4 ms·

Not really. Starting a family is a leap in the dark. Always was, always will be. The only difference today is that people (may) have a lower risk tolerance, and

Not really. Starting a family is a leap in the dark. Always was, always will be. The only difference today is that people (may) have a lower risk tolerance, and a tendency to plan everything in advance. I had my first son with no house and no income. I just did the best I could, and things fell into place as I needed them.

legacynl 3y ago
I'm not trying to diminish your hardships, but the fact that everything worked out for you in the end is either the result of luck or (mild) privilege. Imagine that everytime somebody helped you out, that didn't happen?. how much worse off would you be right now? There are loads of people who are in your situation who don't have any family, or have a mental or physical handicap, or who happened to get twins instead of just one kid? The start of a family will always be a leap of faith, but difference is if you start on solid ground or not.
- jimmydddd 3y ago
  Agreed. However, I also think that help does tend to "materialize" if you end up needing it. I've noticed that couples who make a lot of "wrong" decisions (e.g., financially, timing wise) end up getting help while couples who make the "right" decisions seem to get less help. And both types of couples end up with almost the same outcome.
skeaker 3y ago
Perhaps risk tolerance has remained the same, it's just that risk has gone high enough that it is outside of that risk tolerance. Taking on the task of raising a child when you can barely keep yourself fed is simply impossible from a risk assessment perspective. You are either not disclosing your full set of circumstances and they weren't as risky as you make them sound, or raised your child on the streets which most people would consider to be wildly irresponsible and bad for the child (I am assuming it is the former).

4 ms·

Not really. Starting a family is a leap in the dark. Always was, always will be. The only difference today is that people (may) have a lower risk tolerance, and

by atlantic 3y ago

legacynl 3y ago
I'm not trying to diminish your hardships, but the fact that everything worked out for you in the end is either the result of luck or (mild) privilege. Imagine that everytime somebody helped you out, that didn't happen?. how much worse off would you be right now? There are loads of people who are in your situation who don't have any family, or have a mental or physical handicap, or who happened to get twins instead of just one kid? The start of a family will always be a leap of faith, but difference is if you start on solid ground or not.
- jimmydddd 3y ago
  Agreed. However, I also think that help does tend to "materialize" if you end up needing it. I've noticed that couples who make a lot of "wrong" decisions (e.g., financially, timing wise) end up getting help while couples who make the "right" decisions seem to get less help. And both types of couples end up with almost the same outcome.
skeaker 3y ago
Perhaps risk tolerance has remained the same, it's just that risk has gone high enough that it is outside of that risk tolerance. Taking on the task of raising a child when you can barely keep yourself fed is simply impossible from a risk assessment perspective. You are either not disclosing your full set of circumstances and they weren't as risky as you make them sound, or raised your child on the streets which most people would consider to be wildly irresponsible and bad for the child (I am assuming it is the former).