4 ms·

Having a kid in the US is retirement-suicide at best, if you're not rich. As in, it'll all but completely kill any hope of a decent retirement. And if you get u

Having a kid in the US is retirement-suicide at best, if you're not rich. As in, it'll all but completely kill any hope of a decent retirement. And if you get unlucky (as far as the kid's health) it's like winning a reverse-lottery ticket that condemns you to lifelong poverty. Except the odds of that happening are way better than hitting a lotto jackpot. I get that birth rates are also low in Europe so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution, but I know an awful lot of people in the US who'd like to have kids, or who'd like to have more of them, but it's such a bonkers-bad financial decision that they can't bring themselves to do it. That is, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of desire in the US to have more kids, but you're punished so badly for it that people avoid it anyway. I think fixing our healthcare system and improving our public pension scheme to something better than "if you have to rely on it, you're probably fucked" would help a ton.

labrador 4y ago
I'm retired and I'd be looking for options like Canada's voluntary euthanasia program if I didn't have my adult children. It's surprising to me how meaningless money has become now that I am old and lacking the energy to enjoy it. I'm grateful I still have something to live for.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Right, the in-hindsight value may make it worth it, but when you're 25 or 30 or 35 and start to run the numbers on the terrible shadow having a kid will cast on your future savings and then realize opportunity cost makes it even worse... it can be hard to see that less-quantifiable perspective clearly. (for the record, I have some kids, but damn can I ever understand why people choose not to, even when they do want them)
  - labrador 4y ago
    > start to run the numbers The problem is at a young age you don't know the important things to include in your formulas or how to value them. What's it going to cost to pay someone to make decisions for you when you start having trouble making them for yourself? It's going to cost a lot to set that up with someone trustworthy ahead of time. If you've done a halfway decent job of raising your kids they will do that for free and you don't even have to set it up. They will be watching you and making sure you are ok. They will do it because they love you, not because you are paying them.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Absolutely—again, I have kids, so I decided it was worth it. The benefits can be incalculably great, but the costs are a lot easier to see and are very discouraging, and that situation is quite a bit worse than it used to be, for people in the same ballpark as median household income (we don't make FAANG money but are doing quite a bit better than US median, or... well, I really dunno if we'd have kids, otherwise).
    - hasbot 4y ago
      Reading this and your earlier comments, it appears you had kids in order to have someone take care of you in your old age?! You seem to have great expectations for your kids. Hopefully they are OK with that.
      - random314 4y ago
        In some sense, either your kids take care of you OR other people's kids take care of you when you are too old to physically support yourself. Outside of euthanasia when you become physically infirm, there is no other way to live through old age.
      - labrador 4y ago
        That's a silly accusation because like almost all young people I didn't think about my old age at all. Why think about something so unpleasant when it's long, long way off. I'm speaking of Americans as an American. I understand in other cultures it's something they think about, but America is a youth culture that doesn't teach long term thinking. If my kids don't want to help me that's their right and I'd make other plans while asking God why I did to deserve such ungrateful kids.
      - galdosdi 4y ago
        Maybe in the USA in 2022 this is weird, but in many cultures, taking care of your parents after they took care of you is just normal, commonplace, expected, assumed. Like, the natural circle of life.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        If they’re not okay with than you failed as a parent or your broader culture has failed. Taking care of the elderly is part of your role as a human.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Kids have no obligation to provide elder care though, and estrangement rates are material. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/20/how-many-american-children-have-cut-contact-with-their-parents https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/20/how-many-...
  - labrador 4y ago
    Right. There are no guarantees when calculating the cost benefits of having kids. The biggest risk in having kids is not financial in my opinion. The biggest risk is that they will bring you an enormous amount of suffering, say by becoming drug addicts and committing suicide. I took the risk and it paid off for me. All I'm offering here is a counter argument.
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      As a parent, I agree. I will also say it’s the hardest job I’ve ever had, and I would not recommend it to others if a future caregiver is what they’re hoping to get out of it.
  - webmobdev 4y ago
    Apparently some US states do have filial laws - https://www.thedailybeast.com/are-you-legally-responsible-for-your-elderly-parents https://www.thedailybeast.com/are-you-legally-responsible-fo... ... In India, kids do have a legal obligation to care for parents - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_and_Welfare_of_Parents_and_Senior_Citizens_Act,_2007 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_and_Welfare_of_P... ...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- maximus-decimus 4y ago
  Or maybe you would have something else giving meaning to your life if you had invested the same amount of time you spent on your kids on a hobby or personal projects instead.
dmm 4y ago
> Having a kid in the US is retirement-suicide at best, if you're not rich. Not having kids will create other problems for retirees. Retirement is fundamentally the working supporting the retired. In 1940 there were 42 workers for every retiree in the US. Today there are three and by 2030 there will be two. Three to two may not sound like a lot but that's a 50% increase. Retirement is going to be way, way more expensive in the future. > so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution Total fertility(# of kids per woman) is falling basically everywhere and nobody has found a way to increase it once it starts falling. That doesn't mean a better social safety net is a bad idea but I don't think increasing fertility is great argument for it.
- tcmart14 4y ago
  I agree that increasing number of kids isn't the bullet proof argument for better safety nets especially because there are many factors. There are parts of this where it is true for my wife and I. Maybe if child care for a single kid wasn't consistently eating up large chunks of my paycheck for the past 4 years, I would have been less inclined to get a vasectomy after our 2nd. There is also the cultural aspect of, my Wife wants to be both a mother and have career. It is possible, but some fields or companies seem to disincentivize this. And there are many reasons for her to have both. First, she won't be a raising kids forever. Second, if our marriage falls apart or something happens to me, we both believe she should be able to be financially independent.
- NullPrefix 4y ago
  Don't understand why are you worried about # of kids per woman. Africa currently has a rate of over 4 kids per woman and I doubt the ~1% yearly decline in that rate is of any significance.
rayiner 4y ago
This sounds like one of those fatfire tropes that’s not true. See, e.g., all the old people I know who have kids.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  People who are old now had a very different environment when they were younger, than people of child-bearing age now. My early-boomer dad only had a high school diploma and grew up rural and dirt-poor. He retired early, very well, despite our family having only his income, supporting me, my mother, and making mis-steps like puttering around with low-return small businesses for his entire 20s such that he didn't start saving until his 30s, and a divorce that (rightly) siphoned off plenty of child support for several other kids. He was a blue-collar worker who eventually got into middle management for a while. One employer for life, after his puttering-around owning low-income sole-proprietorships phase. The key was much, much lower costs for things like housing and healthcare, and a really solid union retirement package better than what even most union jobs offer these days. Notably, money tied up in mandatory retirement schemes isn't available for use in zero-sum competition for things like housing. You might spend responsibly, but when others "defect" and sacrifice what should be retirement savings for advantage today, suddenly the housing you can afford is a bit worse than it was before (worse school district, in particular), and you're even more tempted to do the same. Repeat across an entire society and pretty soon savings rates are catastrophically low—check some savings-at-same-age charts for various generations to see this in action, the differences are huge (though that's not the only factor causing it).
  - angmarsbane 4y ago
    Like you said the problem is the things you need in order to survive and work, healthcare and housing have become absurdly expensive.
nadieyninguno1 4y ago
> I get that birth rates are also low in Europe so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution I don’t understand this… you’ve immediately invalidated your own hypothesis and yet here we are… Shifting social norms, the liberalization of society, the polar shift towards the self, has caused folks to pursue more personal, pleasurable ends than the good-pain that is raising a family. You might shift the needle a fraction of a point with social spending here or there, but it is bailing the titanic with a bucket. If anything, the economic policy might well be downstream of the social. Why the hell should “I” pay for “you” when it doesn’t benefit me. Or vice-versa…
rayiner 4y ago
> I get that birth rates are also low in Europe so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution It doesn’t seem to be a solution at all since European countries consistently have lower birth rates than the US. > but I know an awful lot of people in the US who'd like to have kids, or who'd like to have more of them I think for the most part that’s just a rationalization. Dual income no kids is just easier and fun.

labrador 4y ago

I'm retired and I'd be looking for options like Canada's voluntary euthanasia program if I didn't have my adult children. It's surprising to me how meaningless money has become now that I am old and lacking the energy to enjoy it. I'm grateful I still have something to live for.

yamtaddle 4y ago
Right, the in-hindsight value may make it worth it, but when you're 25 or 30 or 35 and start to run the numbers on the terrible shadow having a kid will cast on your future savings and then realize opportunity cost makes it even worse... it can be hard to see that less-quantifiable perspective clearly. (for the record, I have some kids, but damn can I ever understand why people choose not to, even when they do want them)
- labrador 4y ago
  > start to run the numbers The problem is at a young age you don't know the important things to include in your formulas or how to value them. What's it going to cost to pay someone to make decisions for you when you start having trouble making them for yourself? It's going to cost a lot to set that up with someone trustworthy ahead of time. If you've done a halfway decent job of raising your kids they will do that for free and you don't even have to set it up. They will be watching you and making sure you are ok. They will do it because they love you, not because you are paying them.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Absolutely—again, I have kids, so I decided it was worth it. The benefits can be incalculably great, but the costs are a lot easier to see and are very discouraging, and that situation is quite a bit worse than it used to be, for people in the same ballpark as median household income (we don't make FAANG money but are doing quite a bit better than US median, or... well, I really dunno if we'd have kids, otherwise).
  - hasbot 4y ago
    Reading this and your earlier comments, it appears you had kids in order to have someone take care of you in your old age?! You seem to have great expectations for your kids. Hopefully they are OK with that.
    - random314 4y ago
      In some sense, either your kids take care of you OR other people's kids take care of you when you are too old to physically support yourself. Outside of euthanasia when you become physically infirm, there is no other way to live through old age.
    - labrador 4y ago
      That's a silly accusation because like almost all young people I didn't think about my old age at all. Why think about something so unpleasant when it's long, long way off. I'm speaking of Americans as an American. I understand in other cultures it's something they think about, but America is a youth culture that doesn't teach long term thinking. If my kids don't want to help me that's their right and I'd make other plans while asking God why I did to deserve such ungrateful kids.
    - galdosdi 4y ago
      Maybe in the USA in 2022 this is weird, but in many cultures, taking care of your parents after they took care of you is just normal, commonplace, expected, assumed. Like, the natural circle of life.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      If they’re not okay with than you failed as a parent or your broader culture has failed. Taking care of the elderly is part of your role as a human.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
Kids have no obligation to provide elder care though, and estrangement rates are material. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/20/how-many-american-children-have-cut-contact-with-their-parents https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/05/20/how-many-...
- labrador 4y ago
  Right. There are no guarantees when calculating the cost benefits of having kids. The biggest risk in having kids is not financial in my opinion. The biggest risk is that they will bring you an enormous amount of suffering, say by becoming drug addicts and committing suicide. I took the risk and it paid off for me. All I'm offering here is a counter argument.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    As a parent, I agree. I will also say it’s the hardest job I’ve ever had, and I would not recommend it to others if a future caregiver is what they’re hoping to get out of it.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  Apparently some US states do have filial laws - https://www.thedailybeast.com/are-you-legally-responsible-for-your-elderly-parents https://www.thedailybeast.com/are-you-legally-responsible-fo... ... In India, kids do have a legal obligation to care for parents - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_and_Welfare_of_Parents_and_Senior_Citizens_Act,_2007 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maintenance_and_Welfare_of_P... ...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
maximus-decimus 4y ago
Or maybe you would have something else giving meaning to your life if you had invested the same amount of time you spent on your kids on a hobby or personal projects instead.

dmm 4y ago

> Having a kid in the US is retirement-suicide at best, if you're not rich. Not having kids will create other problems for retirees. Retirement is fundamentally the working supporting the retired. In 1940 there were 42 workers for every retiree in the US. Today there are three and by 2030 there will be two. Three to two may not sound like a lot but that's a 50% increase. Retirement is going to be way, way more expensive in the future. > so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution Total fertility(# of kids per woman) is falling basically everywhere and nobody has found a way to increase it once it starts falling. That doesn't mean a better social safety net is a bad idea but I don't think increasing fertility is great argument for it.

tcmart14 4y ago
I agree that increasing number of kids isn't the bullet proof argument for better safety nets especially because there are many factors. There are parts of this where it is true for my wife and I. Maybe if child care for a single kid wasn't consistently eating up large chunks of my paycheck for the past 4 years, I would have been less inclined to get a vasectomy after our 2nd. There is also the cultural aspect of, my Wife wants to be both a mother and have career. It is possible, but some fields or companies seem to disincentivize this. And there are many reasons for her to have both. First, she won't be a raising kids forever. Second, if our marriage falls apart or something happens to me, we both believe she should be able to be financially independent.
NullPrefix 4y ago
Don't understand why are you worried about # of kids per woman. Africa currently has a rate of over 4 kids per woman and I doubt the ~1% yearly decline in that rate is of any significance.

rayiner 4y ago

This sounds like one of those fatfire tropes that’s not true. See, e.g., all the old people I know who have kids.

yamtaddle 4y ago
People who are old now had a very different environment when they were younger, than people of child-bearing age now. My early-boomer dad only had a high school diploma and grew up rural and dirt-poor. He retired early, very well, despite our family having only his income, supporting me, my mother, and making mis-steps like puttering around with low-return small businesses for his entire 20s such that he didn't start saving until his 30s, and a divorce that (rightly) siphoned off plenty of child support for several other kids. He was a blue-collar worker who eventually got into middle management for a while. One employer for life, after his puttering-around owning low-income sole-proprietorships phase. The key was much, much lower costs for things like housing and healthcare, and a really solid union retirement package better than what even most union jobs offer these days. Notably, money tied up in mandatory retirement schemes isn't available for use in zero-sum competition for things like housing. You might spend responsibly, but when others "defect" and sacrifice what should be retirement savings for advantage today, suddenly the housing you can afford is a bit worse than it was before (worse school district, in particular), and you're even more tempted to do the same. Repeat across an entire society and pretty soon savings rates are catastrophically low—check some savings-at-same-age charts for various generations to see this in action, the differences are huge (though that's not the only factor causing it).
- angmarsbane 4y ago
  Like you said the problem is the things you need in order to survive and work, healthcare and housing have become absurdly expensive.

nadieyninguno1 4y ago

> I get that birth rates are also low in Europe so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution I don’t understand this… you’ve immediately invalidated your own hypothesis and yet here we are… Shifting social norms, the liberalization of society, the polar shift towards the self, has caused folks to pursue more personal, pleasurable ends than the good-pain that is raising a family. You might shift the needle a fraction of a point with social spending here or there, but it is bailing the titanic with a bucket. If anything, the economic policy might well be downstream of the social. Why the hell should “I” pay for “you” when it doesn’t benefit me. Or vice-versa…

rayiner 4y ago

> I get that birth rates are also low in Europe so a good social safety net can't be all of the solution It doesn’t seem to be a solution at all since European countries consistently have lower birth rates than the US. > but I know an awful lot of people in the US who'd like to have kids, or who'd like to have more of them I think for the most part that’s just a rationalization. Dual income no kids is just easier and fun.