a really big promotion.

Just go for it. Husbands will surprise you. If not, get a new one.

It's nice that you're doing so well, but clearly you could have afforded kids at 120K. I do disagree with this premise that if you have a baby then everything will magically work itself out and you'll suddenly receive lots of extra raises and promotions. That's not true for many parents who are struggling to make ends meet.

Anonymous wrote:I got married at 36 to a 34 year old and wanted 3 three kids. We made 120k combined income. There is an old German saying “the baby brings the bread” Had three kids, wife left work after first one. Old saying unless the husband has a rock in his back he is not working. Well she threw the rock on, got a small promotion, got pregnant literally week of daughters first birthday three another rock on, this time got a good promotion, then four years later threw the last rock in and got a really big promotion.

Just go for it. Husbands will surprise you. If not, get a new one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them.

But my definition of “affording kids” differs from yours.

NP. I agree with the first poster. If you can't afford food, shelter, clothing and love for your children, you shouldn't be having them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them.

But my definition of “affording kids” differs from yours.

NP. I agree with the first poster. If you can't afford food, shelter, clothing and love for your children, you shouldn't be having them.

Disagree.

The average age of a woman having her first baby is 26. Twenty-six year olds, in general, don’t make jack. Their incomes will only climb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them.

But my definition of “affording kids” differs from yours.

NP. I agree with the first poster. If you can't afford food, shelter, clothing and love for your children, you shouldn't be having them.

Disagree.

The average age of a woman having her first baby is 26. Twenty-six year olds, in general, don’t make jack. Their incomes will only climb.

LOL. The average avg used to be about 17, and the fact that women are most fertile at those ages hasn’t changed. Not saying I would have a kid at 17. I guess you think that people who make under $220k shouldn’t have kids. Again, my definition of affording kids differs from yours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them.

But my definition of “affording kids” differs from yours.

NP. I agree with the first poster. If you can't afford food, shelter, clothing and love for your children, you shouldn't be having them.

Disagree.

The average age of a woman having her first baby is 26. Twenty-six year olds, in general, don’t make jack. Their incomes will only climb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them.

But my definition of “affording kids” differs from yours.

NP. I agree with the first poster. If you can't afford food, shelter, clothing and love for your children, you shouldn't be having them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Compound interest although great on paper is not as valuable as the fun you could have had with it when you were younger.

I regret saving small amounts in my early/mid 20s. The fun you can have with small amounts of money when you are young significantly exceeds it when you are older. I’m in my mid 40s, yeah maybe I have a few hundred thousand more now because I saved in my early 20s but spending that money would have brought more pleasure.

Now I see my parents who just turned 80, they don’t really spend much anymore. Wealth is wasted on the old, it should be the young that have money but the world doesn’t work that way.

I was just thinking something similar. I recently got a very unexpected $75k bonus. I was of course happy for like maybe 2 days, had a nice dinner to celebrate and maybe will buy something nice eventually, moved it all to savings for now. A few days later I was thinking I should have been more excited, just imagining if I had somehow got just one-tenth of that 20 years ago how much more fun I would of had with it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them.

But my definition of “affording kids” differs from yours.