Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read the article. I think that, again, there's more correlation than causation going on here. For example, you frequently see studies that show married people save a higher percentage of their income than singles. But it may just be that married people tend to have a more long-term focus than single people. As a single person I know I save more than 99% of people with my income level, for example. But I'm the exception.
Economies of scale help some, to be sure, but not that much. I could only save a few more hundred dollars a month on rent by being married - not a huge amount. I have time as a single person to prepare my own meals - not sure I would have much more time being married. I already save 2/3 of the income as a single person - there's just not a ton more to save.
You have similar studies that show that most financially successful people own their homes rather than rent. This doesn't mean that you need to own a home to be financial successful (in fact, in my area ownership may hurt financial success, it just means that financially successful people tend to own. Correlation, not causation.
The economy of scale is or should I say could be a big deal for most people, even you but maybe not in. Percentage terms. If your SO made a similar income as you and had the same mindset you collectively could save more than twice as many dollars as you do now
Last edited by Lowexpectations; 11-19-2014 at 04:37 PM..
not everyone wants/needs/ or can afford the white picket fence and 2.5 kids. It's a choice, and if people plan their lives right, and not allow someone else to do it for them, their own version of happiness may very well be a childless life.
I had 2.5 kids once. Then I found Bobby's lower half and sewed it back to his torso, so now I have 3 again.
Anyone of any generation in financial trouble can lessen their struggle by not having a family.... isn't that obvious? If what we are saying is that to simply do ok... live moderately.. simply avoid retiring poor one should not have a family, then that's pretty sad state of affairs.
Its one thing to choose to focus ones' life on wealth creation and career over having family. Its another to say that simply to live moderately one needs to avoid having children/family.
I don't know about you guys but having a family is the equivalent of living.... and living well (even if I do struggle financially). Life is not worth living if all I could do is live to work. If this is the message we have to pass down to our children, then we too are failing as a generation.
PS> We planned (both emotionally and financially) for two children. The second round ended up being twins. I guess I should choose and shoot one.
It would be financially irresponsible for me to have children, but money isn't the only reason why I don't want to have them. I would rather work and be able to do whatever I want evenings and weekends, travel without limits, have more disposable income, more ability to save for retirement, etc. Kids are not for me. Life is short and I value what limited time I have outside of work. My slightly older brother has three children (he's 28, I'm 24) and he is struggling. My parents are not in good financial condition in due part to raising three children. Parents often seem very stressed with their children when I observe them out in public or at family gatherings. No thanks.
The idea of saving by remaining single and not having kids s ridiculous indeed.Married and family people are more concerned on saving . They have organized lives and they very clearly know about their goals in life . The people with family own their own houses. While singles tend to live in rented apartments. Their own house is not their first priority. So, what do you think who is financially more secure????
Making a family is the law of the nature , its the destiny of evolution. If everybody think like wise then what about the future of humanity. We have come here with a purpose to evolve to contribute . If we does not serve our purpose then what? We are useless.
I am not here to deliver a sermon , i am talking scientifically and statistically .
Says who? Most people cant even afford the hospital bills for a baby let alone the amount to raise one
Not having children or having too few children upsets the demographic balance of the country. This will lead to further and intensified problems with things like Social Security, diminishing work force, etc.
The solution will be more immigration. This is the only thing that can save our economy, except few people are in favor of it. A decreasing population will lead to labor shortages, deflation in the housing market, fewer consumers and more.
Enjoy your vacation though...
On the other hand, there is labor over supply. In the future, labor shortage will be one of the only effective ways for labor to bad some leverage on income. Labor shortage means businesses have to spend a bit more on feeding workers.
I'm a Generation Xer, 45 years old, never married, no kids, net worth: $1.3 million. I would highly recommend the single life to everyone. So many people that I know around my age or older have gotten divorces and are financially stressed sending their kids to college. So many hardly ever see their grown children and their grandchildren. All that time, effort, and money wasted and nothing to show for it. Sad.
As for being selfish...Huh! Just remember, when I'm enjoying my retirement, your kids and grandkids are going to be working their butts off to provide me Social Security and Medicare. I'll take selfish over sadistic any day.
It's dumb to have kids you can't afford, sure. But someone's gotta have kids, so that there will continue to be people!
As far as your last two points, these are matters of subjective personal preference, and thus there is no right or wrong answer.
As an additional note, looking only at your quality of life and not the potential children's quality of life (vs. not existing), is arguably too selfish. But this will quickly go into a discussion of moral philosophy and the relation between deontic and consequentialist ethics, so I'll spare it for now.
Nonetheless, if no one has kids, then Millennials' retirement money will be near-worthless in 50 years' time, because there will be a steeply reduced amount of goods and services to back the financial assets. In order to have goods and services you must have labor. If Millennials do not reproduce then in 50 years there will be insufficient young-bodied labor to produce and maintain things needed to continue living. There won't be enough doctors in 50 years if Millennials don't reproduce, so your Medicare will be worthless, even if you have it, as will any other health plan!
We can always have immigration. We want more immigrants. More people. More consumers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
