Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:But then a family could live on one salary and women weren't suppose to have careers outside their homes. We can't live on one salary anymore.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous[b wrote:]I hope you support paid family leave and universal affordable childcare, and candidates that push for those policies.[/b]
I do, but in the past, everyone started having kids in their early 20's and none of these things existed.
You could, you just don’t want to.
Sure, we could. Buy an inexpensive house in a neighborhood with poorly rated schools, pinch pennies, have all the basic needs met (food, shelter) but not be able to save for things like trips and college. And then our kids would be at a disadvantage when trying to find their way in this increasingly competitive society. Everyone wants to give their family the best possible start in life and for most, it's not possible on one income.
Anonymous wrote:
As a biologist, I wish more people understood that fertility peaks in your early 20s. Emphasis on early.
However, that is too young for many people to have a stable source of income without depending on a spouse, parents or the government. We should not encourage people to have kids they cannot support.
It's a case of biology vs. economics.
Anonymous wrote:I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here - some people have kids at 23 and are very happy; some are miserable. Same goes for 33 and, hell, even 43.
I will say, however, that I find the "I want to know my grandkids" argument to be kind of overinflated here. I mean yes, getting to know my grandkids late in life sounds fun and I hope I'm around for their childhood. I guess that's an argument in favor of 33 (if me plus my kid had a kid at 33, I'd be a 66 year old new grandparent) instead of 43 (86).
But I find it very strange to plan your ENTIRE LIFE around the hope of a relationship with your adult grandchildren in your 80s. I mean, are 20 year olds seriously spending that much time with their grandparents? In my experience, even in the best relationships, they're doing maybe a phone call a week and a handful of visits per year. I understand that it will be sad someday to die and leave my grandchildren behind, but I'm not sure it's less sad if they are 25 when that happens versus if they are 15. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice, it just seems to be really overvalued?
If I end up living long enough to know my grandchildren into their 20s and 30s, then what a blessing that is. But I don't feel like it is so important that I should base life decisions in the prime of my life on the possibility. I care a lot more about being there for my kids until they are fully settled into adulthood, but after that the rest is just a cherry on top. I personally prioritize things like being financially stable when I have young children, having career flexibility, etc. over that.
That's not to say that I advocate for waiting forever - on the other end of childrearing, I want them out of the house while I'm still young enough to enjoy myself. But my point is more in response to the oddly high posts about knowing your grandchildren for a long time. That's not a guarantee and so risky to base your whole life around IMO.
Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, OP. My husband's father always told him not to have kids before 35, and my husband listened. I wasn't in a huge hurry either - we traveled, partied, focused on ourselves and enjoyed a DINK life before having our kids at 36 and 38. Honestly we wish we would've started at least 5 years earlier. We have wonderful kids but we are exhausted and still have many years of dealing with little ones ahead of us.
Anonymous wrote:I agree with you, OP. My husband's father always told him not to have kids before 35, and my husband listened. I wasn't in a huge hurry either - we traveled, partied, focused on ourselves and enjoyed a DINK life before having our kids at 36 and 38. Honestly we wish we would've started at least 5 years earlier. We have wonderful kids but we are exhausted and still have many years of dealing with little ones ahead of us.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is a classic case of DCUM bubble
The vast majority of people still have kids in their 20s
UMC people are valuing their careers/location over families
The average age was 21 in the 70's it is now 26 ... in the whole US.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous[b wrote:]I hope you support paid family leave and universal affordable childcare, and candidates that push for those policies.[/b]
I do, but in the past, everyone started having kids in their early 20's and none of these things existed.
Anonymous wrote:This is a classic case of DCUM bubble
The vast majority of people still have kids in their 20s
UMC people are valuing their careers/location over families
Anonymous wrote:This is a classic case of DCUM bubble
The vast majority of people still have kids in their 20s
UMC people are valuing their careers/location over families