3 ms·

My daughter is now 11 years old and... well it does get "better" in some senses, but the constant work remains. There are plenty of fun moments sure, but now th

My daughter is now 11 years old and... well it does get "better" in some senses, but the constant work remains. There are plenty of fun moments sure, but now that she is a "tween" new challenges have arisen. The happiest people I know are those who had kids very early in life, and managed to maintain their careers despite this. Their adult children no longer demand so much work, yet the parents still have the benefit of their company and the satisfaction of watching them develop independently. Freed from the constant effort of parenting, these people can now return to the DINK lifestyle.

pc86 4y ago
The age of the parents is irrelevant in this, it's simply an observation that older children are less work than younger children (approaching zero as they're adults, obviously). The only time this might be relevant is if you're having kids at such an old age that you're going to be retiring before they're independent, which is rare for men and bordering on impossible for women.
- JeremyNT 4y ago
  > The age of the parents is irrelevant in this, it's simply an observation that older children are less work than younger children (approaching zero as they're adults, obviously). The only time this might be relevant is if you're having kids at such an old age that you're going to be retiring before they're independent, which is rare for men and bordering on impossible for women. I would argue otherwise for a few reasons. First, when you are young, you are physically more capable of handling the disruption of the young child. You can get by on less sleep, and your body will be more resilient to the awkward schedule. As you age the physical demands will be more difficult to handle. Similarly, the "return to DINK" status does NOT imply retirement. If you have children in your early 20s, you can end up as DINKs in your early 40s. Sure you may still have to work, but at that age you are able to fully enjoy most of the activities you could in your 20s without yet having much diminished physical capacity, and as a bonus now your adult children can join you in those activities. By the time you do retire, your finances should fully recover from the hit of having children decades ago and you can afford to take many vacations. Now instead imagine that you have children at age 40+. You will be exhausted, your physical activity will be reduced, the disruption in lifestyle stacks with the ravages of aging. It is much more difficult to remain healthy as you age, nevermind the huge burden and loss of free time associated with the children. And if you hadn't saved up enough in advance, the financial hit could be substantial, and it might delay your retirement. In addition, if you have children younger in life, you are more likely to have the previous generation available to help shoulder some of the burden. The longer you wait, the less able your parents' generation is to assist as their own health declines. There are some pros to waiting of course, if you are in a fast paced and highly demanding career you may not be able to weather the added burden of children while advancing, so having them later might increase your overall earning capacity. You can also live the DINK lifestyle while you are still at your healthiest.

pc86 4y ago

The age of the parents is irrelevant in this, it's simply an observation that older children are less work than younger children (approaching zero as they're adults, obviously). The only time this might be relevant is if you're having kids at such an old age that you're going to be retiring before they're independent, which is rare for men and bordering on impossible for women.

JeremyNT 4y ago
> The age of the parents is irrelevant in this, it's simply an observation that older children are less work than younger children (approaching zero as they're adults, obviously). The only time this might be relevant is if you're having kids at such an old age that you're going to be retiring before they're independent, which is rare for men and bordering on impossible for women. I would argue otherwise for a few reasons. First, when you are young, you are physically more capable of handling the disruption of the young child. You can get by on less sleep, and your body will be more resilient to the awkward schedule. As you age the physical demands will be more difficult to handle. Similarly, the "return to DINK" status does NOT imply retirement. If you have children in your early 20s, you can end up as DINKs in your early 40s. Sure you may still have to work, but at that age you are able to fully enjoy most of the activities you could in your 20s without yet having much diminished physical capacity, and as a bonus now your adult children can join you in those activities. By the time you do retire, your finances should fully recover from the hit of having children decades ago and you can afford to take many vacations. Now instead imagine that you have children at age 40+. You will be exhausted, your physical activity will be reduced, the disruption in lifestyle stacks with the ravages of aging. It is much more difficult to remain healthy as you age, nevermind the huge burden and loss of free time associated with the children. And if you hadn't saved up enough in advance, the financial hit could be substantial, and it might delay your retirement. In addition, if you have children younger in life, you are more likely to have the previous generation available to help shoulder some of the burden. The longer you wait, the less able your parents' generation is to assist as their own health declines. There are some pros to waiting of course, if you are in a fast paced and highly demanding career you may not be able to weather the added burden of children while advancing, so having them later might increase your overall earning capacity. You can also live the DINK lifestyle while you are still at your healthiest.