Housing Bubble - Massachusetts (Boston, Worcester: 2015, student loans, unemployment rate)

[Whatsnext75]

i agree...when i had my second baby there was a woman in the hospital who was 60 something and had just had twins. Ridiculous.

[ECPCVC]

Originally Posted by timberline742

And couples have much better outcomes with its adults getting married. But 20s is just too young mentally, emotionally, and financially to be a parent. Great, the body is ready for it, big whoop, the body is read for sex in one's early teens.

20s, especially early 20s, are definitely still children in body development and brain formation, we don't have adult brains until 25... and then there should be time spent in the world using those brains while choosing a life partner and making life changing decisions.

And good, fertility declines, fewer people have children and fewer children are born. This is a bonus for society.

The rate of divorce (from years 2006-2010) within 5 yrs of first marriage is 20% for ages 20-24, 15% for ages 25-29, 14% for ages 30-34 and 19% for ages 35+. The difference is negligible from ages 25-34. Waiting till after 35 does not bode well for your marriage.

Want to Avoid Divorce? Wait to Get Married, But Not Too Long | Family Studies

Just because some people are not ready to be married and have a family in their late 20s doesn't mean people who are, are irrational children. That would describe most of the country. My husband and I met young and we're still happy 12 years and 2 kids (which we had in our late 20s) later Most of my college friends met their future husbands in their early/mid 20s and were married in their late 20s and still managed to become successful professionals if that's the path they desired.

[chicagoliz]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Consider this for a moment. Everything costs less outside of Boston (until you hit NYC and even then there's much more in NYC). Can people move out and move back to Boston? Probably not but that puts it alongside SF. But can you get more if you banked some capital and leave? Absolutely! Many people in Boston are not awash in cash. Half make 35K or less
Half of Boston Residents Earn Less than $35,000 a Year

Ok well what if this half leaves cause a downfall in prices as there is more inventory. Why struggle in Boston and make 35K if you can live better in Worcester, Lowell or heck maybe Brockton (Dorchester and brockton have the same crime levels)? Boston Public schools has been losing student population for over 40 years now. Private, charter, other public (metco technically) are legit reasons for the decline.

Cities "work" for two major reasons. Businesses find more customers and people find more job opportunities. When a city has significant job losses it is considered a larger failure (GM with autos, Pittsburgh with steel etc). But the internet has changed much of this. You don't have to operate in a place to get revenue from it. You don't have to live in a given place to shop.This is why some might simply visit a city and leave it at that. Otherwise what exactly is the point? Real estate markets should be viewed more on the type and margin. Personally I see divide in the state. Too much affordable housing in western mass and too little in eastern.

In theory this should work, but in reality it doesn't. Too many employers are still focused on 'face time.' And there is some legitimacy to wanting people to be working together, face to face. A teleconference just doesn't have the same impact as a live meeting. You are always missing that extra interaction - the extra bonding and the extra understanding that comes from just sitting in the same room with someone. On a teleconference, you often miss the subtle eyeroll someone gives when they've heard something asinine. You don't see their eyes light up when they've been intrigued. You don't make the same interpersonal connections that make working with someone really desirable and enjoyable.

And Cambridge is always going to be in demand. There are employers who want to have a presence there just for the Kendall Square cache. Whether you think this is asinine doesn't matter -- that mindset exists, and it always will. Maybe not for everyone, but for a not insignificant number of companies.

Originally Posted by robr2

That number is per worker. Put two family members making $35K each and all of a sudden it's $70K household income. It's not living large by any stretch but it's enough to keep the family off of public assistance.

Originally Posted by GeoffD

The marriage rate among Millennials is dropping like a stone. Only 26% marry before age 29. The economic reality for the working class is that you need to get married to someone with at least your income level and stay married.

The last time I looked a few months ago, it looked like it would take about $90K of household income to buy a starter home that needs some TLC in a GreatSchools 7 town. $70K lands you in a GreatSchools 5 town and continues the socioeconomic self-segregation.

Someone single making $35K is living with their parents. Damn, even if they're married they might be living with their parents.

Originally Posted by Dm84

You're entitled to your opinion but scientifically both the mother and baby have a better outcome when the parents are in their 20's vs 30's and 40's. Fertility also declines with age.

People in their 20's are not children anymore, even if they want to act like they are.

Maybe better healthwise, but not necessarily on other measures.

Originally Posted by Whatsnext75

It's true that fertility does decline...but i managed to pregnant at 35 and 37 very easily. I'm done now...and i dont recommend waiting because it's not easy for eveyone...but many people are open to IVF and it's free in MA. I wouldn't want to have to go that route...but a lot of people do.

IVF is no picnic and there are no guarantees. I had no interest, although I know plenty of people who did it.

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I think part of the problem is that people consider someone in their 20s to still be a child. Certainly the people who think that way shouldn't be getting married or having kids, but if you've graduated college (or college equivalent) and have a steady job there are a lot of biological advantages to having kids in your 20s.

Another big advantage is that you'll be young enough to really enjoy life post-kids. My parents had two kids by 22 and were able to work internationally guilt-free in their 40s and 50s.

Yes, I think of this often and am sometimes jealous of my friends who have kids off in college. But if I'd had a kid in my early-mid twenties, I'd have been completely screwed. I don't know how I would have ever paid for childcare.

Originally Posted by Whatsnext75

Yes there are pluses and minuses to both situations...people are living longer but women still just have a small window really in when they can have children. Seems like 20's is too young for many people these days especially living in the boston area where you want to finish school and get your finances together first. Then by waiting it does seem strange to be 46 or 47 with a 10 year old. My mom was 34 when i was 10. My DH will be 52 when our youngest is 10.

Damn, I'm 47 with a 6 year old (almost 7). And my older son just turned 12. We are in no way big anomolies in this area. It's not the way I'd hoped or planned, but it's the way it is. And I know several folks my age whose kids are even younger. (But it is weird to think how when my mom was my age, I was 22.)

[CaseyB]

Originally Posted by sal1181

We where both 23 when we got married. Had our daughter at 27 and now I'm due with my second next month and I'm 34. Been married 11 years and have no regrets about getting married at 23.

I have no regrets about getting married when I was 23 either. I'm still married to the same guy.

[Whatsnext75]

I think it's nice when people meet in high school and college and stay together for the long haul. I just dont see it happen often, it's not the norm these days. Heck it must save a good amount of heart ache not to mention dating isnt always very fun.

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

Someone single making $35K is living with their parents. Damn, even if they're married they might be living with their parents.

Only a 1%er could ever make such a ridiculous statement.

[Whatsnext75]

My mom also got married at 23, had 2 kids and is still with my dad who was 30.

These days people just seem younger than lets say 30 years ago. I think people are babied more as kids? I don't know what it is but i definitely feel it. People live with their parents for a while after school...but i also blame that on some people having crazy school loans and a low paying job. A girl i work with is 23 and still lives at home with parents. She does a great job at work but other than that she seems very young to me.

And ill be 45 when my oldest is 10 and 47 when my youngest is 10. Not the way i thought it would be but i wouldn't change it...and i know i wont be abnormal around here.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by Whatsnext75

...but many people are open to IVF and it's free in MA. I wouldn't want to have to go that route...but a lot of people do.

It is not free. Those costs are borne by either the taxpayers or the health insurance ratepayers.

[Whatsnext75]

Well it's free for the person getting it done. Quite honestly the people i know who've had it in ma could very well afford it...meanwhile i have a friend in FL who is a teacher and doesnt make much yet she had to pay out of pocket.
Anyone know why or how it's free in MA but not other states?

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by Whatsnext75

Well it's free for the person getting it done. Quite honestly the people i know who've had it in ma could very well afford it...meanwhile i have a friend in FL who is a teacher and doesnt make much yet she had to pay out of pocket.
Anyone know why or how it's free in MA but not other states?

It's the law but there are age restrictions and other conditions attached.