Having kids.....1.5 per family the norm?

[SZR48207]

Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: ZZman


Do you think cost is keeping the number of kids down or have we become more selfish over time and want "our" time?


Just curious how having "our" time would be selfish?




There’s a quote that goes something like: responsible men plant trees whose shade they will never sit underneath.

Not saying it’s truth or that you even need to care, but it appears to come from a time when every generation being selfless meant that future generations had a mild assurance of decent living.

 

[emmett442]

The poeple who have kids and are broke are doing it wrong. Plain and simple.

I'd bet a gold mine that the same couple would've been broke with or without kids. The kids aren't the cause of the financial hardship: they're just an excuse for the negative results of their poor decisions. No one said living responsibly was easy, but it's absolutely possible. Something modern society has a harder and harder time grasping.

I have two young kids (oldest being 3) and I can't hardly remember life without them - in a good way! The best decision I ever made.

I spent the first 30 years of my life doing what I want by myself. That was fine 'n dandy, but it became time to share/pass on the wealth!

I'd imagine that, with enough time, those who were capable but wouldn't have kids by choice will someday regret it in their old age.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Reddy45
There’s a quote that goes something like: responsible men plant trees whose shade they will never sit underneath. Not saying it’s truth or that you even need to care, but it appears to come from a time when every generation being selfless meant that future generations had a mild assurance of decent living.


I don't buy that for a second. Breeding doesn't help assure "decent living". Quite the opposite. Animal shelters and inner cities are both the result of, "planting too many trees". The end result of both is too much shade, and not enough sunshine. Life is what you as an individual make of it. This nonsense that it is somehow "a duty" to reproduce is just that.... Nonsense.

We have more people living in this country than ever before. 327+ MILLION. Compare that to the 50's when it was 157 MILLION. Or less than half. The quality of life was simpler, and in many cases people would argue better back then.

Today it's all but impossible to find anything that isn't over crowded. Especially on weekends. Highways, stores, restaurants. Just about everything except NASCAR. Between runaway "immigration", (which is more like an invasion), and people breeding like rats, this country is fast becoming overrun. Much like sex, drugs, and alcohol, just because a little is good, it doesn't mean more is better. We are already well past the, "too much" part of the end of that statement.

 

[MolaKule]

Children are a blessing.

Have as many children as you think you can afford. I prefer > = 2.

 

[28oz]

Originally Posted By: emmett442
The poeple who have kids and are broke are doing it wrong. Plain and simple.

I'd bet a gold mine that the same couple would've been broke with or without kids. The kids aren't the cause of the financial hardship: they're just an excuse for the negative results of their poor decisions. No one said living responsibly was easy, but it's absolutely possible. Something modern society has a harder and harder time grasping.


In general, I agree. I don't like blanket statements, but I think you're generally correct here. There are always exceptions/outliers (ie...cancer or some other catastrophe that could ruin anyone, children or not), but it generally comes down to choices made.

 

[skyactiv]

My wife and I tried having a baby but she had a miscarriage early in her pregnancy. Due to her having type 1 diabetes and her age, we decided a second try wasn't in our best interest.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: emmett442
The poeple who have kids and are broke are doing it wrong. Plain and simple. I'd bet a gold mine that the same couple would've been broke with or without kids. The kids aren't the cause of the financial hardship: they're just an excuse for the negative results of their poor decisions.


Here I must agree. It's not what you make. But rather what you do with it after you've made it. You have well educated cardiovascular surgeons out there pulling in $450K a year. And they are broke because they're trying to live on $550K. Everything they have is on the cuff.

Show me a man of modest income, but who is well disciplined financially, and over time he will be financially better off, retire earlier, and live better every time.

 

[supton]

Wife wasn't sure if she wanted a third, but when we looked at the finances it didn't seem wise. Would need minivan, bigger house, etc. Two was a nice number, and TBH it's been a great number. We did space ours close together and somehow they have wound up as close friends--I'm sure the teen years will fix that, but it was great while it lasted. I fear when I'm old I'll have wished I had more (especially when I need help getting by), but I'm happy with just 2. It was a good number for us.

I'd say my secular friends tend towards 2 while my religious friends 4. That's just an eyeball estimate.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
Wife and I are in our 30s, we both work full time, and we have two young daughters (2 year old and 5 month old). There's no way we could pay all of our bills with just one of us working. We used to have my wife's parents watching the girls full-time, but my father in law's health has been deteriorating recently, and my mother in law is recovering from a broken pelvis, so we had to put the girls in daycare. Daycare costs $532 per week. My in-laws pay half of the daycare bill since we can't afford it on our own.
2006 Ford Ranger Sport
1992 Honda Accord EX
2004 Honda CR-V LX
1994 Ford Bronco XLT (project)
2011 Cadillac Escalade ESV (wife's)

 

[KGMtech]

We have 2. I have multiple relatives living in USA and I don't know how you guys manage with the very short maternity leaves !

In Canada new moms and dads can elect to take 12 to 18 months of leave. It really makes a difference in deciding if and how many children you will have - if all works for you and yours.

This Canadian program is modeled after the European plans. It will - IMHO - improve the birth rates.

Keep in mind that Europe has a crisis in most of its developed countries - they have negative growth rates. 50 years from now, Italy might not have many Italian speaking people left, same sad situation in other countries. Either encourage the young to procreate without fear of lost jobs or income, or import people to keep your economy going.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: emmett442
The poeple who have kids and are broke are doing it wrong. Plain and simple.



I think a lot of it has to do with being "ready" to have kids. As in waiting until you are out of college, have a stable income and relationship, etc. I have a few friends who literally got pregnant on their wedding night, and got divorced 6 months to a year after while barely working full-time. Life has been very difficult for them.

I'd love to have kids someday, but I know right now would not be the best time.

 

[The Critic]

Most of the folks in my immediate circle who are married and having kids, are two income families with very successful careers. Incomes are >$250k/yr. So yes, I do believe that cost is a large factor in preventing many folks from starting a family.

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Most of the folks in my immediate circle who are married and having kids, are two income families with very successful careers. Incomes are >$250k/yr. So yes, I do believe that cost is a large factor in preventing many folks from starting a family.


Really not surprised hard working, educated folks accomplish what they want in life...

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Its a situation that has been intentionally created.

Will go into it further later...or via PM


I doubt there is a government conspiracy to create a certain ‘situation’ to hold people back.

 

[xBa380]

My girlfriend and I won't have kids. Neither of us have any interest in doing so. We would much rather have dogs

I am 30 and she is 36. We want to travel even more now that we both have great jobs and doing well. Kids don't fit in our formula. My cousins have plenty of kids and don't envy them one bit.. We get asked when we will have them and we just say never with a smile to confused looks. Oh well... They can claim they are the best things to ever happen to them, well, how I see it, they didn't have much going for them before-hand then. I'm busy with my hobbies, traveling, various projects and being able to do whatever we want.


I have a 9 week old puppy at the moment and that is plenty enough for me to deal with!

 

[pbm]

Sadly, the only people having large families anymore are those on 'public assistance'.....which doesn't bode well for our future, IMO....

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Wife and I are in our 30s, we both work full time, and we have two young daughters (2 year old and 5 month old). There's no way we could pay all of our bills with just one of us working. We used to have my wife's parents watching the girls full-time, but my father in law's health has been deteriorating recently, and my mother in law is recovering from a broken pelvis, so we had to put the girls in daycare. Daycare costs $532 per week. My in-laws pay half of the daycare bill since we can't afford it on our own.
2006 Ford Ranger Sport
1992 Honda Accord EX
2004 Honda CR-V LX
1994 Ford Bronco XLT (project)
2011 Cadillac Escalade ESV (wife's)

Yeah, and your point is? The Bronco is a project that has been sidelined for the last three years, since before I had any kids and since I bought my house. I haven't even driven it since last October. It'll get attention when I have time and money. As of right now, I don't spend a dime on it.
The Accord is worth a whopping $1,000 or so. Not worth selling, it's way more valuable as a good economical and practical car. Insurance is dirt cheap, it almost never needs any repairs or maintenance, and saves me lots of money on gas. I'd be stupid to get rid of it. It's what I drive to work most days. If/when it dies, I won't replace it with anything and drive the Ranger or CR-V instead, but until then, it stays. It ultimately makes the other cars last longer by keeping the mileage off them, thus saving me more money by not having to buy replacement vehicles.
The Ranger I use when I need a truck to haul or tow things, which is often enough to keep it. It gets about 5k miles a year.
The CR-V I bought because I needed a vehicle to carry the kids around in the winter because the Accord is horrible in the snow. I considered selling the Ranger and getting a crew cab truck instead, but since truck prices are ridiculous, it was cheaper to keep the Ranger and buy the CR-V. I paid $4k for the CR-V used.
The Escalade we bought used for a fraction of the cost of a new one, and we bought it because my wife's Subaru didn't have any interior room for 2 baby seats, stroller, and other stuff we need to carry around. We bought a vehicle big enough to carry three children, should we decide to have a third, we won't have to upgrade again.

It's not like I have 5 vehicles that are all worth $50k each that I'm making payments on. My four vehicles COMBINED are only worth about $16k (less than the cost of ONE 3 year old sedan) and insurance for them combined is probably less than one newer vehicle. And they're all paid for, except the Escalade.

Got any more judgements about me you care to share?

 

[John_K]

Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: ZZman


Do you think cost is keeping the number of kids down or have we become more selfish over time and want "our" time?


Just curious how having "our" time would be selfish?




I have had people say I am selfish for not having kids. Really? How many people have kids "to take care of me when I am old." Isn't that selfish?

 

[MCompact]

I regard the decision about having/not having kids to be akin to one’s vehicle choices. I drive what I like and you drive what you like- your vehicle choices are none of my business. Likewise, I don’t care how many kids you have(assuming you can afford to) and if you don’t want any that’s fine too. Just accord me the same courtesy.

 

[28oz]

Originally Posted By: pbm
Sadly, the only people having large families anymore are those on 'public assistance'.....which doesn't bode well for our future, IMO....


I disagree. I'm not on public assistance and many would think my family of 6 is "large". I know many families that are even larger and not on assistance. I also know many single people who ARE on assistance. It generally comes down to decisions and choices as previously stated.