4 ms·
> Having children is very expensive, so it’s hard to make that work with FIRE. On the other hand, van life and tiny houses are logistically prohibitive to havin
by sxp 6y ago
> Having children is very expensive, so it’s hard to make that work with FIRE. On the other hand, van life and tiny houses are logistically prohibitive to having children.
This is debatable. If neither parent is working and they have the time and knowledge to homeschool their kids, having children becomes cheaper since the parents don't need daycare, a nanny, an expensive private school, etc.
People of all social classes have been having kids since the dawn of humanity. Kids can be as cheap or as expensive as you want if you don't have to worry about working 9-to-5 at the same time.
- schwartzworld 6y agoSo, kids can be cheap if you don't have to worry about working? How do you feed your children in this scenario where neither parent works? How about medical bills? I'm not saying a lot of people couldn't spend less on childcare etc, but the ability to do it without working assumes a certain level of financial comfort. That's not even taking into account the added cost of leaving the workforce for several years. I know several parents who found it difficult to return to their former fields.
- sxp 6y ago> How do you feed your children in this scenario where neither parent works? How about medical bills? FIRE. If your life plan involves having kids, you'll need higher FIRE number, but it's still possible. Medicial bills are always the hardest part of FIRE since you can't plan for them and they have an unlimited ceiling. But you can aim for a basic insurance plan on Obamacare or move to a country with a modern medical insurance system.