6 ms·

> It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed the next

> It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed the next generation such freedom that they can dally as singles for significant portion of their lives. Freedom? More like not being able to afford the expenses of having a family. I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles, but I can't afford a house and can't fathom trying to raise a family on my income. It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement. If this is freedom, I hope I don't get any more liberated than I already am.

cylinder 13y ago
How did this rule come about, that you need to own a house before you can have a child?
- mullingitover 13y ago
  You don't. However, having a house, a family, and a retirement fund was a realistic goal in generations past, and it's not really a 'middle class' option anymore.
  - stefan_kendall3 13y ago
    It's not an achievable goal in San Francisco, but not everyone lives in San Francisco.
    - geebee 13y ago
      It's semi-achievable in San Francisco. It takes two incomes, and you have to make sacrifices. In SF, applications developers, dental hygienists, and registered nurses all earn, on average, around 100k a year. Two of them together would together earn about $220k a year in SF. That's workable.
      - aspensmonster 13y ago
        >...about $220k a year in SF. That's workable. That's depressing. Sure, it might be workable too. But depressing. That's a little over a million dollars in FIVE YEARS. Ok ok, one or two more for final take-home pay. And that's still merely "workable" rather than "Oh boy we've got it made!"
      - stefan_kendall3 13y ago
        If the goal is "Buy and own a house", pulling in $220/year pre-tax probably isn't enough to get the job done. Unless you're living extremely scarcely in the meantime.
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  I think the meat of the issue is right here: >It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement.
- sigzero 13y ago
  It isn't a "rule" per se. It is a "nice to have".
- analog31 13y ago
  Not necessarily owning a house, but a person at least needs to live in a neighborhood with good schools, which tends to mean paying more for housing.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  It's very easy to fall into the notion that you need to have ALL of your ducks in a row before having (planned) children. My wife and I called it "the tyranny of the ducks" and eventually learned to push back a bit. In our case, it was not freaking out over putting a car seat in the back of a small 2-door car instead of a big 4-door car.
  - aspensmonster 13y ago
    Of all the ducks, I think the number of doors on the car isn't that high on the priority list :P However, ensuring that you can still afford to pay all the bills for months --or years, preferably-- on end in the event that your source of income disappears... that seems to be the most important of the ducks. Whether it's a home you own or six months' mortgage/rent is just details.
    - MartinCron 13y ago
      Of all the ducks, I think the number of doors on the car isn't that high on the priority list :P Have you ever tried to put an infant car seat in the back of a 1994 Mazda MX-6 coupe? It might change your priority list.
  - sentenza 13y ago
    I find it to be one of the most horrible misconceptions about life that you have to be securely "settled" before having kids. Many older new parents (aruound 35-40) I observe struggle a lot more than we (30) do with raising small children. People tend to underestimate both the amount of stress that small children are and the gradual reduction of stress capacity that comes with age. You are good at pushing yourself to the limit? That's great. How do you cope with 24/7 low-level stress for months without _any_ break? My wife and I decided to do the kids thing early in life (relative to other academics) and now are finished with our family planning while yet having to reach any sort of "steady career-path". Best choice ever. But I must add that I do this with the strong social safety net of Germany in my back. I'll never be homeless, I'll never go hungry and my children will get an excellent education, _no matter what_.
brianbarker 13y ago
At least you responsibly considered this. Having a family is a big deal in Utah, and we have too many people who just go for it in their early 20s, no college, no career path. It doesn't end well. I'm not anti-family, but I resent the attitude here that it's something you have to do, or even some sort of god-given right. Families should be well-planned. Quality over quantity of life. Just my thoughts. Idk.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  That's one way of looking at things. Another is that countries like Japan are having huge issues because nobody is having kids anymore. Quantity of life matters, too. But I agree that people should be wiser about planning their lives out. I'm not sure that's a solvable problem, though.
  - lsc 13y ago
    >Another is that countries like Japan are having huge issues because nobody is having kids anymore. Eh, I think Japan's problem is more that they have a very narrow idea (ethnically speaking) as to what they want Japanese people to look like. If they were willing to loosen up a bit on that, there are plenty of people who would be willing to come, become Japanese, and if it's anything like immigration here in the US, probably have a fair number of children.
    - Mz 13y ago
      Or maybe being a heavily populated island nation is the root of their problems, both in terms of what kind of person they find acceptable and how many people can be tolerated in the limited space they have.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - VaedaStrike 13y ago
    Japan will not survive in any real way, demographic numbers are such that whatever might survive will not look very much like Japan does now. They simply are not having enough kids, and have been on that path for a very long time with no sign of the dramatic change they would need to survive.
null_ptr 13y ago
Wouldn't your theoretical spouse have an income too?
- nknighthb 13y ago
  In this bizarre Leave It To Beaver right-wing fantasy world where the "traditional family" is so critical, that would be an unforgivable violation of the rules.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  Generally even if the theoretical spouse doesn't have an income, if they can provide primary child-care support it is significant in increasing the affordability of having a child.
- phillnom 13y ago
  Hopefully, though probably with her own debts and burdens.
- samstave 13y ago
  I have 3 kids and a stay at home wife.
nthj 13y ago
> I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles Location, location, location. My dad moved his family to a place he could afford so he could take care of them. I could make the same salary in San Francisco that I make in Austin, TX, but the same salary goes a /lot/ farther in Texas than it does in California.
- deeviant 13y ago
  But if the choice, then, is to live in California and not have kids versus living in Texas and being about to have kids, than I guess I'll never be a father.
  - bpodgursky 13y ago
    Natural selection at work.
  - nthj 13y ago
    That's fine, as long as you recognize that is your choice. "mullingitover" had the thesis that freedom doesn't really have anything to do with not having a family, that it's entirely related to expenses. But not having a family /is/ related to freedom: he values the freedom to live in California more than being able to afford a family while living somewhere else.
- samstave 13y ago
  Opportunity is also a function of location. I am sure I could live well in texas - but the companies and sector I want to work in, for me personally, only exists in SF.
- coolsunglasses 13y ago
  I recently moved from SF to Austin, quite liking it here. Doesn't feel like a sacrifice at all and knowing I have the option of starting a family, owning a home, starting a business, or just living large is quite freeing.
  - nthj 13y ago
gscott 13y ago
Children are not too expensive as long as they don't go to a private school. I am 39 my kids are 17 and 18 now. I have never made more than $55,000 (one income family). The kids are about off to college.
- pandapanda 13y ago
  The average cost of raising a kid in America is $241,080. http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/14/pf/cost-children/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/14/pf/cost-children/
  - gscott 13y ago
    It would be pretty awesome to spend that amount. Spending far less my kids are fine. I traded out website work for flight training for son who has 55 flight hours and is going to the University of North Dakota to becomes flight controller. For my daughter she has had Russian language training for about five years now (one lesson a week). I wish I could spend more but at l think the key thing is to give kids a special skill for a career.
  - judk 13y ago
    > families earning less than $61,590 a year in rural areas will spend the least, at $144k Amazingly, rich people spend more than poorer people.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  $55k is an above-average household income. Kids cost a lot more in time, energy, and flexibility than cash.
- darklajid 13y ago
  Among all the "Yeah, the 100,000+ salary doesn't quite cut it, I cannot afford kids" you're my hero. You started much earlier than I did (something I regret at times, when my eldest is 17 I'll be past 50..) and I love your trading skills further down this thread (website -> flight hours). From one dad to another: I'm trying to provide the same. You're inspiring.
NextUserName 13y ago
Perhaps you should move then. You are free to do that after all. Move or learn to live frugally. Many people cannot afford a house/family until they get married and combine incomes.

cylinder 13y ago

How did this rule come about, that you need to own a house before you can have a child?

mullingitover 13y ago
You don't. However, having a house, a family, and a retirement fund was a realistic goal in generations past, and it's not really a 'middle class' option anymore.
- stefan_kendall3 13y ago
  It's not an achievable goal in San Francisco, but not everyone lives in San Francisco.
  - geebee 13y ago
    It's semi-achievable in San Francisco. It takes two incomes, and you have to make sacrifices. In SF, applications developers, dental hygienists, and registered nurses all earn, on average, around 100k a year. Two of them together would together earn about $220k a year in SF. That's workable.
    - aspensmonster 13y ago
      >...about $220k a year in SF. That's workable. That's depressing. Sure, it might be workable too. But depressing. That's a little over a million dollars in FIVE YEARS. Ok ok, one or two more for final take-home pay. And that's still merely "workable" rather than "Oh boy we've got it made!"
    - stefan_kendall3 13y ago
      If the goal is "Buy and own a house", pulling in $220/year pre-tax probably isn't enough to get the job done. Unless you're living extremely scarcely in the meantime.
aspensmonster 13y ago
I think the meat of the issue is right here: >It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement.
sigzero 13y ago
It isn't a "rule" per se. It is a "nice to have".
analog31 13y ago
Not necessarily owning a house, but a person at least needs to live in a neighborhood with good schools, which tends to mean paying more for housing.
MartinCron 13y ago
It's very easy to fall into the notion that you need to have ALL of your ducks in a row before having (planned) children. My wife and I called it "the tyranny of the ducks" and eventually learned to push back a bit. In our case, it was not freaking out over putting a car seat in the back of a small 2-door car instead of a big 4-door car.
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  Of all the ducks, I think the number of doors on the car isn't that high on the priority list :P However, ensuring that you can still afford to pay all the bills for months --or years, preferably-- on end in the event that your source of income disappears... that seems to be the most important of the ducks. Whether it's a home you own or six months' mortgage/rent is just details.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    Of all the ducks, I think the number of doors on the car isn't that high on the priority list :P Have you ever tried to put an infant car seat in the back of a 1994 Mazda MX-6 coupe? It might change your priority list.
- sentenza 13y ago
  I find it to be one of the most horrible misconceptions about life that you have to be securely "settled" before having kids. Many older new parents (aruound 35-40) I observe struggle a lot more than we (30) do with raising small children. People tend to underestimate both the amount of stress that small children are and the gradual reduction of stress capacity that comes with age. You are good at pushing yourself to the limit? That's great. How do you cope with 24/7 low-level stress for months without _any_ break? My wife and I decided to do the kids thing early in life (relative to other academics) and now are finished with our family planning while yet having to reach any sort of "steady career-path". Best choice ever. But I must add that I do this with the strong social safety net of Germany in my back. I'll never be homeless, I'll never go hungry and my children will get an excellent education, _no matter what_.

brianbarker 13y ago

At least you responsibly considered this. Having a family is a big deal in Utah, and we have too many people who just go for it in their early 20s, no college, no career path. It doesn't end well. I'm not anti-family, but I resent the attitude here that it's something you have to do, or even some sort of god-given right. Families should be well-planned. Quality over quantity of life. Just my thoughts. Idk.

humanrebar 13y ago
That's one way of looking at things. Another is that countries like Japan are having huge issues because nobody is having kids anymore. Quantity of life matters, too. But I agree that people should be wiser about planning their lives out. I'm not sure that's a solvable problem, though.
- lsc 13y ago
  >Another is that countries like Japan are having huge issues because nobody is having kids anymore. Eh, I think Japan's problem is more that they have a very narrow idea (ethnically speaking) as to what they want Japanese people to look like. If they were willing to loosen up a bit on that, there are plenty of people who would be willing to come, become Japanese, and if it's anything like immigration here in the US, probably have a fair number of children.
  - Mz 13y ago
    Or maybe being a heavily populated island nation is the root of their problems, both in terms of what kind of person they find acceptable and how many people can be tolerated in the limited space they have.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- VaedaStrike 13y ago
  Japan will not survive in any real way, demographic numbers are such that whatever might survive will not look very much like Japan does now. They simply are not having enough kids, and have been on that path for a very long time with no sign of the dramatic change they would need to survive.

null_ptr 13y ago

Wouldn't your theoretical spouse have an income too?

nknighthb 13y ago
In this bizarre Leave It To Beaver right-wing fantasy world where the "traditional family" is so critical, that would be an unforgivable violation of the rules.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
Generally even if the theoretical spouse doesn't have an income, if they can provide primary child-care support it is significant in increasing the affordability of having a child.
phillnom 13y ago
Hopefully, though probably with her own debts and burdens.
samstave 13y ago
I have 3 kids and a stay at home wife.

nthj 13y ago

> I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles Location, location, location. My dad moved his family to a place he could afford so he could take care of them. I could make the same salary in San Francisco that I make in Austin, TX, but the same salary goes a /lot/ farther in Texas than it does in California.

deeviant 13y ago
But if the choice, then, is to live in California and not have kids versus living in Texas and being about to have kids, than I guess I'll never be a father.
- bpodgursky 13y ago
  Natural selection at work.
- nthj 13y ago
  That's fine, as long as you recognize that is your choice. "mullingitover" had the thesis that freedom doesn't really have anything to do with not having a family, that it's entirely related to expenses. But not having a family /is/ related to freedom: he values the freedom to live in California more than being able to afford a family while living somewhere else.
samstave 13y ago
Opportunity is also a function of location. I am sure I could live well in texas - but the companies and sector I want to work in, for me personally, only exists in SF.
coolsunglasses 13y ago
I recently moved from SF to Austin, quite liking it here. Doesn't feel like a sacrifice at all and knowing I have the option of starting a family, owning a home, starting a business, or just living large is quite freeing.
- nthj 13y ago

gscott 13y ago

Children are not too expensive as long as they don't go to a private school. I am 39 my kids are 17 and 18 now. I have never made more than $55,000 (one income family). The kids are about off to college.

pandapanda 13y ago
The average cost of raising a kid in America is $241,080. http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/14/pf/cost-children/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/14/pf/cost-children/
- gscott 13y ago
  It would be pretty awesome to spend that amount. Spending far less my kids are fine. I traded out website work for flight training for son who has 55 flight hours and is going to the University of North Dakota to becomes flight controller. For my daughter she has had Russian language training for about five years now (one lesson a week). I wish I could spend more but at l think the key thing is to give kids a special skill for a career.
- judk 13y ago
  > families earning less than $61,590 a year in rural areas will spend the least, at $144k Amazingly, rich people spend more than poorer people.
humanrebar 13y ago
$55k is an above-average household income. Kids cost a lot more in time, energy, and flexibility than cash.
darklajid 13y ago
Among all the "Yeah, the 100,000+ salary doesn't quite cut it, I cannot afford kids" you're my hero. You started much earlier than I did (something I regret at times, when my eldest is 17 I'll be past 50..) and I love your trading skills further down this thread (website -> flight hours). From one dad to another: I'm trying to provide the same. You're inspiring.

NextUserName 13y ago

Perhaps you should move then. You are free to do that after all. Move or learn to live frugally. Many people cannot afford a house/family until they get married and combine incomes.