Instead of paying to freeze eggs companies should be supportive of families and encourage women that it is ok to have children in their 20's and early 30's. Companies should have internships specifically designed for women (or dads) who are returning to work and need to bridge the gap between their education, work experience and time off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the average age of first time moms in DC is 38. Lots of women spend a decade working on their careers, paying off all debts, building lots of equity in homes, and THEN having children.

That is sad

This isn't sad. Had a baby at 36 and another at 41. I fail to see the sadness in it. Had a great time in my younger days and am now financially able to afford the both of them.

It is great when you can have a child at any age and afford to take care of them. What is sad is that the age 38 is way past a woman's peak fertility yet women feel that having a child needs to be put off until all these other life goals are attained. It is like Facebook now paying to freeze women's eggs. This will only put more pressure on women to feel that if they have children in their 20's or early 30's they are missing out on the race to the top.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the average age of first time moms in DC is 38. Lots of women spend a decade working on their careers, paying off all debts, building lots of equity in homes, and THEN having children.

That is sad

Nope. Sad is being 45, an empty nester and having no employable skills.

Where I'm from most woman don't work. They have children very young and are usually done having kids by 25. By 35 they are usually taking care of grandkids if their daughters stay in school after getting pregnant at age 15.

Where is that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the average age of first time moms in DC is 38. Lots of women spend a decade working on their careers, paying off all debts, building lots of equity in homes, and THEN having children.

That is sad

Nope. Sad is being 45, an empty nester and having no employable skills.

Where I'm from most woman don't work. They have children very young and are usually done having kids by 25. By 35 they are usually taking care of grandkids if their daughters stay in school after getting pregnant at age 15.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the average age of first time moms in DC is 38. Lots of women spend a decade working on their careers, paying off all debts, building lots of equity in homes, and THEN having children.

That is sad

This isn't sad. Had a baby at 36 and another at 41. I fail to see the sadness in it. Had a great time in my younger days and am now financially able to afford the both of them.

Anonymous wrote:This thread reminds me why we decided not to have kids.

My kids live a more or less sheltered life. I can't wait until they have to leave the house to experience the real world and hope that I am preparing them well for it with my constant reminders to be observant and mindful of the world outside our immediate social circle.

On the other hand, the lady that helps clean our house is a good friend, and her kids seem to be happy and well adjusted when they come over to play with our kids. My point is you don't have to spend $$$$$ to raise good kids. But you definitely won't have any good kids if you don't have kids to begin with.

Having kids is not for everyone, but the cost of raising kids should not hold you back if that's something you want out of life.

This thread reminds me why we decided not to have kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the one financial mistake so many DCUMers make was made long before they thought about buying a house or having kids -- they racked up thousands in student loans.

I am stunned that so many DCUMers calmly report paying $500, $800, $1,100 a month toward student loans. I can't imagine that.

I think my 200k salary makes up for my $400 monthly loan payment.

Of course it does. We pay $1500 together for two law school loans -- but total HHI is $380 and I work part time. So, of course it is worth it! Otherwise we would prob make around $150k total. It is an investment, not a "financial mistake." Its a financial mistake if you can't turn it into a profit. Not taking on the debt in our situation would have dramatically recued our long term earning potential. So, yes, calmly reporting it, thanks. I can't imagine if we hadn't taken on those loans.

So your saying your school, not you, is what got you where you are today? [b]Meaning if you went to a cheaper lesser know school you would be a much less effective lawyer? Or conversely someone who is a poorly applies themselves can go to an expensive well known school and still thrive as an ineffective lawyer?

In short, the school does not make you, you make you[/b].

NP here but unfortunately for lawyers, yes it does. It's just the way the hiring market is for lawyers. Those at the top 10-14 schools have the best opportunities and they markedly decrease from there. That's not to say that everyone who goes to a cheaper and lesser known school doesn't have options but it's a much harder path.

Yes, bolded PP, you are simply wrong. I am indeed saying for lawyers, the school in large part makes you, unless you are a true star or an entrepreneur/shingle hanger/trial lawyer. It matters where you go to school. Moreover, you are dreaming if you think the school ranking has some kind of bearing on the cost. Many lower ranked schools are far more expensive because they are businesses. Yale, for example, always #1 or2 in rankings, has an enormous endowment and caps loans for lawyers. Third tier schools are just as expensive as top schools. I went to a state school, and my loans are totally manageable. My husband went to a top 2 school, not Yale, and his loans are much higher, but he has about 1000 times more opportunities because of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why the average age of first time moms in DC is 38. Lots of women spend a decade working on their careers, paying off all debts, building lots of equity in homes, and THEN having children.

That is sad

Nope. Sad is being 45, an empty nester and having no employable skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the one financial mistake so many DCUMers make was made long before they thought about buying a house or having kids -- they racked up thousands in student loans.

I am stunned that so many DCUMers calmly report paying $500, $800, $1,100 a month toward student loans. I can't imagine that.

I think my 200k salary makes up for my $400 monthly loan payment.

Of course it does. We pay $1500 together for two law school loans -- but total HHI is $380 and I work part time. So, of course it is worth it! Otherwise we would prob make around $150k total. It is an investment, not a "financial mistake." Its a financial mistake if you can't turn it into a profit. Not taking on the debt in our situation would have dramatically recued our long term earning potential. So, yes, calmly reporting it, thanks. I can't imagine if we hadn't taken on those loans.

So your saying your school, not you, is what got you where you are today? Meaning if you went to a cheaper lesser know school you would be a much less effective lawyer? Or conversely someone who is a poorly applies themselves can go to an expensive well known school and still thrive as an ineffective lawyer?

In short, the school does not make you, you make you.

NP here but unfortunately for lawyers, yes it does. It's just the way the hiring market is for lawyers. Those at the top 10-14 schools have the best opportunities and they markedly decrease from there. That's not to say that everyone who goes to a cheaper and lesser known school doesn't have options but it's a much harder path.

Anonymous wrote:This is why the average age of first time moms in DC is 38. Lots of women spend a decade working on their careers, paying off all debts, building lots of equity in homes, and THEN having children.

That is sad

DC, New York, Boston, SF are very off the chart expensive for housing compared to incomes. That is why many people leave these cities for a more balanced life. They do not want to delay having children because they have to choose between the cost of kids and the cost of housing. When you are living in DC you are better adapting your life style to a tiny house, condo, or renting then giving up having kids.

1. You'll probably need to cut back on everything (dinners, lunches, clothing, travel, luxury items).

2. You'll probably need to cut back on savings and retirement.

3. When your car is paid off, you might have extra cash. Note: that doesn't mean you should trade up and get a new car.

Not sure what else to say. DH and I paid off my law school loans (which were tiny) before we bought our first home, sold it for a decent price and traded up to a bigger home with a reasonable mortgage ($1,700), drive our cars until they die, relied on free childcare whenever available, then sought out affordable preschool options and juggle our schedules to make it work. We have four kids with HHI of $150k in MoCo (4 bedroom colonial).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the one financial mistake so many DCUMers make was made long before they thought about buying a house or having kids -- they racked up thousands in student loans.

I am stunned that so many DCUMers calmly report paying $500, $800, $1,100 a month toward student loans. I can't imagine that.

I think my 200k salary makes up for my $400 monthly loan payment.

Of course it does. We pay $1500 together for two law school loans -- but total HHI is $380 and I work part time. So, of course it is worth it! Otherwise we would prob make around $150k total. It is an investment, not a "financial mistake." Its a financial mistake if you can't turn it into a profit. Not taking on the debt in our situation would have dramatically recued our long term earning potential. So, yes, calmly reporting it, thanks. I can't imagine if we hadn't taken on those loans.

So your saying your school, not you, is what got you where you are today? Meaning if you went to a cheaper lesser know school you would be a much less effective lawyer? Or conversely someone who is a poorly applies themselves can go to an expensive well known school and still thrive as an ineffective lawyer?

In short, the school does not make you, you make you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that the one financial mistake so many DCUMers make was made long before they thought about buying a house or having kids -- they racked up thousands in student loans.

I am stunned that so many DCUMers calmly report paying $500, $800, $1,100 a month toward student loans. I can't imagine that.

I think my 200k salary makes up for my $400 monthly loan payment.

Of course it does. We pay $1500 together for two law school loans -- but total HHI is $380 and I work part time. So, of course it is worth it! Otherwise we would prob make around $150k total. It is an investment, not a "financial mistake." Its a financial mistake if you can't turn it into a profit. Not taking on the debt in our situation would have dramatically recued our long term earning potential. So, yes, calmly reporting it, thanks. I can't imagine if we hadn't taken on those loans.