4 ms·

Having kids is the wrench in the gears for many people I'd guess. There's a reason for the term DINK (Dual income, no kids). Edit: Also to clarify, I absolutel

Having kids is the wrench in the gears for many people I'd guess. There's a reason for the term DINK (Dual income, no kids). Edit: Also to clarify, I absolutely agree with the living frugally thing, and think most people would be in general better off if they focused less on spending every penny they make.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
The second you have dependents, the equation changes. Now you're optimizing not just for your remaining years of life, but for your children and possibly their children. Which, in most cases, means living in higher cost of living areas to get them in better schools and access to wealthier networks. Also, any adverse health events can sink your whole family, so you need to keep on the treadmill until you have sufficient passive income to keep any health issues from causing financial insecurity. I have noticed that my friends and family that grew up in higher cost of living, higher income areas and went into the standard higher paying careers (doctor/lawyer/finance/engineering) are more financially secure than those who weren't as fortunate or focused on the rat race. At what mental/other cost though, I can't say. Edit: The most financially secure are those who invested in commercial real estate and development.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  Yeah, the author curiously neglected to factor dependents into all his numbers, which makes a massive difference. I think lots of people have kids as a "default option" in their life roadmap, without considering how big of a sacrifice it will be in terms of time and money (and the fact that it's optional!). It's important to put things in perspective before making that kind of decision; making kids may be free, but raising them is anything but.
Spooky23 7y ago
The costs of having children are dramatically over-costed on internet forums. People going the DINK route are mostly prioritizing careers over life. It's a vicious cycle for many, who end up changing their mind and spending alot of money and opportunity cost trying to make up for it.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  It's not the cost of birthing/feeding/clothing/daycaring. It's the cost of having a house in the best school district you can afford, sending your kids on ski trips or international vacations with their friends who also have higher income parents, and various other activities that are involved with being in the "up and coming" social group.
  - stevekemp2 7y ago
    I think that's an America-centric view. In a lot of places in Europe it wouldn't matter what neighborhood you lived in - the schools available would be equally good.
    - gowld 7y ago
      That covers one segment of the conversation, but "move to Europe" isn't a solution for most people not in Europe.
    - war1025 7y ago
      It's not event an America-centric view, it's an urban America view. Live in a district that has only one school for each grade level, and suddenly the rich kids and the poor kids get the same education opportunities. I personally believe that's one of the reasons the upper midwest consistently has the best overall ranked schools in America.
  - mac01021 7y ago
    It is the cost of daycare and regular living stuff. At least for me with my 2 year old. - Daycare is 18k per year. - Extra seat on airplanes, depending on your travel habits could be 2k - Food, diapers, increased medical premiums might all total around 1500 That's like a 30% pay cut for a lot of people.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    That's just pride and puffery. Extravagant kid stuff is about you, not the kids! If you choose to join the cool kids club, you're paying the price of admission. I coach little league ($120/season) and do all sorts of activities with the kids that are fun, enriching and not outrageous. My kids will not see the Louvre or work on their Spanish in Barcelona on a school trip, but will somehow muddle through.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

The second you have dependents, the equation changes. Now you're optimizing not just for your remaining years of life, but for your children and possibly their children. Which, in most cases, means living in higher cost of living areas to get them in better schools and access to wealthier networks. Also, any adverse health events can sink your whole family, so you need to keep on the treadmill until you have sufficient passive income to keep any health issues from causing financial insecurity. I have noticed that my friends and family that grew up in higher cost of living, higher income areas and went into the standard higher paying careers (doctor/lawyer/finance/engineering) are more financially secure than those who weren't as fortunate or focused on the rat race. At what mental/other cost though, I can't say. Edit: The most financially secure are those who invested in commercial real estate and development.

_bxg1 7y ago
Yeah, the author curiously neglected to factor dependents into all his numbers, which makes a massive difference. I think lots of people have kids as a "default option" in their life roadmap, without considering how big of a sacrifice it will be in terms of time and money (and the fact that it's optional!). It's important to put things in perspective before making that kind of decision; making kids may be free, but raising them is anything but.

Spooky23 7y ago

The costs of having children are dramatically over-costed on internet forums. People going the DINK route are mostly prioritizing careers over life. It's a vicious cycle for many, who end up changing their mind and spending alot of money and opportunity cost trying to make up for it.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
It's not the cost of birthing/feeding/clothing/daycaring. It's the cost of having a house in the best school district you can afford, sending your kids on ski trips or international vacations with their friends who also have higher income parents, and various other activities that are involved with being in the "up and coming" social group.
- stevekemp2 7y ago
  I think that's an America-centric view. In a lot of places in Europe it wouldn't matter what neighborhood you lived in - the schools available would be equally good.
  - gowld 7y ago
    That covers one segment of the conversation, but "move to Europe" isn't a solution for most people not in Europe.
  - war1025 7y ago
    It's not event an America-centric view, it's an urban America view. Live in a district that has only one school for each grade level, and suddenly the rich kids and the poor kids get the same education opportunities. I personally believe that's one of the reasons the upper midwest consistently has the best overall ranked schools in America.
- mac01021 7y ago
  It is the cost of daycare and regular living stuff. At least for me with my 2 year old. - Daycare is 18k per year. - Extra seat on airplanes, depending on your travel habits could be 2k - Food, diapers, increased medical premiums might all total around 1500 That's like a 30% pay cut for a lot of people.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  That's just pride and puffery. Extravagant kid stuff is about you, not the kids! If you choose to join the cool kids club, you're paying the price of admission. I coach little league ($120/season) and do all sorts of activities with the kids that are fun, enriching and not outrageous. My kids will not see the Louvre or work on their Spanish in Barcelona on a school trip, but will somehow muddle through.