Is waiting until 40 to have kids/marriage the key to expensive metros?

[chris08876]

I was thinking about this. Let's assume society doesn't fix the housing crisis, let's just have that condition. Let's assume wages really don't increase enough to keep up with the cost of living (seems to happen a lot nowadays). Let's assume the cost of education is not rectified. Let's even assume parents don't help.

With those parameters in mind...

Its been a long held belief that a lot of the self inflicted struggles of folks are self-induced. What do I mean self-induced? Having kids too early when one can't afford them or having too many or even getting into a marriage that doesn't work out or the situation. Marriage provides benefits (love, duel income, tax benefits) but also comes with risk. If we take a risk management approach, we have a ton of exposures; divorces, the situation not working out, statistically one is likely to get murdered by someone they know, expenses (varies), and most likely the pressure to have kids. MOST divorces happen, statistically, in folks 30 or younger. And I say this stuff because I see it all the time and hear about it a ton from folks.

Now, the BS of society aside, is the key to financial happiness and living comfortably really a matter of waiting until 40 to have kids or get married. For the sake of not struggling or ending under water financially, because we hear about it a lot all the time. Tons of savings, mid or high career position if desired. Solid income if one works for it/benefits. Even in blue collar work.

Also, is there a direct correlation between folks that waited, and financial success and by financial success, I mean not struggling. Having money to do things, and not live paycheck to paycheck. AND owning a home or property OR being easily able to afford the rent (less than 30% gross income per month).


Is the key to the American Dream a matter of just waiting, against what society expects of folks (the fairy tale marriage, the idea of kids)?

Based on those parameters. It is something that is unique to certain metros or will it be the new norm?

[Steely Dan]

I don't know about waiting til your 40s, particularly for women who have that old biological clock that keeps ticking away, but waiting til my mid-30s to get hitched and start a family has certainly paid dividends for me.

If anything, I probably got on board a touch late. 1st kid at 31/32 and 2nd kid at 33/34 is probably the ideal these days.

But yes, just about anything is a safer bet for success than getting married to your high school sweetheart at 18 and having 4 young mouths to feed (and house, and clothe, and transport, and educate, and blah, blah, blah) by your 25th birthday.

[Crawford]

It's clear that new parents are just older in high-cost locations. It's a bit of chicken-and-egg, though. There's a large cohort of people who don't really get established in their careers until well into their 30's, and then they search for a partner, and then they chose to procreate. This cohort happens to be high(er) earning and often in more expensive locales.

The parents of my 3 yo's playmates range from about 40-50, BTW. He actually had his first playdate in two months, earlier this evening, BTW. The dad is nearly 50. The parents were social distancing, but we brought the kids together.

[Kngkyle]

40 seems excessive. 28-35 seems to be the right age range for having sufficient income and biological "abilities" to start having children, at least for the professional college-educated class.

However, there would be no "housing crisis" if local governments didn't make it illegal for developers to build affordable housing. Between parking minimums, accessibility requirements, overly stringent building codes, and rent control there is just no profit (ie purpose) in building anything but luxury condos and apartments in most cities. Almost all of the 'affordable housing' that exists would be illegal to build according to today's zoning and building regulations. (with the potential exception of some sunbelt cities, which partly explains their significant population growth)

[chris08876]

I just think of the scenario of what happens when even the sun belts become expensive (time frame, IDK, but lets just say 30 years from now). At the current rate, especially with education, which "education" is a code word for just getting one's foot in the door, how younger folks will manage with absurd costs and similar pay structures that haven't changed in ages.

Our economy is quite diverse, well... very diverse, with differences in pay structure, but I just think that the current trend of prices rising (food, housing, utilities, education, and so on), some of our metros are going to be in for a rude awakening.

In other words, let's think LONG TERM, and what is going to happen when the sun belts become another NJ or California or "X" expensive area. Yeah folks can migrate, and businesses can move to the future metros X,Y,Z... but this cycle if continued is only going to ravage some of our metros and really lag their growth.

We see slow downs relatively speaking in the NY-Tri State area compared to the Sun Belt areas, but when those sun-belt areas become another Tri-State in terms of prices, something has to give.

This constant pattern of folks migrating will eventually be to the detriment of all our core urban areas. A systematic failure of universally not addressing housing, and general cost of living for our cities.

In a way, I think long term, the American model will fail. I just can't see how it will sustain itself if our population grows without leading to massive bs. Our cities will continue to grow slow compared to the rest of the world and the core reason is our inability to lower the main issue that is a financial strain on many, and that is housing and another big problem, the cost of education.

Automation AND AI is going to be a cluster fuck that will f us in the butt big time. Its not sustainable if we want a society that is well off or not struggling. I mean if we just turn a blind eye, some will be okay, many will not.

I think eventually, we will, if we want to grow, require government housing for folks. Especially for some metros that have clearly failed in addressing the cost of living and housing issue. Its just asinine to think that the US can't address this issue. And it the same trend in a lot of metros.

[chris08876]

Some of those census numbers are sickening, especially for the Northeast, and I just think why... why do these regions fail at retaining folks. It bothers me, it really does. Like how the fuck is Philly not over 2 million. Why does NYC keep losing folks like mad crazy. Why is it that London's affordable housing program is way bigger than ours and the city which is on par with NY when it comes to prices can add so many more folks, yet we fail at it.

Take Jersey City for example. Once that place becomes another Brooklyn in terms of prices, thats a wrap for that city. When it becomes so expensive, the growth will always be paltry going forward.

This annoys me that we inhibit our cities in such a way, when the desire of folks to set up shops or live there is high.

[JManc]

It's not really an expensive metro thing but an education/ career thing. Most people I know who are career oriented had kids after 30 regardless of metro area.

[SignalHillHiker]

In my circle of family and friends, waiting seems to be... stressful. All the girls I know who got knocked up as teens and are now in their mid-30s with a child moving out for college or whatever... they seem way happier than the friends just starting their families at this time. And they don't seem worse off - a couple of low-wage workers in that group but most of them are comfortably middle class - lab techs, dental hygienists, etc. The kids seem fine too, one is a bit of a dick (she's stolen cars, etc.) but the rest are generally normal, going to post-secondary, etc. The older parents I know are a little bit more... it's hard to explain. You go over there to visit and the adults just sit in a circle around the kids and marvel at the completely normal shit they do. "OMG she put her block away, GOOD GIRL, AYDEEN!" I think if I had a daughter who wanted kids, I'd rather she just get it over with and then have her life to live for herself as young as her 30s.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I was thinking about this. Let's assume society doesn't fix the housing crisis, let's just have that condition. Let's assume wages really don't increase enough to keep up with the cost of living (seems to happen a lot nowadays). Let's assume the cost of education is not rectified. Let's even assume parents don't help.

With those parameters in mind...

Its been a long held belief that a lot of the self inflicted struggles of folks are self-induced. What do I mean self-induced? Having kids too early when one can't afford them or having too many or even getting into a marriage that doesn't work out or the situation. Marriage provides benefits (love, duel income, tax benefits) but also comes with risk. If we take a risk management approach, we have a ton of exposures; divorces, the situation not working out, statistically one is likely to get murdered by someone they know, expenses (varies), and most likely the pressure to have kids. MOST divorces happen, statistically, in folks 30 or younger. And I say this stuff because I see it all the time and hear about it a ton from folks.

Now, the BS of society aside, is the key to financial happiness and living comfortably really a matter of waiting until 40 to have kids or get married. For the sake of not struggling or ending under water financially, because we hear about it a lot all the time. Tons of savings, mid or high career position if desired. Solid income if one works for it/benefits. Even in blue collar work.

Also, is there a direct correlation between folks that waited, and financial success and by financial success, I mean not struggling. Having money to do things, and not live paycheck to paycheck. AND owning a home or property OR being easily able to afford the rent (less than 30% gross income per month).


Is the key to the American Dream a matter of just waiting, against what society expects of folks (the fairy tale marriage, the idea of kids)?

Based on those parameters. It is something that is unique to certain metros or will it be the new norm?

Lmao! I laughed out loud at the bolded line about murder casually dropped in between divorce and expenses.


I wouldn’t say key, but definitely makes it easier financially. It can also make it more difficult on other fronts tho—keeping up with kids as an older adult, less flexibility for child-related time sucks if you’re further along in your career, losing a sense of comraderie with other young parents if family/friends have kids years sooner...

I’m 32 and I don’t see any kids on the horizon, although I’d like to be a parent some day. I’ll probably be around 40, so I’ll let you know then!

[Steely Dan]

Thinking about this issue some more, the vast majority of people in my family/friend social world who had kids in their 20s ended up in the burbs, whereas a MUCH higher percentage of the folks I know raising kids in the city waited til their 30s/40s for many.

I think the main differentiator might be the cost of family-sized housing. Now, in the city, you're always gonna have to make some compromises on space to get location (unless you're stupid rich), but the cost of 3-4 bedroom housing in urban and "safe" Chicago simply prices out most young couples in their 20s, but as careers advance through their 30s and 40s, family-sized housing in the city becomes a more realistic option.

[pdxtex]

The key to expensive metros is living Omaha. Having kids in your 40s is only cool if your wife is in her 30s.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

The key to expensive metros is living Omaha. Having kids in your 40s is only cool if your wife is in her 30s.

Or maybe if your over 40 and have a 26 year old wife...

I mean... I've seen it happen lol.

Probably much easier for a guy I guess in that scenario. A muscle even stronger than the Quadriceps and Gluteus maximus is the wallet. No biological clock for us fellas I suppose.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Thinking about this issue some more, the vast majority of people in my family/friend social world who had kids in their 20s ended up in the burbs, whereas a MUCH higher percentage of the folks I know raising kids in the city waited til their 30s/40s.

.

Although this kinda stinks from an urban development standpoint. The folks being priced out. I mean it would be nice if the opposite was true. Folks having and retaining families in the cities versus the burbs.

Possibly social housing can help. I wish we were more aggressive with social housing.

[chris08876]

Possibly some sort of Federal law requiring up-zoning and circumventing local zoning would be nice. Mandate the crap out of housing.

[DCReid]

Maybe the key to the 'American dream" and expensive metros is revising the American Dream. The American Dream typically means having a single family house with yard, and the bigger house/more land the better, but single family houses take up a lot of space, and many people want to buy more (and are encouraged to buy) more house than they probably need. My neighobrhood has couples with few kids living in 4000-5000 square foot houses on 1 acre of land. When I think of buying a house, I don't want less than 2000 square feet, at least 2 bedrooms and at least 2 and 1/2 baths and I am a single person. Of course, I don't need all that space - I would never pay to rent more than a 1 bedroom - but I just can't get past wanting to buy more space...

[eschaton]

A couple of thoughts:

1. As Crawford notes, there's a chicken/egg issue here which is difficult to disentangle. Average age of first child has been rising for years, and this is more true the further up the income scale you go. It's probably highest among those with advanced degrees (women in academia are routinely told unofficially to not get pregnant until they get tenure) and those with high-powered corporate jobs. But it's difficult to say that the choice to delay childbirth is what caused their success. It could just as easily be that they internalized the social norm of the peer group surrounding them.

2. There are big biological drawbacks to waiting. This is particularly true for women. The average woman is essentially incapable of having a viable pregnancy by age 44. And this is just the average women - some begin having issues getting pregnant well before 40. This can lead to the use of incredibly expensive fertility treatments generally not covered by health insurance. Not to mention since you're starting with somewhat "dodgy eggs" there is a higher risk for long-term complications for the child. There's been evidence in recent years that advanced paternal age can also contribute negatively, with risk of schizophrenia and in particular autism rising the older a father is. Indeed, some have suggested this is part of the reason autism has become so much more common in the U.S. - and why it is more common in higher-income families in the U.S.

3. The big downside of having kids as a "capstone" in your life is what happens in the twilight of your life. Generations ago, people were empty nesters by the time they were in their mid-40s, which gave them a good 20 years post children to focus on work, and allowed them to be very active in taking care of grandkids. I have already read some anecdotal stories of people in their 30s who have now been forced to put off kids because their own 70-something parents became frail, and they couldn't deal with both an elder parent and a baby. In more extreme scenarios, your kids may be too young to materially help care for you in any way at all. And of course, unless you really luck out you're not going to be able to see your grandchildren grow up - possibly never see them at all.

Speaking personally, I had my kids at 30 and 34, though my wife is a bit older than me. I would have been fine with having them a few years younger, if I had met the right person, but I was a bit of a late bloomer when it came to serious dating. I just turned 41, and wouldn't really want to have to deal with another baby at this age.

[dave8721]

40 is too old to have a kid IMO (biologically getting close to actually too old to be safe for a woman at least). I had my first at 31 and 2nd at 35 and i noticed my energy level dealing with a kid was already lower at 35 than it was at 31. I can't imagine it at 42. Or dealing with a non-sleeping newborn at 50? Dealing with a rebellious teenager as a 65 year old? Paying for college right as you enter retirement?
Back in the 1950's when people had kids when they were 22-25 by the time they were 45, their kids were already out of the house.

I agree 20's is too young. 30-35 is the prime age for kids in our current society.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Or maybe if your over 40 and have a 26 year old wife...

I mean... I've seen it happen lol.

Probably much easier for a guy I guess in that scenario. A muscle even stronger than the Quadriceps and Gluteus maximus is the wallet. No biological clock for us fellas I suppose.

Trump had a kid at 66 years old but i doubt he even routinely saw the baby much less had to deal with raising him much. David Letterman was 66 as well i believe.

[SIGSEGV]

My wife and I started trying earlier this year... I'm 33 she just turned 31. It'd be much easier to afford if I sold out and left academia, but I think we'll manage ok... although it sure would be nice if we could dictate exactly when we will become pregnant!

[MolsonExport]

I was 36/38 for my son's/daughter's births. It didn't seem that old at the time, but now I am 50, and I am sure glad that I didn't wait longer. Then again, I only met my (now) wife when I was 34 (she was 29). Before that, I was not ready to settle down. Academia.