> the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources
This is both good and bad. Having a child is very difficult, but it gets harder as you get older. You lack a lot of monitory resources as a teen or the early 20s, but you have a lot more energy, as you get older your body starts decaying you will lack energy. A kid had at 40 will still be depending on your when you are 55 (kids is only 15), and if the kids goes to college may have some dependency on you when your peers are retiring. Plus if your kids have kids young as well as you, you be around and have some energy for grandkids.
Don't read the above as advocating having kids too young, it is not. However don't wait until you think it is the perfect time. If you are 25 you should be seriously thinking in the next 2 years, and by 30 have them (if of course kids are right for you - that is a complex consideration I'm not going to get into). Do not let fear of how much it will cost or desire for more resources first stop you from having kids when you are still young enough to do well.
I had my children at 36 and 38, and I'm the mother, and energy-wise, I've had no issues. Yes, they considered me to be of "advanced maternal age" in the OB department and gave me special treatment due to it, but my doctors told me that the "advanced maternal age" threshold (35) was based off outdated research anyway. In the bay area, most of the mothers I've met were around that age, and my friends are having their kids at the same age.
It was really nice that I had time to establish my career and figure things out before having kids.
The issue here is this can lead people to pushing it till 40+.
I was talking to a nice girl up until she mentioned still wanting kids in her late 40s. Maybe I’m old school, but telling someone you froze your eggs the same day you meet them is weird.
Society itself is broken. You SHOULD be able to graduate high school and make enough to support yourself and a family with a bit of struggle.
This rapidly transformed into no, get your masters, get 8 years of experience. Earn at least 300k as a couple. Then and only then should you consider a family. Childcare is 3k plus a month in many places.
For myself , I wish I made this happen in my mid 20s. I had to move back home to take care of a family member (fck cancer) and I suffered various personal setbacks due to it.
In my 30s I’ve let go of expecting anything. This world has already given me so much.
Nobody said you should wait that long. As for your anecdote, what’s wrong with figuring out early during dating whether you plan on having children or not? People should talk about those things early, since there is hardly anything that makes a relationship more incompatible long term, and leads to more (even mutual) heartbreak and sorrow than having to break up with a person solely because their most uncompromisable life plan differs.
In my 20s, it felt indeed weird to bring that up early for me, because I wasn’t ready yet and didn’t even really know what I wanted yet. Later in life, when dating we always talked about potential family planning and general outlook on life early. (Unless it was never meant to be a serious relationship to begin with.)
This wasn’t even a first date, it was like she said hi to me at an event and just started taking about having a family.
Felt really awkward for small talk.
My point was the economy should support having a family in your 20s if that’s what you want to do. You shouldn’t need a well paid career, a quality lifestyle that supports a family should be available for everyone.
I imagine universal health care, paid family leave ( for months not weeks) and affirmative (free?) childcare could bring that gap.
At a point it isn’t even an age issue. A lot of people will never earn enough to really support a family, and that’s a failure of the social contract.
You should be able to get a job as a Walmart clerk, have your partner work part time and still afford to have a family.
I think I’ve muddled my own point here, but it should be easier. Maybe that Walmart clerk could own a house ?!
I do agree with your point about society. The reason we waited are way beyond monetary issues, and we would have waited regardless, but people should be able to support a family without an “advanced” career if they choose so.
I think it would be hard to find someone that does not agree with you on the street.
These conversations should not need to happen but they do because of the current inequality that exists. A couple can't change the world so they talk about these things since it's their best option
Society does kinda support this. People with low-paying jobs actually have the most kids. You just need more income if you want to have kids at a good time and send them to higher-end schools, including K-12.
Absolutely. It serves as a filter, if people are being honest. It also highlights the bizarre dating culture and view of life we've adopted. This dating culture has produced a good deal of rotten fruit.
The ultimate purpose of dating is to meet your future spouse. We're turned it into some kind of senseless sexual escapade, and this has poisoned the relations between men and women. It makes them exploitative and dehumanizing in spirit: sprinkling them with the waters of "consent" doesn't change that, as the subjective cannot abolish the objective. We've reduced sex to something that is merely pleasurable and contradicted its intrinsic and essential function which is procreative by employing an array of technologies that impede and interfere with healthy procreative processes. This creates a mindset not unlike that of a drug user who is obsessed with getting another hit with no thought given to the damage, or the bulimic who wants the sensual satisfaction of eating, but not the calories.
The psychophysical reality of sexual intercourse is much more than some passing physical pleasure. It mobilizes processes in us that are completely oriented toward bonding and the strengthening of the relationship in preparation for children. Whence the stereotype that men will often exit quickly in the morning after a one night stand with a strange woman? Because both can feel, if only subconsciously, that the processes of bonding are taking place, and who wants to bond — and in such a profound and intimate way — with someone they've just met? In this regard, the character of Julianna in Vanilla Sky makes an astoundingly profound and accurate remark for a movie coming out of Hollywood: "Don't you know when you sleep with someone, your body makes a promise whether you do or not?" Our capacity for sexual intimacy is likewise dulled.
(Masturbation is even worse. Those processes bond us with a fictional harem of the imaginary and close us within ourselves. For social animals like us, this is a recipe for misery.)
We thwart and ignore our biological nature to our own detriment. The procreative prime spans the mid-twenties into the early 30s. Statistically, most people should be having families by their mid-20s. Our culture confuses people and creates a pointless obstacle course that leads them to postpone such things either because they're too immature (and encouraged to remain so, also by this unserious dating culture) or because they believe they must achieve some arbitrary milestones first. Furthermore, family and community support has been dashed by a culture of hyperindividualism.
The causes of demographic decline are not a mystery. People simply either don't think deeply enough, or they don't want to make the cultural changes necessary to restore normalcy.
You have far too much of an obsession with sex here and really need to stop and take a breath.
Dating culture is evolved to help you find a mate based on YOUR choices and capability not your parents or class level. This allows you to “trial” compatibility over shorter time and find better fits.
What you seem to be talking about is 'Online Hookup Culture' which is more of a hobby if we are being honest than a way of finding a mate. And ultimately probably STILL better when faced with a society increasingly not finding mates or having kids at all. So basically all of your thoughts are self-contradictory due to a bit of self righteousness here.
Please don’t let your hangups around sex (correct or not) become a world view. It’s not a healthy obsession.
This is a much more reasonable position than many will believe. I think writing like a 19th century nonfiction author probably contributes to that aha
Edit:
To be clear I appreciate this comment and agree with it in the large. It’s hard to talk about these things without being quickly dismissed in the current zeitgeist.
Sexual escapades are only senseless if you rigidly believe sex is only for specific things, and adopt a model where human beings are property and can be owned. While sex does have a biological purpose, that in itself doesn't mean it has to be limited to that purpose.
Sex is fun and most sex doesn't lead to procreation, nor is intended to. The last 50 times I've had sex, me and partner(s) involved have had no intention of making a baby, and that's fine. Nature/God agrees with me, because the number of children most families have are typically far less than the number of times the parents have had sex.
There's a lot of times people want sex and don't want it to be some big life changing event. I won't marry someone like that.
> This creates a mindset not unlike that of a drug user who is obsessed with getting another hit
Everyone wants pleasurable things with a minimum of bad or unwanted consequences. This is called being smart and using your God-given brain and free will. This doesn't make anyone a drug user. This puritanical war on pleasure can only serve authoritarian and anti-human ends, which is often an explicit or implicit base of forms of slavery/indenture, and is the main reason why I strongly advocate against it.
> The psychophysical reality of sexual intercourse is much more than some passing physical pleasure.
Anything that feels really good will beget attachment because you want more of it. When it's attached to a person, you're going to want to be around that person more. And of course, human beings are naked apes with courtship and bonding instincts and all that good stuff. But people bond over things other than sex, and any good relationship or marriage will have many bonds other than the sexual one. Indeed, marriages where sex is the only reason they got together are as hollow as this drug user strawman you trotted out.
> Masturbation is even worse.
People who become overly dependent on parasocial relationships with fictional anything, whether that's a harem, video game, movie star, person mentioned in a religious book, etc. need help. I masturbate from time to time and it does not give me any problems, but I'm not addicted to it. But I would rather lonely people masturbate themselves into a coma than sexually assault others simply because of people who will say masturbation is wrong but at the same time won't consider other things like legalizing prostitution.
> they don't want to make the cultural changes necessary to restore normalcy.
I don't. The old way sucked. Robots and AI should be doing all our menial work, and the possibilities for pleasure are endless. The people who just can't exist without an employer giving them meaning because they never got enough approval from their daddies need to move to another planet.
> Society itself is broken. You SHOULD be able to graduate high school and make enough to support yourself and a family with a bit of struggle
This has literally only been true for about 30 years out of the sum total of human history, would you like to guess when those 30 years happened to be?
Obviously the answer is "1950s america".
For the rest of human history, you needed something beyond the education you received until the age of 18 in order to support a family.
Income in this context means trading labor for cash.
In the past, huge amounts of household work were done without any such exchange.
Today, child raising, cleaning, cooking, provisioning, and more remain unpaid household labor. The people who do that work were not idle 800 years ago, and they are not idle today.
Women and kids would tend to animals and food came directly from the animals. They both would tend the fields when work did not required physical strength - and thre was plenty of such work too. The crafts women did were for sale or trade. They would also sell on the market whatever excess household produced.
If we are talking about "centuries" quite a lot of people including men did not worked as in being employed for salary. But their work was economical - necessarily so.
Being stay at home mom today is mostly battling boredom and demotivation. Or then, making up things to do. It is not the same as milking cows or making cheese.
> Being stay at home mom today is mostly battling boredom and demotivation. Or then, making up things to do. It is not the same as milking cows or making cheese.
I was a stay at home parent for my daughter. It was extremely far from battling boredom (except perhaps for first year and a half, if that, and even then anyone who is actually interested in child development will not find it boring) and it was the opposite of demotivating.
Rather than speak in such broad generalizations, I think it would be better to restrict your claims to specific, real stories.
In foraging societies - ie, most people for the vast majority of human history - people worked ~15–20 hours/week on subsistence tasks. The rest was leisure or social time (ie, time for being a human later rebranded as 'idleness').
Industrialization has pushed inequality to extremes while raising hours worked - even as productivity keeps shooting up. There's no good reason for people to tolerate this; it's just exploitation.
Those hours worked are carefully defining a lot of work away. Most things people eat need hours of preparation that isn't counted in you 15-20 hours for example. When you relook at what people did most of the time you realize they had to work really hard for a lot more hours to survive.
How many hours a day would you estimate that primates in the wild "work"? Without commenting on quality of life it seems readily apparent to me that many foraging animals have large amounts of leisure time.
> Most things people eat need hours of preparation that isn't counted in you 15-20 hours for example.
Yeah, and we now expect women to work 40+ hour work weeks and house work on top of that. That is the thing causing societal reproduction rates to plummet.
Let's just do the math: a day has 24 hours. The recommendation for healthy sleep is 8 hours. Then, you work for 8 hours, with 1 hour added for the unpaid lunch break. That's the two largest blocks, leaving 7 hours to distribute... dedicate 3 hours for the "staying alive" stuff (preparing for going to work in the morning, aka breakfast, shave, getting dressed, preparing dinner, eating dinner, have a shower and at least some unwind time to fall asleep).
And that in turn leaves only 4 hours for everything else: running errands (aka shopping, dealing with bureaucracy, disposing of trash, cleaning), just doing nothing to wind down your mind from a hard day at work, hobbies, social activities (talking with your friends and family or occasionally going out) and, guess what, actually having sex.
Easy to see how that's already a fully packed day. Society just took the productivity gains from women no longer having to deal with a lot of menial work (washing dishes and clothing, as that got replaced by machines, and repairing clothes) and redistributed these hours to capitalism.
And now, imagine a child on top of that. Add at least half an hour in the morning to help get the kid ready for school, an hour to drive the kid to errands (because public transit is more like "transhit"), and another two hours to help the kid with homework because that workload is ridiculous and you don't want the kid to fall behind kids of parents rich enough to afford private tutors. But... whoops, isn't that just about the entire "everything else" time block? And younger children need even more work, constantly changing nappies, going to the doctor's all the time because it's one new bug every new week and sometimes the bug also catches you cold...
You're inventing sexism where there isn't any. The men who expect their wives to work 40+ hour weeks are not (at least as a group) the ones dumping all housework and childcare on them.
The time constraints that come with a dual income certainly make the logistics of having children more difficult though.
> The men who expect their wives to work 40+ hour weeks are not (at least as a group) the ones dumping all housework and childcare on them.
I'm not talking about men, I'm talking about society itself. Try renting a family home on a single income in any moderate popular area. Owning a home is outright out of reach for even more people.
Yes I agree the dual income expectation is super backwards when it comes to raising a family. First your income isn't enough to have a family unless you’re earning in the top 5%. Second, as you point out, managing a home and a property takes time and effort, much more than just a few hours a week. Add kids in the mix and unless you have full time childcare it’s not feasible. You pretty much have to sacrifice one of the two incomes paying for labor you can otherwise do yourself. I understand the social reason we moved toward dual income but there’s still a lot to iron out. It’s a whole lot easier to have a family if society could figure out a way to support the homemaker during childrearing years—some of us actually want to raise our own kids. And we need to figure out how to make life accessible to single income situations. Inevitably since dual income has become an expectation the markets have adjusted to that reality which leaves single income households short.
Look man if you want to write a refutation of Marshall Sahlins' work, go ahead. I might even read it. But I'm not going to just take the word of a random commentator - are you even in anthropology?
Like, this is a broad consensus thing. There's not really much debate; ethnographic studies have backed it up. Where are you getting your info from?
There seem to be two main points of critique there:
1. That there was war and war sucked; disease; and also infant mortality was high - therefore life sucked back then. None of that really factors in to the debate of how much free time people had; and those thing are all still very much with us (especially in America).
2. That food prep and gathering firewood takes time. Well, gathering firewood is also known as 'going for a walk in nature', and it's actually good for you. You can chat with your friends while you do it. It's not like your average job. It might not be technically 'idle', but it's a lot closer to 'idle' than flipping burgers in a sweatbox.
Same with food prep - picking through some dried beans, or stirring a pot every 30 mins and making sure it doesn't boil over, while you tell stories around the table just isn't comparable to working in an Amazon warehouse pissing into plastic bottles.
It's critique, and you can buy it if you want; but there's nothing there I would call substantial.
1. The choice isn't between having free time and having modern maternity care. And it's not what was being debated. Like, yeah, antibiotics and anesthetic are great to have, but working 40+ hours a week isn't a prerequisite for them to exist so I have no idea why you're bringing it up.
2. Sitting around the table, singing songs, telling stories, or quietly reflecting; all working at my own pace, in the comfort of a home that's been owned outright for generations, surrounded by organic soil free from pesticides and plastic.
3. I read your link, not every cited article. I've personally lived that way, and I know what I'm talking about. There's a big difference between shucking corn with your family or stacking logs, and shuffling numbers at a bullshit job which exists to make two or three incredibly rich people thousands of miles away a tiny bit wealthier. That said, if there's something more you'd like to bring to the discussion, bring it.
You’re not really responding to what he’s saying. You’re sitting at the middle of the story, where the family is no longer surviving, but rather thriving. It’s probably possible to do this, but it’s a difficult stage to reach, and maintaining it requires a LOT of resources.
And anyways, if you’re a hunter-gatherer, you’re following your prey, not sitting around growing corn to be shucked while you sing songs or whatever.
By the way, my buddies and I tell each other stories at work all the time? You can do this at work too, you know. What you seem to be doing is imagining a world where you’ve outsourced all your labor to “it’ll get done” land, then combined hunter-gatherer lifestyles with agrarian lifestyles
You've taken the position that there's some issue with original affluent society but none of the points you're raising run counter either to it or to the adjacent observation that modern quality of life almost certainly doesn't require anywhere near the hours worked at present. Unless you consider economic inequality to be a prerequisite for it anyway.
No, I'm taking the position that there are massive issues with the work estimates in "The Original Affluent Society" in response to a poster that seems to think a small farm in the 1980s is comparable to being a hunter gatherer 20-200kya
A, being homeless and being in a gatherer society are very different things.
And B, even if you wanted to live that way you can't any more; because the commons has been relentlessly exploited past its breaking point for centuries.
I shouldn't really have to explain any of this, but people generally seem to have some weird ideas and blind spots surrounding our history as a species.
In many countries the only obstacle is the legality of living on government lands. In Canada there are people living a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle on crown land. The option is totally available for many people who chose not to do it.
> the only obstacle is the legality of living on government lands
Yes, the obstacle of living illegally on land that has been systematically over-exploited for centuries (or too harsh to bother), without any community or experience. Not sure I'm seeing your point.
People do it so it's definitely possible. Most people chose not to do it because it's a hard life with a horrible quality of life. Being a hunter-gatherer and living a nomadic life is not and was never easy or fun.
Children helped support their families, I don’t see the face value problem with that. The fact remains that humans have been having kids in their teens and 20s for millennia, until very recently in western liberal societies.
Whether something should be the case has little bearing on whether it has been the case for any length of time particularly in something as flexible as the organization of society. It should largely be fine to point at something and say "I would like things to work this way" and try to organize society in that direction.
In less wealthy countries, usually the compromise is that husbands are significantly older than their wives. A woman is ready for marriage at 16-20 but a man isn't ready until 25-35. Also they don't own single-family houses unless they're in totally rural areas.
It does not have to be a replica of of 50s society though. In particular, I do not think the model of "men go out to work, women look after home and kids" is a great one.
There are lot of alternatives. Men can be primary parents (I was, once the kids got to about the age of eight or so, and was an equal parent before that) and they could stay at home (I continued working, but I was already self-employed and working from home, and my ex never worked after having children).
I think the ideal set up (it would have been so for me) would have been for both parents to work part time.
Of course it still comes back to, you should be able to raise a family on the equivalent of one full time income.
Of course, if the leisured society predicted a few decades ago had come to pass it would be one part time salary.
The model of men work while women watch the kids was most of history. Of course is completely ignors 'womens work' which was very needed for survival and defined by things you could do while also watching kids. for the first few years kids eat from mom so she cannot get far from them (after that she is probably pregnaunt again thus restarting the cycle). Mens work was anything that needed to be done that could not be done when pregaunt or nursing a kid.
today men have the ability to watch kids thanks to formula (though it is better for the kids to eat from mom - this is rarely talked about because it is easy to go too far and starve a baby to death in the exceptions).
> I think the ideal set up (it would have been so for me) would have been for both parents to work part time.
Beautifully said, very progressive also!
I am a big fan of the 4-day work week (for the same amount of money as 5 days), it's been transformative for my life. The extra energy and focus you get from that 1 day translates to higher productivity in the 4 days where you do work. Sadly, the current "squeeze em', bleed em' dry, and drop em'" brand of capitalism is incompatible with the majority of the people to experience how good life can be like that.
I certainly ain't looking forward to them raising the retirement age to 1337 by the time I get to retire.
It's like a race where they repeatedly move the finishing line because the organizers took the medals and sold them, while waiting for you to drop dead so they don't have to give you what you are due.
Who wouldn't be a fan of 80% of the work for 100% of the pay? It's a built-in raise equal to or greater than what you'd get from changing jobs, without the switch in seniority or experience.
> Who wouldn't be a fan of 80% of the work for 100% of the pay?
If you, as an employer, want a motivated, energetic workforce who are not slacking off, it's also in your interest to give that opportunity to your employees, as multiple experiments have shown that 4-day work results in increased productivity and employee retention.
Knowledge work does not have 1-1 correspondence between time spent and productivity. Things get VERY non-linear, to the point that more than 50 hours of real knowledge work a week is often LESS productive than 40 hours.
Aside from the peer comment pointing out the bleedingly obvious, there's also a bit of history here:
In 1907 Justice Henry Bourne Higgins, President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, set the first federally arbitrated wages standard in Australia.
Using the Sunshine Harvester Factory as a test case, Justice Higgins took the pioneering approach of hearing evidence from not only male workers but also their wives to determine what was a fair and reasonable wage for a working man to support a family of five.
Higgins’s ruling became the basis for setting Australia’s minimum wage standard for the next 70 years.
Each award is also complex, and covers a range of issues in the employment. For example, this is the Professional Employee award:
https://awards.fairwork.gov.au/MA000065.html just working out what the minimum wage would be for a graduate engineer with 2 years experience is a complex, detailed matter.
But yes, probably, for most professions you could reasonably expect to support a family of 5 on the award, depending on location and definition of "support". Affording a house would largely depend on an additional inheritance, though.
Is "inheritance" used in a different way here similar to how "award" is, or are you saying you often need to inherit money from your family in order to be able to buy a house in Australia?
No, it's used in the same way as elsewhere in the Anglosphere. And yes, as in the rest of the Anglosphere, generally you need an inheritance to be able to afford to buy property.
"in the high cost of living areas" is the rest of that sentence.
It is perfectly doable, even common, to buy a home in low and medium COL areas without any assistance from family, living or dead. The fact that you can't do this in NYC or SF is not an indictment of anything other than NYC and SF.
> or are you saying you often need to inherit money from your family in order to be able to buy a house in Australia?
Tell me a place in any Western society (outside of run-down rural areas/flyover states) where an average employee (i.e. no ultra-rich tech hipster bros) is able to afford a home before the age of 30 purely by his own savings and income. That is frankly no longer a reality for most people.
No reasonable person considered high school advanced education in the 70's let alone 2000. If 85%+ of people get it for half a century, it is by definition not advanced.
> For myself , I wish I made this happen in my mid 20s. I had to move back home to take care of a family member (fck cancer) and I suffered various personal setbacks due to it.
I hear ya. My spouse developed mental illness after sons 4,5 were born. A spouse can sabotage a lot of things when they set their mind to it - and their mind never stops. Not even at 3am. The first year was hard. The second was harder. After 5ys we run out of adjectives. After 15y we're using Dr.Seuss letters to spell out how things are.
What was the nature of her illness and was it directly related to the kids? If you don’t mind me asking, of course. That sounds like a very challenging thing all the best
Psychosis, bipolar, BPD, NPD, pretty much all the *PDs. She switched it up.
> was it directly related to the kids
As in stemmed from? No.
As far as challenge related to the kids, it was 1) keeping the them as safe as possible when she was not and 2) proving some semblance of parenting. Both were difficult-to-impossible, given that kids are trapped at home, thanks to eradication of free range areas.
…which is not necessarily problematic either. I was 43 and my wife 41 when our daughter was born. Our child has had a great life and so have we. While I’m 60 now and don’t have quite the same energy I had at 20-30’something, everything has worked out well for us.
Everyone’s path, goals and priorities is different and as long as would-be parents consider the trade offs all around, it’s hard to be prescriptive about this.
> Society itself is broken. You SHOULD be able to graduate high school and make enough to support yourself and a family with a bit of struggle.
No argument there. The complex socioeconomic forces that has created this dilemma are going to tough to unwind.
Some of it is economics but some of it is the structure of relationship choice. Feminist scholar Eva Illouz in Why Love Hurts talks about the reasons why women find it hard to get into committed relationships where they feel safe having children:
Not least the idea that if you keep dating you can find somebody better than you've found so far -- a problem that's worse in large cosmopolitan cities where the dating pool is large and perceived to be large.
> In the bay area, most of the mothers I've met were around that age, and my friends are having their kids at the same age
San Francisco has the highest rate of geriatric pregnancies in USA. We are in a statistical bubble where having kids late is normal (because careers and hcol).
Bubble implies that it's going to burst. I don't see it. Women aren't going to stop wanting careers, and HCOL is coming for everybody. I expect the whole country to join SF in this "bubble".
Bubble in this context means a unique environment that is unlike places on the outside of said bubble. It's not referring to a bubble like in the sense of a inflating market bubble.
The desire to work and have children is going nowhere. Like Hollywood, the careers are going to go away. The money that lubricates the Bay Area is all from the Middle East now, and the return on in-region labor dollars is declining.
I’m sure the return on in region labor dollars decline that you note is real but is it regional? Where in the US is the return on labor dollars not declining? Housing costs, including taxes, seems to be the big problem in the Bay Area. Workers are still productive, but they require higher pay to offset the demand for housing caused by all the foreign “lubrication” and tech-49ers.
The US is already a bubble. Government is currently trying to make it burst as fast as possible. Getting back to the point where what women want doesn't matter again. HCOL will be a luxury term, life in debtors prisons will be the new norm.
It’s just the technical medical term. I don’t think “advanced maternal age” is much better (advanced age at 35?). Besides, advanced age is exactly what geriatric means.
My ex-wife was 37, and I was an year older, when our younger one was born and energy was not the problem so I agree with you that 35+ should not be a problem.
However, a lot of people are having kids significantly older than that.
I not know whether I could cope with a baby 20 years later. Contrary to stereotypes I used to get up faster and more fully if a baby cried in the night. On the other hand, having a baby might energise and motivate me! Not planning to try it out though!
An older friend conveyed to me pretty much the exact same thing you are, that he cannot imagine having kids at 40 because you will not be able to keep up with them energy wise. You get old and your body really starts to give in.
Alright Geoff, thanks, but you are 54 and do zero exercise, have a diet of eating out at fast food and fast casual restaurants, a body type that would be described as "meatball", and a list of medical conditions which all scream lifestyle change.
Meanwhile at trail running meets, I bump into 60 year olds still giving some 35 year olds a run for their money.
Physical shape is not the same or even proportional to the ability to pull all-nighters.
I know two men 18 years apart in age who became fathers at the same time - two months apart to be exact. Even though the older is an avid gym-goer, it's only the younger who can pull off popping back into full strength after less than 6h of sleep.
My youngest was born when I was 47. He’s now 9. I also have a 13 yr born when I was 43. I’m tired but I don’t think it’s from the kids. (More I’m tired of working - been burning the candle at both ends for nearly 40 years.) The biggest difference of having kids at this age is that I don’t have time to myself or for myself like other parents around me so are by now empty nesters or close.
Newborns keep you up but an all-nighter is a stretch. Also, you're looking after your kid and trying to get them to sleep, not trying to churn out code to get something to market/go to prod.
Both of mine had colic and went through difficult teething. I've pulled all-nighters to deliver something and it's much easier than several weeks of sleepless nights with an infant.
I always needed more than 8 hrs of sleep, now that I am into my 50s, I feel well after 4 hours. Anecdotes are good. My grandfather got to 100 not sleeping more than a few hours a night after he turned 55 and he raised my cousins as their parents were shite. I know whining young parents who complain about lack of sleep, I know older parents who never do as they were happy finally having a kid. Etc.
> Alright Geoff, thanks, but you are 54 and do zero exercise, have a diet of eating out at fast food and fast casual restaurants, a body type that would be described as "meatball", and a list of medical conditions which all scream lifestyle change.
> Meanwhile at trail running meets, I bump into 60 year olds still giving some 35 year olds a run for their money.
My son was born when I was 45 and I absolutely could not be more happy about it. I am in way better shape than I was at 30, I finally started taking that seriously, and also I am way wiser, more patient, and have more money.
So if you hear anyone telling you they can't imagine late fatherhood ignore them, they obviously aren't good at imagining things.
While generally true, you are not the only one aging around you, and some sickness/accident stuff can happen with higher probability as years add up.
The chance you will need to take care of both your kids and your parents in your 50s is pretty high (not even going into you and your partner), while facing declining health yourself.
Could be easily manageable, or not. Ask me in a decade.
But one thing is darn true - if a good long term stable match is not there, no point pushing for kids. World really doesnt need more damaged folks struggling their whole lives to overcome shitty childhood. And thats fine, parenthood is not for everybody and there can be an amazing life to be had instead (and I mean it in best way possible, but that life shouod not be spent behind the desk and on the couch)
Aging sucks! Obviously you can do everything wrong, and mess your body up pretty good. You can also do everything right, and just have bad luck. Lingering injury, hereditary health conditions, things add up. By the time you are in your 60s, it takes a combination of good habits and good luck to be in good shape. It's comforting to point to active older people and say "I'm going to grow up to be just like them". Just aware of survivorship bias.
Good news: most studies show that adults that do moderate exercise have a lower rate of fall-related injuries in old age than those that do little to no exercise.
>Meanwhile at trail running meets, I bump into 60 year olds still giving some 35 year olds a run for their money.
Interrupt that 60 year old's sleep twice a night with a newborn crying, add a bunch of new responsibilities, and I'll be impressed if he even makes it to the meet.
You're comparing people who have made exercise their #1 priority in life to people who have made their kids and supporting their families financially their top 2 priorities. It's a bullshit comparison.
You think someone going to a trail running meet has made exercise their #1 priority?
My father is 63, raised three children and has had a successful long marriage and retired from a good career. He also goes works out daily and did for most of my childhood. He didn't make exercise his number one priority.
I had kids in my late 30s and they tested my patience and emotional regulation to an extent greater than any other experience of my life. I was somewhat emotionally volatile in my 20s and I can't imagine my kids having better outcomes if I'd had to learn to parent at that time in my life.
My children are 12 years apart in age and being a parent in my 20s was a much better experience. I had less money, but I had more time. I wiser now, but I had more energy. I could relate to being a kid more.
I'm not suggesting it's better. But people seem to automatically assume that being older when having kids as better. I know some much older parents who were not good parents. I know I would not make a good parent to a younger child now that I'm in my 40s.
I did not have more time in my 20s. In my 20s and early 30s, I was busy “getting out there”. Building my life, my interests, my foundation (not just my career). Now I have a happy life to stand on, and can devote more time, attention, and energy to my family.
I don’t deny that your way can work out as well. But OPs advice was “get children before you are 30, don’t wait until after”. Whereas my honest advice, based on my experience, is “wait until you are 35, you’ll be much more stable life in several regards”.
Which approach is best for you depends on a lot of things. For me, I can honestly say, there is no way I would be where I am if I had had kids in my 20s or even early 30s, and I also wouldn’t have been as good a father as I am right now based on how I’ve grown since then. Both things that my child directly benefits from.
I was “getting out there” too! So many major life milestones. But actually it has never stopped. Most of my major career changes happened after the second child. I have entirely new interests now.
I feel like I do have the unique perspective having actually done both. I don't need to assume what kind of parent I was in my 20s because I was that parent. And I'm a different parent now. But being a younger parent was a great experience despite any other consequences.
That’s interesting. Because I genuinely feel I’m much better cut out to be a parent now. Is it different for you? I have so much patience and understanding, and I see that lacking in many of the younger parents around me. I see them and I remember myself.
And the life I have would just not have been possible if I had a child back then. Not even if I completely sacrificed family time and attention back then, which I never would have wanted.
But I guess we have to agree to disagree. For you, being a younger parent worked out better. For me, I’m certain I got my child at the right time. In any case, I find OPs general recommendation that if you want children, you should have them by 30, to be ill-advised to the point of being harmful. Many people would benefit from waiting until later.
I'm 32, and I think I currently have much less patience and understanding than I did at say 22. Life has basically broken me to the point that I simply don't have the capacity for these things that I used to.
Haha, I like to joke that I reached peak intellectual capacity around 26 and peak emotional maturity around 14 and both have been dropping from their peak since then.
It also depends on the person. I was not an adult at 27. I realized I was one at 32 though.
Kids at 27 would have been a bad bad idea. Kids at 32 as well (wrong partner). I’m even older now but I am with the right partner and naturally want kids now. Before her, the topic wouldn’t even cross my mind.
I think it’s really hard to give general advice if one doesn’t mention how their advice interacts with other variables
The advice was to start before you are 30, not finish then. If you have multiple kids my advice is the last should be around 35 maybe 40 but space them out
We have 4 kids and I relate to them really well I think, not to the level where I’m engrossed in descriptions of the latest Roblox game but they’re just younger humans, not some alien species… I’m in my mid 40’s and our youngest is 10.
I also have plenty of energy, the only real change I’ve noticed getting older is I’m in bed a bit earlier than I was in my 20s.
I don’t understand why people think midlife is some kind of drained, lifeless decrepitude
Or possibly you would have learned emotional regulation sooner.
Kids change you, for the better if you let it. There's nothing like a completely helpless infant who is totally dependent on you to wear down your selfish tendencies.
Obviously I think the answer to this question depends so much on individual circumstances that all any of us can do is offer anecdotes. I think that while energy levels do decline as you get older, the degree of the decline depends largely on how much you stay in shape. My partner and I are very active and find ourselves only marginally less physically energetic in our 30s as our 20s. I've seen friends of ours with more sedentary lifestyles having a much sharper decline. If you're inclined to stay in shape then I don't think age makes as big of a difference (within reason.) But YMMV.
I had a kid at 22, I am now 40 with a kid going to college. I can echo this exact sentiment.
However at 22 I wasn't the experienced person I am today. Nor was I stable, nor could I jump on opportunities like my peers could.
If having a child in your early 20s would mean not losing opportunities in progressing in a career, at least with enough free childcare and food to feed the children, people could be more inclined to have children while they get their life together. Our culture of moving away from home is also a big problem -- having 2 sets of grandparents helping raise a child REALLY helped me at my youth not miss out on youth and still raise my child.
kids between 25-32 is something our society should aim to be as practical and pleasant as possible.
> #2 is childcare. Cheap, plentiful, good quality.
This costs infinite money.
It's impossible to scale, because nobody wants an environment where their child is not getting attention from compassionate, engaged adults throughout the day. To get the same level of care as a stay at home parent, you need as many care workers as there are families with young children. And if you pay those workers comparably to the average wage, you need to tax the entire wages of one parent in each family to cover the care costs.
It's probably much cheaper to write checks to families encouraging them to have one parent care for their own children full time.
But I'm not going to tell someone they can't work.
My wife was stay-at-home, until she couldn't take it any more, and then returned to work. Even though it cost us more overall (childcare, second car, etc).
I think willing to take a cut in one's standard of living so that the mother stays at home and raises the children would revitalize society beyond any of the above-mentioned options.
Or... Raise wages while reducing housing and insurance costs so that a single wage earner home can support their family. What my grandpa and grandma used to call "the middle class".
I agree with you. I don't have all the answers, but I agree with you. Things aren't the same. My political views have evolved so much over the span of 20-years. I don't know what the answer is, but at a spiritual level, you are completely right.
I concur. Kids would have been much better at 20 than at 30. I can barely keep up with what they want to do now. If you live in a decent country it’s not even that expensive. Most states really want people to have children, so the basics are often supported or free.
We were 38 with our first. I strongly agree that is too late to have them, especially given the likelihood of birth defects. Thankfully, we avoided issues there.
A few years in and I feel "back on my feet", but it was harder for being older.
You speak way off base. Many, possibly most people in their early 40s can have kids and still keep up with them well into their 50s. Not only is it easier than ever to pull this off for many modern reasons of health and lifestyle decisions, it's not even exceptionally hard unless you're unlucky with your health or do something to really fuck it up. Even decades ago, many many men at least were commonly fathering children in their 40s and even 50s, and rearing them.
You write your comment about the maximum safe age for having children as if most people (at least in the advanced countries and moderately reasonable income brackets) were living the lives of 19th century industrial workers.
I think having kids when you’re in your early 30s is the way to go but having kids at any age is great. I think waiting until later is a mistake because you want a full life with your kids and ideally you can bless your parents with grandkids (they most likely want one, even if they say they don’t). But not having kids because you “waited too long” is a bigger mistake.
Kids take a lot of energy but they also give you a lot, no matter the age. We are biologically hardwired to rise to the challenge of having kids no matter the age.
> Don't read the above as advocating having kids too young, it is not.
Depending on the circumstances in a persons country, maybe getting children at a young age isn't that dumb. I'd argue that the best time to get kids is as a university student. You get free daycare, the government doubles your stipend (and it's extended), your housing subsidy increases, you generally have more free time as a student, grandparents are younger and able to help more and you have more energy and can more easily deal with lose of sleep.
As a bonus, when your kids move out, you're not even 40 year olds.
The only real issue is: Have you meet the right partner yet?
> I'd argue that the best time to get kids is as a university student. You get free daycare, the government doubles your stipend (and it's extended), your housing subsidy increases, you generally have more free time as a student...
Where... where do you live? I'm all for having kids as soon as possible, but I was barely able to provide for just myself during university.
I'm in Denmark. You get around $1100 per month from the government as a university student, you then get around the same amount per child (not sure if a couple get half of that each). Still if you're two students, with a child, that's at least $3300 a month. That's not a lot of money, but there are also government loans you can get, and again, free daycare and subsidies for housing. It's not a get rich scheme, but it's also only meant to be temporary i.e. until you finish your studies.
That sound more like "Børnetilskud". Everyone gets that, regardless of being a student or not, that's just help to buy clothes and stuff like that for your child. It's paid out every quarter.
There's a bunch of stuff like that, some can be "stacked", some are mutually exclusive, some are "per child" some is per adult. Some are only available to single parents, some are only available if both parents are enrolled in an education, some are only available if you make less than a certain amount.
Yes and no, the government is trying to steer young people in the direction of engineering, nursing, doctors, teachers and trades (carpenter, bricklayer and so on), but it's not clear where the people are suppose to come from. Essentially Denmark is missing people in also every profession. There aren't enough people. My wife works in a field where unemployment is 12, not percent, but 12 people. So if you're unemployed, qualified to work in the EU and have a recognized education, applying for jobs in Denmark isn't a bad bet.
Various governments have also attempted to boost birth rates, but unsuccessfully.
I think having kids before you are 30 is fine, but we had our second kid when my wife was 36 and it was also fine. I think when you get in your forties as a man or late thirties as a woman it can be tougher.
Also, adopt. Before I was a parent I thought of a child as "mine" because of biology. Really you see that you shape people and form a connection with them because they are part of your family.
there are also age correlated birth defects, the cause of which have not been adequately determined in all cases but the high correlation does suggest a relation.
> If you are 25 you should be seriously thinking in the next 2 years, and by 30 have them
I need to push back on this because no one is actually an adult at the age of 25 despite those people wishing it were so. You do not have your shit figured out and assuming a partner of similar age, neither do they. It's only starting in your 30s where you start to understand what it is to be a responsible adult to yourself and to the world.
So please, do not seriously consider having kids in your 20s, for all our sakes.
Isn’t your brain still forming until you’re like… 26? It’s probably more correct to say that 25 year olds are children in that case. Other ages are mostly arbitrary.
This is a level of infantilization that I think becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People don’t magically become adults, they learn to be adults based on the situations they are placed in.
It seems to me like when you move the definition of “adulthood” back to age X, fewer people function like adults prior to age X.
As someone who is 34 with two kids (toddler and newborn), I completely agree with your comment. My wife and I had difficulty having kids, or we would've had them sooner, but I completely agree with having kids before 30. My energy is still solid, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't compare to energy in your 20s. People think too much about the financial aspect. You can continue building and growing financially even with kids, you just need to be smarter and more disciplined. A lot of people use the financial argument, but I think more and more, it is only a cope for not having had kinds sooner. All my kids will be in their 20s when I'm in my 50s; not bad, but having kids in your 20s is the way to go.
most ppl in my region have kids 35+ in order to first find a place in life that can support children. i don't see any issues with that.
having energy is subjective and does not really depend on being young or old. some old folks are full of energy and live really active lives. It depends on your state of mind and lifestyle more than age.
We did wait for the “perfect” time, and are very happy we did.
I got my son at almost 40, and I’m positive I’m a much better parent because of that. Sure, kids cost energy, but at 40 and 50 you’re not geriatric. I often get the opportunity to compare our parenting style to younger parents, and it’s clear that they often have some emotional growing up to do themselves. They complain about normal parenting things that we just shrug about, they are torn between their career and raising a kid, and most importantly they often lack patience, where to us it just comes natural.
> they often lack patience, where to us it just comes natural.
Having kids fast-tracked me to a critical increase in patience. I've grown so much in less than three years because of my kids. I'm not sure this growth would have ever happened so quickly through other means.
And I'll always have a special, particular respect especially towards my firstborn for causing that in me, and for enduring my shortcomings in the meantime.
My wife and I had our first at age 15. Then another at 22. And our last at 27. I've raised children while on welfare and while a software engineer.
I was more patient as a teen than I am now in my 40s. Now I am tired. All the time. I fear I would literally die of exhaustion if I had to maintain more irregular hours than I already do due to insomnia that I have developed over the last half decade.
I didn’t say get pregnant at 50. I said I became a parent at almost 40, my wife is a couple of years younger. No problems whatsoever, and I seem to have more energy for parenting (and especially patience) than the parents in their 20s who haven’t even found themselves yet.
Paternal age is also a contributor. Children with fathers over 40 see an increase in potential diseases, a shorter lifespan and higher infant mortality, likely due to DNA mutations.
According to that page, the whole issue seems to be very nuanced. It also contains the quotes I attached below.
Be it as it may, I conclude that there is an elevated risk for problems the older you get (although for some issues, cause and effect may be reversed, which is hard to resolve), but that that risk may not be so significant as to outweigh other advantages.
> A simulation study concluded that reported paternal age effects on psychiatric disorders in the epidemiological literature are too large to be explained only by mutations. They conclude that a model in which parents with a genetic liability to psychiatric illness tend to reproduce later better explains the literature.[9]
> Later age at parenthood is also associated with a more stable family environment, with older parents being less likely to divorce or change partners.[43] Older parents also tend to occupy a higher socio-economic position and report feeling more devoted to their children and satisfied with their family.[43] On the other hand, the risk of the father dying before the child becomes an adult increases with paternal age.[43]
> According to a 2006 review, any adverse effects of advanced paternal age "should be weighed up against potential social advantages for children born to older fathers who are more likely to have progressed in their career and to have achieved financial security."[63]
It seems kids procreated by older parents (aged 35 years or older) have increased risk of Down Syndrome. The effect is most pronounced when both parents are older than 35 years: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12771769/
> A kid had at 40 will still be depending on your when you are 55
I had my kids 25-35; all 5 are adults. We live together as is befitting a 4 income economy.
> and if the kids goes to college
Do you mean go away to college? Yeah. No.
> may have some dependency on you when your peers are retiring.
Me and peers are all working grey. End of career happens with first major illness intersects with the lack of health insurance and we die.
> Plus if your kids have kids
If one of my a sons pairs off with someone and they both work, they'll still be 2 typical incomes short of self sustenance.
BUT, if they got married and then married another couple, the 4 of them only have to find one more adult - the one who will parent during the work day. After the last child enters school, the core 4 can kick parent 5 to the curb.
> Do not let fear of how much it will cost
No fear. Just math.
> or desire for more resources first
But if they had more resources they might only need 3 or even 2 adults working full time to afford basic bills.
> Do not let ... it ... stop you from having kids when you are still young enough to do well.
Parents can (and do) parent while living in their car...
SO what? That is well below retirement age and life expectancy. MY younger one turns 18 when I will be 58, and I am a single parent. Baring accidents or the severely unexpected (which can happen at any age - plenty of people die in the 30s or 40s) its not a problem.
> That is well below retirement age and life expectancy.
What is below RA/LE? My comment addressed common financial realities. It applied to every adult age, up to and including death.
> MY younger one turns 18 when I will be 58
okay.
> and I am a single parent.
You may be interested to know that parenting can be get much harder than that. ex: I would have loved my difficulty level to be dialed down to Single Parent.
> Baring accidents or the severely unexpected
I agree that some folks do experience year after year after year of luck.
> (which can happen at any age - plenty of people die in the 30s or 40s)
I agree that not having life-changing advantage & luck is pretty dang common.
> its not a problem.
What's not a problem? Taken together, your comment seems to be lacking a subject.
I did the best I could. If you could share which of my points you were responding to, that might help.
This is both good and bad. Having a child is very difficult, but it gets harder as you get older. You lack a lot of monitory resources as a teen or the early 20s, but you have a lot more energy, as you get older your body starts decaying you will lack energy. A kid had at 40 will still be depending on your when you are 55 (kids is only 15), and if the kids goes to college may have some dependency on you when your peers are retiring. Plus if your kids have kids young as well as you, you be around and have some energy for grandkids.
Don't read the above as advocating having kids too young, it is not. However don't wait until you think it is the perfect time. If you are 25 you should be seriously thinking in the next 2 years, and by 30 have them (if of course kids are right for you - that is a complex consideration I'm not going to get into). Do not let fear of how much it will cost or desire for more resources first stop you from having kids when you are still young enough to do well.