Not surprised by this:
>” Childless adults as a group were more educated than parents.”
A little surprised by this:
>”Poverty rates are higher among childless older adults than they are among older parents.”
>” Childless adults as a group were more educated than parents.”
A little surprised by this:
>”Poverty rates are higher among childless older adults than they are among older parents.”
Having had kids really early in life forced me into taking steadier work than I might otherwise have. While I am grateful for that-- it's both easier to make money by programing computers than by playing music as well as all the goodness of having adult children-- it certainly pushed me into different situations.
I have a lot of friends in their late 20s and early 30s and they are in situations where they are, say, climbing rocks for 6 months at a time before settling briefly in a place. It's likely that they are going to have a much different professional situation when they are my age.
That seems to be the case with the 50-year-old former ski bums I know, at least.
Not in response to your post, but on the general topic, there is a persistent issue in US statistics of using income levels to declare wealthiness. To me, having poverty level income only implies poverty if the person also has no savings. If the person has a lot of savings/investments and can retire and live off return of capital from 55-70, that may look like 15+ years of poverty in an older adult to statisticians looking at income number, but could be a very nice early retirement. Income is an easy number to get, because of mandatory reporting in dollars, but a single annual value doesn't tell a complete story.
I make a good income doing what I do, but I have a six-figure student loan (which largely went to raising my step daughter and son). I don't expect any sympathy for that.
Nor do I expect sympathy for living in small town with a crazy real-estate market.
But between those, it's likely I'll never retire and will die in debt.
But hey, I do plan to take up paragliding and climbing bigger mountains, so whatever. I guess.
But hey, I also funnel a lot of cash to my kiddo who is getting all-As and is a Junior in a well-respected Mechanical Engineering program.
These are generational problems. I suspect that regardless of how you slice it, that fact about student loans (or lack of professional options for unsettled late-millenials) and real-estate is closer to the truth for most of the people I know who didn't settle down in their 20s and have kids.
My climbing partner, who just got priced out of this town, might look like he's living in poverty, as he's living in a car. But it's a lexus and he's climbing rocks full time... so maybe he's just "retired" temporarilly.
Who knows. I can't tell the difference between hobos and kings anymore.
Many of the politicians who rant about "personal responsibility" themselves didn't have to worry about an out of control real-estate market (that they probably voted in favor of) and $2k 1bdrm rents. Cost of college was cheaper back then too.
No one should have to die in debt.
It seems to me that not birthing children when one is not financially safe makes sense; having children is, in some ways, a luxury now that a two-incomes household is the norm.
Although a lot of those benefits punish the parents for being married, i.e. if you want to maximize benefits it's better to be unmarried and maybe also not living together.
Not surprising... Children won't let their parents become destitute
But after a bit more thought, having someone 20-40 years younger than you who feels a strong obligation to you when you’re not quite as sharp as you used to be could make a lot of difference in your finances.
You may be confusing "in poverty" with merely "poor."