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'm glad you said that. I find reducing children to mere financial or convenience objects to be disturbing. In our generation, most of us had children while young and my guess is that many hadn't even begun to think seriously about retirement yet as they were in their 20s to early 30s. Having given it further thought I also find the premise of this thread rather sad. My children are my children, not hedges against aging issues or barriers to retirement. They're my children - nothing more - nothing less.
Well, ever since the mid 80s, in order to hit a mil or more in retirement, one had to start getting serious about retirement funding no later than age 24 or so. No joke.
I admire people that choose not to have children for many reasons, but thinking of children as not being a good return on an investment is not one of them. When sentient beings need to fit into a financial equation or quantified for their value we have lost our humanity.
I understand the debate and the coming changes but find the cold heartedness, though some may call it being prudent, quite chilling. Maybe the time of the robots has come and ours is at an end. Instead of a dog or a child, maybe those 70 year olds should invest in a clone or a drone for their future happiness and security.
Like it or not, as real value adjusted incomes (e.g. purchasing power) has fallen, people have had to think such dark thoughts. It is what it is. Call me a monster. I don't care.
Perhaps in starting this thread I was not clear about assumptions or made faulty assumptions.
Are there not a number of participants in this forum who suggest they are strong budget makers and follow those budgets? Did they not factor the cost of having a child in that budget and the fact that it would require cutbacks in other areas? Did none of them having a child not consider cutting back on savings or their 401/403 contributions to afford that child.
Did no one here ever discuss with their spouse whether they could afford another child?
Did people not make the decision to not have another child because of the cost of doing so?
What about factoring the cost of their education and having to provide for them for say 22 years until they finished college and if age 35 that would mean to age 57?
Is there no consideration of trade off cost/opportunity cost and the reality that money spent on one thing is money not available for spending on something else?
Did people not use calculators to estimate the long term cost of having a child and what that total might look like?
Most of us had far more certainty about available resources than young people today. Consider even fewer pensions and challenges to SS and Medicare. Rising day care cost etc etc.
This is not a question for the retired generation but for our children and grand children. Consider the much talked about impact of student loan debt on recent graduates and how it has cost many of them to defer home buying and more to stay at home. The rise in luxury apartment popularity with luxury amenities etc etc. Is that suggesting that the cost of children will not be in their financial reflections?
Well you can see my answers. I know they are disturbing to those who never faced these things back in the day (~ pre-1990s in terms of the decision points in question).
Our income was very modest when we started our family (circa early 80s), but we both very much wanted to be parents, despite our limitations. We absolutely knew we would make it work no matter what and just jumped in heart first...
Having said this, kids aren't for everyone and, God knows, it's a challenge raising them - both financially and emotionally. The most important thing is to know who you really are and what you want out of life. I hate to see anyone succumb to society's expectations and bring innocent children into the world when they're just not prepared to love unconditionally and make the necessary sacrifices.
It is not necessarily about finances influencing whether we have children but when to stop. Have none of you ever said hmmmm maybe no
More especially when in your 30's
Yeah, our original plan was to have two kids by the time we were 30, figuring that would give them plenty of time to become independent (especially financially) well before we would be contemplating retirement. We ended up having a 3rd "whoops" kid, but we were still in our early 30's so we figured that though this was going to be some additional cost we'd still be financially OK by the time retirement came around, even if somewhat less funded. However, the 3rd kid was born handicapped, so that pretty much scrapped our long term financial plans.
But though it created a bunch of unexpected turmoil in our lives, including financially, we still came out just fine. In all likelihood, I came out a much better person having to deal with the financial upheaval and uncertainty, going against my strong planning tendencies.
What blew up on us financially was my wife ended up not working at all so she could care for our kid(s). Handicapped kids can be much more expensive than typical kids, and we ran into quite a bit of that too. In retirement we wanted to find a place where she could be appropriately engaged and challenged, including a bit of a social life, so we ended up retiring to rather expensive California instead of going to a lower cost area, which was our original plan. And finally we have her still living with us today, and likely will until we are no longer physically able to take care of her.
So financial planning can be severely impacted by many situations.
Last night, I had one of those times with my son. We laughed, we cried, we remembered.
No matter what, I went home thinking what a lucky mom I was to have such a wonderful son. He's just a good guy, regular job, independent, kind, loyal to his friends and a millennial homeowner! He's single, no girlfriend to speak of but I'm so proud and happy to be his mom!
Worth all the $$$ in the word just to have him around
Just having kids is a drag on retirement as the money spent raising has a trade off cost of saving and investing
This is so true. My husband and I recently reviewed all our assets. He has 4 children from a first marriage. Although we share our money, we have always held everything other than our house separately. His assets are exactly half of mine. Some of that is attributable to him investing more conservatively, but the bulk of it is due to being the primary support of 4 children.
You are one of the forum participants I was thinking of when I started the thread. We like you have the benefits of pensions etc that were not going to be influenced up or down as long as we put the time in. Have you not known female educators in their late fifties bemoaning the fact they took time off to raise their kids and now to work another ten years to qualify for their pension and other retirement benefits. Have you known others who took minimal time off and have thirty plus years in? Consider a state that requires 35 years. Yes you are comfortable now with a solid nest egg and like us realize financially we had another one. Yes it is called planned parenthood and not sure about you but I know a few folks who purposefully timed their kids, four or more years apart to hopefully avoid two undergrads at the same time. When you consider fewer today have the advantage we do you gave to wonder. Public pension benefits are changing and the number of years go qualify increasing and that is challenging some who took time off under one set of rules but now face another set.
This certainly gave me pause.
Yes, I have many educator friends, mostly female, who got snared in the Byzantine SS/pension world. But I don't recall a single one who related this to a decision about having children. All were eventually more concerned with the mechanics of the rule than with how their family planning might have contributed, or not, to it.
Actually I don't know any one, male or female, who spaced their children based on retirement planning. Nor anyone who regretted not doing so. When spacing was planned successfully, it had everything to do with the immediate needs and wants of the children and parents than with future college, much less retirement, benefits.
I'm pondering this, though. As well as other posts in the thread. Odd to say, there are 20- and 30-somethings in my family and circle who seek out my advice about such matters. As you point out, their world is not the same we faced.
This certainly gave me pause.
Yes, I have many educator friends, mostly female, who got snared in the Byzantine SS/pension world. But I don't recall a single one who related this to a decision about having children. All were eventually more concerned with the mechanics of the rule than with how their family planning might have contributed, or not, to it.
Actually I don't know any one, male or female, who spaced their children based on retirement planning. Nor anyone who regretted not doing so. When spacing was planned successfully, it had everything to do with the immediate needs and wants of the children and parents than with future college, much less retirement, benefits.
I'm pondering this, though. As well as other posts in the thread. Odd to say, there are 20- and 30-somethings in my family and circle who seek out my advice about such matters. As you point out, their world is not the same we faced.
Interesting they were discussing and thinking about the mechanics without consideration of cause and effect. Need to work 30 years for full retirement and you start at age 25 makes you eligible for full retirement at age 55 unless there is an older age qualification. Take ten years off and you need to work to 65 for your thirty years. Interesting they never considered the cause of why they were looking at retirement at 65 and others they started with still 55. My wife is sure glad now that I raised it as an issue back in the day and she got out at 59 with 37 years in. Was as excited about minimum time off when having our kids but glad she listened now. Others didn't consider and are/were lamenting working the extra years and putting up with kids today. There are more than just child care reasons but also needing to work until the appropriate SS age but that's another planning topic.
Interesting discussion here. My parents are better off financially than any of their children will be--they truly had golden years after retirement and the stock market treated them well. So they are not a financial burden. They moved away to live in a warm climate 25 years ago, not worrying about how our lives were too much. They separated from their adult children with ease.
However, they now need some emotional support as they are in their early 90s and will probably live to 100, based on the family history. We children are all boomers and only 2 of us are giving that support. The others appear to be just waiting for their financial windfall when our parents leave this earth.
You can't really generalize. Every child is different and I have boomer friends who are financially supporting their parents. I only hope that if I need some type of support (more likely emotional than financial I am hoping) at and advanced age my millennial will be there for me. I like to think I set a good example of caring.
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.
Seeing my son
