I'd like children some day.
But what makes me snicker is it sounds exactly like the beginning of Idiocracy.
There is even a argument that Idiocracy is a utopia. https://youtu.be/OmZOZjHjT5E
That said— I'm Canadian.
Of course, the ones that should have kids ignore me completely. :)
I don't mind that so much. But I think I've done a good job of convincing myself that there's a certain baseline condition I'd like to be in to start seriously considering it.
We've sadly even waffled enough on getting a dog for,
a) Financial reasons. If we can't take the dog to the office, then we would end up paying the few hundred dollars a month or whatever people charge around here to walk them. (one of my colleagues pays ~$400/month! He must be paid substantially more than I am...)
b) Time. Again, if we can't take it with us then we get a little time after work and some weekends.
c) Space. Living in an apartment feels kind of unfair to the dog. I don't know how some people live in these buildings with a couple of mastiffs or whatever.
Just outlining that felt kind of sad. And if we can't settle on figuring that out yet, then children are further off than I'd like.
be doggy grandparents (wife and I prefer this over owning), they are distracting to own and more travel prohibitive than kids.
I grew up with dogs— I need a dog. I just can't go for it if I know the situation wouldn't work well for the dog.
With a dog, this never happens: you're constantly going to be taking care of it like it's a 2-year-old. You'll have to walk it every day, pick up its hot, steaming shit piles with a thin plastic bag in your hand (or else get huge fines from your HOA/condo), smell its nasty breath, deal with fleas (you have to take it outside for walks remember), hire pet-sitters if you're gone for even one night, etc.
Dogs are an enormous hassle, especially in a city. I have no idea why so many people want them. If you want an animal companion in a city dwelling, get a cat. They don't need to be walked, they don't eat much (compared to large dogs), they can use the bathroom on their own (tip: get a Litter-Robot automated litter box), they don't need to be bathed or groomed, they don't stink, and they don't mind living in an apartment full-time.
My dad graduated in 1976 in the middle of stagflation and had a 12% apr on his first house in the mid 80s.
His dad graduated into the recession that stretched between ww2 and Korea.
I think we’re too quick to look at generations that have accumulated wealth and accuse them of having always had it easy.
Most home buyers take out a mortgage. Most people also look at monthly payments as a proxy for affordability. Monthly payments raise when interest rates rise.
Therefore, sellers need to ask for lower prices when rates are high in order to attract buyers. A $150,000 mortgage at 12% interest has monthly payments of $1,543, at 5% interest its $805.
But inflation over the next few years meant that in real terms (the most important terms), that rate was between 6% and -2%(!). Inflation hit 14% in 1980. The ability to refinance also means that he wouldn't have to keep that high interest rate once inflation settled down. So he probably did quite well with that mortgage.
edit: I misread the dates in that sentence, so your Dad probably didn't benefit from the inflation in the early 80s. That said, it is important to consider high mortgage rates in real terms.
I really don't buy that baby boomers had a tough time. I believe that white men in that time in America had perhaps the most prosperous economy and job opportunities in world history.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2010/001.pdf https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_w...
- horrible recession between ww2 and Korean War.
- young men faced the draft. A bit of a drag really.
- everybody felt the horrors of war and knowing personal loss.
- the jobs that you speak so fondly of had awful workplace safety, horrible pollution problems, and generally poor working conditions compared to today.
Also there are a lot of things that are a lot cheaper today as a percentage of income, like food, clothing and durable goods.
This is common to nearly every generation in world history. Yes, many Americans died. Yes, it was terrible. Yes, many people genuinely suffered grief.
But if we look at the data honestly, you weren't that likely to die or be in combat if you were an American. They had it comparatively good.
>the jobs that you speak so fondly of had awful workplace safety, horrible pollution problems, and generally poor working conditions compared to today
Today the pollution is worse, and people have worse living conditions instead of working conditions. I know many people who would like to have a high paying, more dangerous job than their current dead-end job that can not support a family, much less one person who wants to live without government assistance. Many people today would gratefully make that trade.
"married women can pay as much as $1 million less than their single counterparts over a lifetime"
"married men between 28 and 30 years old earn around $15,900 more a year in individual income compared to their single counterparts, while married men between 44 and 46 years old make $18,800 more than single men of the same ages"
+ other benefits
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-being-married-makes-you-...
Lower insurance rates (home, auto)
(usually) lower health insurance rates (family plan rather than two single plans). My company doesn't even charge a premium for putting your non-working spouse on your plan.
(usually) Tax benefits
Get married in a courthouse around the end of the year, before the year of your wedding. The following year, have your ceremony. You extend your Married Filing Jointly status to the previous year you were going to originally take credit for it.
That's my best guess though, and depends on your incomes.
Many bills (like utilities) often have a base component and a variable component, you pay only one base component if you live in the same house.
Rents for two studio apartments are greater than the rents for a single bedroom apartment, two one bedroom apartments go for more than one 2 bedroom apartment. A chunk of that is the shared square footage of bathrooms, kitchen, Etc.
Food costs in bulk are lower than food costs in single serving quantities. It is more cost effective to cook for two than it is to cook for one (save on energy costs and food)
Yes, being married (not having kids), will give you access to more money than you would have if you remain single.
There should also be a secondary effect on savings (if they were combined) where the compounding of interest would work more effectively on a larger principle.
Things like health and car insurance can cost less for a married couple than they do for two individuals, especially if your state doesn't have a domestic partnership law.
Stuff like that can add up surprisingly quickly.
Also, in US and Canada, there are significant tax benefits to being married.
If you're in the bottom 20% or the top 10%, then you're likely to be penalized if you're a dual income family and rewarded if you're a single income family. If you're between those two extremes, it can't hurt and might help.
nice visualization here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/16/upshot/marria...
Regardless, I don't think your link is evidence that married people have more money. Dual income no kids couples certainly do, but single income double kids families are just... poor.
As for marrying younger... I met my wife at 14, married at 21, and had our first daughter at 25. We're 34 now and have two girls, and see no reason why we'd ever split. We're happy. I honestly don't think age has nearly as much to do with it as maturity and mindset.