Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxk42 | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if the poor are having more children because they feel like they have less to lose?

I desperately want to have kids and my girlfriend is on board, but she makes next to nothing and I make quite a lot of money. I tried an online calculator and if things go awry between us, I'll be paying her roughly a quarter of my post-tax income for the next two decades here in California.

That's just too big a gamble for me. So even though I desperately want children and I can afford them and everything would probably work out fine -- here I am, aging and childless while my girlfriend nears infertility because I can't justify the math to myself.

View on HN

Right now, children is sort of theoretical for you. That's fine, as it's like that for everybody.

Once you have them and have fallen in love with them, you'll find that their happiness is worth working things out with their mother, rather than breaking up. If you can't man up enough to put up with her shit (assuming there is any) and you do break up, the money will be going to your kids, who you'll love, and giving that money won't be as objectionable as you imagine.

For me, I used to break up with women over silly arguments that embarrass me now to think about. Now, when such emotions surface, it always leads to me thinking about my kids and what a break-up would do to them. When you have kids, you're in a relationship with their mother and with them also. When you're mad at her, you're still having fun with them, and that lets you work through your issues with her, as their happiness includes her presence. The same applies to her, if you're being an asshole for awhile. So breaking up after kids is not as likely as you fear.

I make a quarter million dollars.

No, that money certainly won't be going to my kids. It's utterly ridiculous to pay that amount of money for child support for one child.

This is essentially incentivizing my partner to break up with me: "Hey <GF>, if you dump him, you get a $60k check for the rest of your life for sitting on your ass." Incidentally, this is far more than she has ever made.

> This is essentially incentivizing my partner to break up with me: "Hey <GF>, if you dump him, you get a $60k check for the rest of your life for sitting on your ass." Incidentally, this is far more than she has ever made.

If this is the attitude you have toward your partner then I stand by my other comment. You've got bigger problems with your relationship than just having kids.

> Incidentally, this is far more than she has ever made.

What the fuck does it matter what your partner makes? Your money is her money and her money is yours. You share everything--good and bad. That is what good partnerships are about. You are a team...

But again, I digress. This isn't /r/relationships, but yes, you've got a bad attitude w.r.t. relationships. Best of luck in all your future endeavors...

You are correct that it does not take $60K a year to raise a kid (or two or three).

There has been a meme for a couple decades now, that kids are so expensive and will cost millions of dollars to raise, etc. This meme is doubtless responsible for much of the reduced birthrate.

You can spend as much or as little as you desire on kids. I grew up shopping at Goodwill, but now I buy $40 shoes that my kids will wear for 6 months before outgrowing. That's my choice, as there are cheaper new shoes and much cheaper used shoes. Somebody else might buy their kids $120 shoes and complain to their friends how expensive their kids are. It's a shame that people like to promote this myth of the expense of kids.

If you can get over your trust issue with your GF, her not needing to give up a high paying job and being able to be home with the kids is a win. She won't feel like she's missing out on something and your kids get a much better childhood.

Being practical hardly constitutes a "trust issue". It's as if none of the people criticizing me have a concept of relationships grounded in reality. It wasn't the topic and I shouldn't have to defend my relationship here.

Nope, you shouldn't have to. I really wasn't attacking you, but on the contrary, was trying to be helpful, since you had expressed desire to have kids, and then were deciding not to.

It seemed necessary for me to qualify my encouragement for you to not abandon the idea of kids, on the condition that you could make yourself feel safe in the relationship, since it seemed like you did not.

It just makes me sad to see successful people deciding not to have kids, given the subject of this thread and given the very few number of my friends, my wife's friends, my family, and my wife's family that had kids.

feels to me like you do not want children bad enough... there are infertile couples out there who have to pay quite a lot of money to get to the position where you are now (I assume you both guys are fertile) [0]

Apart from the examples in the article, I am also judging from my own experience and I personally reached the point where the money simply does not matter compared to the possibility of being a parent.

0 - https://www.self.com/story/the-cost-of-infertility

Edit: Also agree with others about potential relationship problems you guys may be experiencing

If things don't go awry, you'll be paying her half of your post-tax income, and vice versa. So what's the concern about paying a quarter?

Since you say you can afford it anyway, as you make "quite a lot of money", and millions of people with much less raise children, it seems as trough you don't want desperately want to have kids, but perhaps you like the idea but don't want to spend money on other people in your family.

> If things don't go awry, you'll be paying her half of your post-tax income

I have no intention of getting married, so: No I won't.

> I have no intention of getting married, so: No I won't.

No offense, but that is a silly attitude. Marriage isn't about love, it's a legal contract two parties agree to. It entitles you to rights like power of attorney, ability to make health decisions for each-other, inheritance, etc. In addition, it also has non-trivial tax benefits, especially if one of you isn't working.

Honestly, having kids without getting married is pretty irresponsible in my opinion, simply because of the very important legal benefits that come from marriage.

But whatever, this isn't /r/relationships....

I've been married twice. I am perfectly aware of the implications of marriage and that's why I won't engage in it again.

And you're right: This isn't the place for relationship advice, nor was I asking for any.

Sounds more like you have a relationship problem than a financial problem.... if you are worried about things going south between you and your partner you have bigger issues to work out than having kids.

Also, you'd be insane not to get married before having kids. It's a legal contract between you and your partner that kinda comes in handy if you get disabled, die, etc...

Huh? Not worrying about something that could go wrong is just blissful ignorance. It's a very valid concern that should be accounted for in your big life decisions, you can't just hope for everything to go well because it almost never does so you should consider the consequences when it doesn't and make an informed decision if the costs/risk for that to happen are worth the hassle.

I've been together with my wife for almost 20 years now and I still make decisions where I consider "what would happen if my partner would die/leave me/etc". And one good thing of being in a long relationship with someone is that these things can be discussed transparently among ourselves, otherwise you wouldn't be able to discuss simple issues like life insurance.

And yes, getting married gives implicit legal protections and a lot of those legal protections are all about "what would happen if" scenarios...

You only have one life. Not having children means not living it fully (though it's mighty convenient). All the money in the world won't change that and it won't matter when you're gone anyway.

I don't think it's that black and white.

Yes, not having kids means missing out on certain (important) human life experiences. But so is if you DO have kids, it automatically means you will miss out on things that can't be done now because you don't have the money/time/etc that goes into having those kids. And in terms of "when you're gone away" I'm not seeing how having kids changes that, you still die and stop existing afterward, it's your kids that keep on living. You may feel good/proud about having them live after you die, just as an artist may feel good about their work living for many years in the minds of people. Personally I've decided to focus on one thing "make sure I don't regret too many things when I'm n my death bed". That means planning and doing things that I think I would regret not having done otherwise but of course, there will always be some regrets, simply because we always tend to regret/miss the things we haven't done if by no other reason.

We may prefer having kids over other things or vice versa but I disagree with a general state of the form "not having kids is a clear loss", there are pros and cons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com