3 ms·

> I really wish more companies would be willing to do this, as a childless adult I have no need for more than 20 hours worth of pay, and my health definitely be

> I really wish more companies would be willing to do this, as a childless adult I have no need for more than 20 hours worth of pay, and my health definitely benefits on a lighter schedule. Pardon my ignorance but in your view how is having a child supposed to push this in the other direction? Do you see having a child as an opportunity/reason to raise the 20 hours/week to 40 hours/week and stay away from home longer? Because I thought the point of raising children was so you could spend some of your time raising a family, and my impression was most older people would rather be with their families than at work. Do you see yourself wishing that you could work 40 hours when you have children or something? Wouldn't it make more sense to work more now and save for that future instead so you don't have to work as hard then?

Nullabillity 9y ago
Children are very expensive.
- wfunction 9y ago
  Yes... I was trying to say, wouldn't it make more sense to work more right now so you can save for when you do have children. Because, like you said, you'll need the money more later than now, and you'll want to spend more time at home than you do now. i.e. if you're like most people, you'll be less excited to work, and will do it more out of necessity than desire. So why not plan accordingly.
  - bvda 9y ago
    Assuming he is going to have children
    - wfunction 9y ago
      Yeah, I suppose if he's already decided for sure he doesn't want to, then this doesn't apply, good point. If the possibility is there though it seems a little dangerous not to try to save up for it. Worst case is you end up with too much money and can retire early and do whatever you want, which hardly seems like an awful outcome. Especially considering the reverse might mean not being able to provide for (or have much time to see) a potential family you might want later...
  - Arizhel 9y ago
    It's not going to be enough, that's why. Sure, you can work more right now to try to save up money, but making 30% more money now isn't remotely enough to make up for how much those kids are going to cost. On top of that, you have to remember that you can't have kids by yourself (at least not easily, if you're male): you need a willing partner. If you're working your ass off to save money for kids, that means you're either letting your relationship suffer because you're at work all the time, or you're missing out on opportunities to find a partner. And the older you get, the harder it is to find a good partner (really, you need to find her in college; if you haven't found her by age 25, you probably won't). All in all, our society simply isn't set up to have an enjoyable middle-class lifestyle and have kids. You need to pick one or the other: either be poor and have kids and struggle financially, or enjoy a more financially comfortable lifestyle and forgo having kids. Also, having a happy relationship and having kids are at odds with each other, so again you have to pick one. Either have kids and look forward to divorce and child support or at least a miserable marriage where you dread coming home from work, or find a partner who doesn't want kids and enjoy spending time with her. It's little wonder that the birth rates in developed nations have fallen so low.
    - sageabilly 9y ago
      "Also, having a happy relationship and having kids are at odds with each other, so again you have to pick one. Either have kids and look forward to divorce and child support or at least a miserable marriage where you dread coming home from work, or find a partner who doesn't want kids and enjoy spending time with her." That's a very dark line of thinking, and I'm sorry your life has led you to believe that is the case. It's absolutely possible to have kids and a happy relationship, just as it's absolutely possible to not have kids and have a happy relationship, or have kids and a miserable relationship, or not have kids and have a miserable relationship. Also, it's possible to have a middle-class lifestyle with kids; difficult, but possible. Living in the middle states of the US, with an in-demand skillset relative to the area you live in, and a semi-frugal mindset- it's absolutely possible. In San Francisco or DC? Not so much.
      - Arizhel 9y ago
disiplus 9y ago
im with OP. if you are alone right now all the extra time you have will be yours alone, and all the money you earn will have to be enough to support you. If i chose to do it like you sugested. Work 100% and save 50%, there is no way in hell that i would save that 50%. Nobody would. When you only have 10$ in bank to buy a lunch you buy it for max 10$ but if you have 100$ you have to force yourself to spend only 10$. you probably would not. I know that i would not do it 100% of time. So in the end you end up saving alot less then 50%. when you get your child, the extra time that you have if you work less will be spend between you, your child/family, your alone time ( if you value it, will be not even close to 50% ) and because having a family is way more expensive, all the money you saved when working 100% and supposed to save 50% would be spend 3 times faster then when you where alone, and then you would have to go back to work.
- wfunction 9y ago
  > When you only have 10$ in bank to buy a lunch you buy it for max 10$ but if you have 100$ you have to force yourself to spend only 10$. you probably would not. I would agree with you but this is not the situation we're talking about there. The OP is totally comfortable living with 50% of the income; clearly he's not counting pennies when he goes out to get lunch, and I assumed that's not a situation he's looking to get himself into either (but if he is for some reason, then OK, you're right). It very much seemed like he'd be still living pretty darn comfortably and getting everything he wants at 50% pay. Unless you like to spend money just for the hell of it, I don't see why you'd spend more on your lunch just because you're making more money, when you're already eating whatever you want anyway. > when you get your child, the extra time that you have if you work less will be spend between you, your child/family, your alone time ( if you value it, will be not even close to 50% ) and because having a family is way more expensive, all the money you saved when working 100% and supposed to save 50% would be spend 3 times faster then when you where alone, and then you would have to go back to work. I was thinking more like, invest the money in something instead of directly spending (say) 10 years' worth of 2x salary in like 3 years of daily life expenses. Maybe even use it to start your own business and dictate your own hours... so many possibilities I can't even think of when you have the money.
jrumbut 9y ago
My point is that my expenses are low, that's all.

Nullabillity 9y ago

Children are very expensive.

wfunction 9y ago
Yes... I was trying to say, wouldn't it make more sense to work more right now so you can save for when you do have children. Because, like you said, you'll need the money more later than now, and you'll want to spend more time at home than you do now. i.e. if you're like most people, you'll be less excited to work, and will do it more out of necessity than desire. So why not plan accordingly.
- bvda 9y ago
  Assuming he is going to have children
  - wfunction 9y ago
    Yeah, I suppose if he's already decided for sure he doesn't want to, then this doesn't apply, good point. If the possibility is there though it seems a little dangerous not to try to save up for it. Worst case is you end up with too much money and can retire early and do whatever you want, which hardly seems like an awful outcome. Especially considering the reverse might mean not being able to provide for (or have much time to see) a potential family you might want later...
- Arizhel 9y ago
  It's not going to be enough, that's why. Sure, you can work more right now to try to save up money, but making 30% more money now isn't remotely enough to make up for how much those kids are going to cost. On top of that, you have to remember that you can't have kids by yourself (at least not easily, if you're male): you need a willing partner. If you're working your ass off to save money for kids, that means you're either letting your relationship suffer because you're at work all the time, or you're missing out on opportunities to find a partner. And the older you get, the harder it is to find a good partner (really, you need to find her in college; if you haven't found her by age 25, you probably won't). All in all, our society simply isn't set up to have an enjoyable middle-class lifestyle and have kids. You need to pick one or the other: either be poor and have kids and struggle financially, or enjoy a more financially comfortable lifestyle and forgo having kids. Also, having a happy relationship and having kids are at odds with each other, so again you have to pick one. Either have kids and look forward to divorce and child support or at least a miserable marriage where you dread coming home from work, or find a partner who doesn't want kids and enjoy spending time with her. It's little wonder that the birth rates in developed nations have fallen so low.
  - sageabilly 9y ago
    "Also, having a happy relationship and having kids are at odds with each other, so again you have to pick one. Either have kids and look forward to divorce and child support or at least a miserable marriage where you dread coming home from work, or find a partner who doesn't want kids and enjoy spending time with her." That's a very dark line of thinking, and I'm sorry your life has led you to believe that is the case. It's absolutely possible to have kids and a happy relationship, just as it's absolutely possible to not have kids and have a happy relationship, or have kids and a miserable relationship, or not have kids and have a miserable relationship. Also, it's possible to have a middle-class lifestyle with kids; difficult, but possible. Living in the middle states of the US, with an in-demand skillset relative to the area you live in, and a semi-frugal mindset- it's absolutely possible. In San Francisco or DC? Not so much.
    - Arizhel 9y ago

disiplus 9y ago

im with OP. if you are alone right now all the extra time you have will be yours alone, and all the money you earn will have to be enough to support you. If i chose to do it like you sugested. Work 100% and save 50%, there is no way in hell that i would save that 50%. Nobody would. When you only have 10$ in bank to buy a lunch you buy it for max 10$ but if you have 100$ you have to force yourself to spend only 10$. you probably would not. I know that i would not do it 100% of time. So in the end you end up saving alot less then 50%. when you get your child, the extra time that you have if you work less will be spend between you, your child/family, your alone time ( if you value it, will be not even close to 50% ) and because having a family is way more expensive, all the money you saved when working 100% and supposed to save 50% would be spend 3 times faster then when you where alone, and then you would have to go back to work.

wfunction 9y ago
> When you only have 10$ in bank to buy a lunch you buy it for max 10$ but if you have 100$ you have to force yourself to spend only 10$. you probably would not. I would agree with you but this is not the situation we're talking about there. The OP is totally comfortable living with 50% of the income; clearly he's not counting pennies when he goes out to get lunch, and I assumed that's not a situation he's looking to get himself into either (but if he is for some reason, then OK, you're right). It very much seemed like he'd be still living pretty darn comfortably and getting everything he wants at 50% pay. Unless you like to spend money just for the hell of it, I don't see why you'd spend more on your lunch just because you're making more money, when you're already eating whatever you want anyway. > when you get your child, the extra time that you have if you work less will be spend between you, your child/family, your alone time ( if you value it, will be not even close to 50% ) and because having a family is way more expensive, all the money you saved when working 100% and supposed to save 50% would be spend 3 times faster then when you where alone, and then you would have to go back to work. I was thinking more like, invest the money in something instead of directly spending (say) 10 years' worth of 2x salary in like 3 years of daily life expenses. Maybe even use it to start your own business and dictate your own hours... so many possibilities I can't even think of when you have the money.

jrumbut 9y ago

My point is that my expenses are low, that's all.