Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

Despite anyones feelings on it, it is decidedly and scientifically a terrible idea. Women's bodies are entering menopause at those ages. You dont have the biological ability to give the needed energy to raising young children. It is a choice you can make, but the downsides should be loudly communicated. And financial and corporate institutions should discourage it (or at least not encourage it). Medicaid age adults should not have dependents that need Healthcare coverage.

You clearly speak from a position of ignorance/intent to troll.

Medicaid is income is need based and Medicare is a benefit you earn for use as you age.

The rest is just one big MYOB.

Someone asked a question, people answered with their reasons and were attacked as not good enough by an unknown metric.

I love a productive conversation, this antagonistic BS not so much.

Actually, when someone has a kid at 40+, said kid has developmental issues and disabilities, it is everyone's business, because it is our tax dollars that are required to help fund care for that kid.
And yes statistically someone who has a baby at 40+ has a significantly higher risk of having a variety of those issues and for those issues to be more severe in the kid. We don't live in a vacuum, society has to pay for all of these ideas. So perhaps it is time to realize, not everything that is possible to achieve scientifically is actually a good idea to pursue.
And yes, having a kid at 43 means you are 67 when they finish college. Hard to help a kid attend college if you are forced into early retirement and didn't save well

We froze our embryos in our early 30s like smarties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

Despite anyones feelings on it, it is decidedly and scientifically a terrible idea. Women's bodies are entering menopause at those ages. You dont have the biological ability to give the needed energy to raising young children. It is a choice you can make, but the downsides should be loudly communicated. And financial and corporate institutions should discourage it (or at least not encourage it). Medicaid age adults should not have dependents that need Healthcare coverage.

Hahahahahhaha -person who had first baby at 40 and is not menopausal at 54

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

Despite anyones feelings on it, it is decidedly and scientifically a terrible idea. Women's bodies are entering menopause at those ages. You dont have the biological ability to give the needed energy to raising young children. It is a choice you can make, but the downsides should be loudly communicated. And financial and corporate institutions should discourage it (or at least not encourage it). Medicaid age adults should not have dependents that need Healthcare coverage.

You clearly speak from a position of ignorance/intent to troll.

Medicaid is income is need based and Medicare is a benefit you earn for use as you age.

The rest is just one big MYOB.

Someone asked a question, people answered with their reasons and were attacked as not good enough by an unknown metric.

I love a productive conversation, this antagonistic BS not so much.

Actually, when someone has a kid at 40+, said kid has developmental issues and disabilities, it is everyone's business, because it is our tax dollars that are required to help fund care for that kid.
And yes statistically someone who has a baby at 40+ has a significantly higher risk of having a variety of those issues and for those issues to be more severe in the kid. We don't live in a vacuum, society has to pay for all of these ideas. So perhaps it is time to realize, not everything that is possible to achieve scientifically is actually a good idea to pursue.
And yes, having a kid at 43 means you are 67 when they finish college. Hard to help a kid attend college if you are forced into early retirement and didn't save well

this literally is a thread on people with $5M+ net worth who still choose to work.

so 1) i've clearly saved adequately. 2) I'm still working, so clearly not forced into early retirement. and 3) of course, with my economic advantage i bought a college-educated 25-year-olds eggs in order to have a kid with my decade-younger spouse. 4) 529 is fully funded, kid isn't even 5 yet.

there are absolutely no epigenetic risks to the child by gestating a kid in one's late 40s. some developmental and disability risks come from old eggs and/or old sperm but most fertility clinics will not implant embryos that are not PGT-normal.

anyway, you do you. i'm loving this season running after my kiddo, and while it sucks i'm going to be almost 70 when they are graduating college, i could also get hit by a bus next week. nothing is guaranteed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

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

No, I would never say that to someone's face in real life. But it is something that should be discussed in general more, because there are consequences for these actions. And more disabled kids means more of our tax dollars to educate them, pay for them if they cannot be self sufficient adults. Just because "something is possible" does not mean it's a smart idea.

The risk is small, and slightly less small. It is not some massive increase in health problems for older adults. Obviously for women the limits are much different than for men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

Despite anyones feelings on it, it is decidedly and scientifically a terrible idea. Women's bodies are entering menopause at those ages. You dont have the biological ability to give the needed energy to raising young children. It is a choice you can make, but the downsides should be loudly communicated. And financial and corporate institutions should discourage it (or at least not encourage it). Medicaid age adults should not have dependents that need Healthcare coverage.

You clearly speak from a position of ignorance/intent to troll.

Medicaid is income is need based and Medicare is a benefit you earn for use as you age.

The rest is just one big MYOB.

Someone asked a question, people answered with their reasons and were attacked as not good enough by an unknown metric.

I love a productive conversation, this antagonistic BS not so much.

Actually, when someone has a kid at 40+, said kid has developmental issues and disabilities, it is everyone's business, because it is our tax dollars that are required to help fund care for that kid.
And yes statistically someone who has a baby at 40+ has a significantly higher risk of having a variety of those issues and for those issues to be more severe in the kid. We don't live in a vacuum, society has to pay for all of these ideas. So perhaps it is time to realize, not everything that is possible to achieve scientifically is actually a good idea to pursue.
And yes, having a kid at 43 means you are 67 when they finish college. Hard to help a kid attend college if you are forced into early retirement and didn't save well

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people just have that dog in them despite being worth $5M or $20M or $100M or whatever.

Yes. I am the first woman on either side of my family to have a graduate degree and I'd like to leave lots of money to future generations. It's a ego thing, I freely admit it.

How could that feed your ego? Your descendants won't care. They'll just take it. You'll be forgotten quicker than you can imagine.

It feeds my ego to be an executive rather than a retired old lady.

That is so sad.

Why? I do volunteer work I find meaningful, I travel, I have friends. No grandchildren yet. Why the judgment? It’s better to spend all day every day doing what you want and indulging yourself?

But you said the most meaningful thing in your life is your corporate job. All the other stuff makes you an "old lady". I think its sad that being an older woman without a corporate job isnt enough. A woman in her 50s or 60s should be able to find her value in volunteering, travel, friends, family, hobbies, that is enough. It is sad to me that people bought the corporate kool aid about needing to keep working to be valuable.

WTF, the only thing I am good for is volunteering, travel, friends, family, hobbies?

You do you, but don’t tell me what’s important for me or what “should” be enough.

What does it matter to you that I am still working? What is wrong with you?

You do you but dont tell me not to have my opinion! It is sad to find the most value in a corporate role. Period. I will judge anyone who believes that is the best way to spend their senior years. Something is broken inside you to need that empty validation.

If you continue to work because you need the money, OK. If you continue to work because you love your job, OK. I cant relate to either, but whatever. But claiming you work because your ego and identity are tied up in a corporate role is messed up.

I am not the pp you are replying to. But how is it any different to having your ego wrapped up in pickleball, travel or your volunteer work? At least it is adding something to society. Being obsessed with luxury cruises or watching back to back shows on television adds very little.

Why do you think 100% of what you do must be "adding something" to the world. How about taking those luxury cruises or traveling the world for 1-2 months at a time because YOU want to do it? Because it brings you great pleasure and helps expand your mind. I've spent my life giving back to the world/to my family/to my kids/to my job/volunteering/etc. At some point, I want to focus on me, and at 55+ that seems like a good thing

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

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

No, I would never say that to someone's face in real life. But it is something that should be discussed in general more, because there are consequences for these actions. And more disabled kids means more of our tax dollars to educate them, pay for them if they cannot be self sufficient adults. Just because "something is possible" does not mean it's a smart idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

Despite anyones feelings on it, it is decidedly and scientifically a terrible idea. Women's bodies are entering menopause at those ages. You dont have the biological ability to give the needed energy to raising young children. It is a choice you can make, but the downsides should be loudly communicated. And financial and corporate institutions should discourage it (or at least not encourage it). Medicaid age adults should not have dependents that need Healthcare coverage.

I agree. There is a reason most women cannot easily get pregnant at age 37-40+. I for one do not want to be chasing around a kid in my 40s or have a kid in HS when I'm almost 60. But everyone can do what they want. However, don't expect others and their tax dollars to fund your kid if there are massive health issues when you chose to get pregnant at 40+.

And yes, I cannot imagine being 45 and chasing a toddler around!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

Despite anyones feelings on it, it is decidedly and scientifically a terrible idea. Women's bodies are entering menopause at those ages. You dont have the biological ability to give the needed energy to raising young children. It is a choice you can make, but the downsides should be loudly communicated. And financial and corporate institutions should discourage it (or at least not encourage it). Medicaid age adults should not have dependents that need Healthcare coverage.

You clearly speak from a position of ignorance/intent to troll.

Medicaid is income is need based and Medicare is a benefit you earn for use as you age.

The rest is just one big MYOB.

Someone asked a question, people answered with their reasons and were attacked as not good enough by an unknown metric.

I love a productive conversation, this antagonistic BS not so much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people just have that dog in them despite being worth $5M or $20M or $100M or whatever.

Yes. I am the first woman on either side of my family to have a graduate degree and I'd like to leave lots of money to future generations. It's a ego thing, I freely admit it.

How could that feed your ego? Your descendants won't care. They'll just take it. You'll be forgotten quicker than you can imagine.

It feeds my ego to be an executive rather than a retired old lady.

That is so sad.

Why? I do volunteer work I find meaningful, I travel, I have friends. No grandchildren yet. Why the judgment? It’s better to spend all day every day doing what you want and indulging yourself?

But you said the most meaningful thing in your life is your corporate job. All the other stuff makes you an "old lady". I think its sad that being an older woman without a corporate job isnt enough. A woman in her 50s or 60s should be able to find her value in volunteering, travel, friends, family, hobbies, that is enough. It is sad to me that people bought the corporate kool aid about needing to keep working to be valuable.

WTF, the only thing I am good for is volunteering, travel, friends, family, hobbies?

You do you, but don’t tell me what’s important for me or what “should” be enough.

What does it matter to you that I am still working? What is wrong with you?

You do you but dont tell me not to have my opinion! It is sad to find the most value in a corporate role. Period. I will judge anyone who believes that is the best way to spend their senior years. Something is broken inside you to need that empty validation.

If you continue to work because you need the money, OK. If you continue to work because you love your job, OK. I cant relate to either, but whatever. But claiming you work because your ego and identity are tied up in a corporate role is messed up.

I am not the pp you are replying to. But how is it any different to having your ego wrapped up in pickleball, travel or your volunteer work? At least it is adding something to society. Being obsessed with luxury cruises or watching back to back shows on television adds very little.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

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

To be fair there’s not many of them especially beyond the coastal cities

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

Despite anyones feelings on it, it is decidedly and scientifically a terrible idea. Women's bodies are entering menopause at those ages. You dont have the biological ability to give the needed energy to raising young children. It is a choice you can make, but the downsides should be loudly communicated. And financial and corporate institutions should discourage it (or at least not encourage it). Medicaid age adults should not have dependents that need Healthcare coverage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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+

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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.

Medicare is 65. Yes, they can stay on your insurance until 26. However, most who retire or start taking medicare don't pay for their kid's insurance once they are out of college. So for that to happen and your kid not be out of college by age 65, means you had a kid after 43. And that is a choice, but not one most people make, especially to have 2 kids still needing health insurance.