Comment by aetherson | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aetherson | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I had my first child when I was 38. Not as part of a well-conceived strategy, just, like, that's how life turned out. My wife was 33.

All in all, I'm happy that we did end up having kids, but if I could go back through my life and rearrange things in some godlike way that let me still marry the same person and have the same children, I'd definitely have kids earlier.

I feel like it's hard in my 40s to have the same energy that I did 10 years ago, and raising kids is definitely something you have to pour energy into. Also, my mother died a year and a half ago, in her mid-70s, and I really feel like both she and my kids would have benefited from having longer together. My father is 80 now and while he remains healthy, it seems very unlikely that he'll actually see his grandchildren grow up. My father-in-law died when his first grandchild was an infant.

I think it'd also be nice to have my late 40s as a time when I could really heavily concentrate on my career because my kids were old enough to handle a lot of the small day-to-day things by themselves, since this feels like probably my prime earning time.

None of this is stuff that makes me say, "I screwed up, I should have made any sacrifice to have it different." Overall, life is great. But if you're 28 and you're thinking, "I could go either way -- wait a decade to have kids or have them now," I'd personally recommend "have them now."

As 35 and a parent of two young children, I strongly agree. It's a message I'd send back to my 23 year old self, even though I also know that at 23, I wouldn't believe it: if you feel you'd like to have kids, have them now. Those extra years didn't change me that much, but having kids at 23 would mean regaining most of the autonomy by the time I'm 40, instead of 50. In terms of energy and prospects of doing anything interesting with it, the difference between 40 and 50 seems much bigger than that between 23 and 33.

Alas, parenthood experience is both rewarding and challenging in ways that are near-impossible to properly communicate to non-parents. Perhaps that's for the better, as otherwise humanity would've gone extinct long ago.

Going from kids at 35 to kids at 23 sounds like a bridge too far to me. Your points about having kids later are fair enough, but kids at 23 basically means giving up any opportunity to have a life of your own as an adult. You're going from being a kid yourself directly to being a parent.

To each their own, but I doubt this would be a good idea for most people (or their kids). 28-32 range seems like a more reasonable compromise. Then you at least get your 20s (or most of them) to have some fun, figure yourself out, get your career going, have a failed relationship or two, etc. before taking on 1000% more responsibility and limiting yourself in many different ways.

Also, just speaking for myself personally, I'm 38 (with a 4 year old) and actually feel healthier and more energetic now than I did during my 20s due to taking diet, exercise, sleep, and other health/lifestyle things much more seriously. I don't know if I'll continue to feel this way into my 40s, but I guess my point is that age definitely isn't the only factor--I'm not even sure it's the most important.

Fair enough, and you're likely right that 23 is a bit too early. I'm writing this from a perspective of being 35, with a 4 year old and an almost-2 year old. It's fine now, and I too feel OK in terms of energy levels - but I also fear that, by the time the kids grow up enough for my wife and I to regain some degree of autonomy, neither of us will be strong enough to make good use of it. But maybe it's just me panicking a little.

Agree with this, had my kid at the age of 44, exactly ten years older than my dad was when I was born. My parents both died in the last couple of years and although I have some photos of them with my son, their only grandchild, it saddens me that they never got to spend more time together. My mother's situation was especially cruel as she got Alzheimers and declined pretty quickly - went into a home two months before the first lockdown.

And it is worth pointing out that it may be safer to have a kid at 33 today then it was at 26 fifty years ago. People were smoking, the air was dirtier, a lot of medical imaging was rarer, etc.

There is certainly an age-dependent point of maximum utility for the family.

It consists not only of physical health but also economic stability and other factors.

33 seems totally fine. But generally people tend to be a little more cautious for pregnancies after 35 (mothers's age).

Having kids later in life keeps the total population smaller while still allowing the same number of people to exist spread out over time. This has a theoretical positive effect of reducing crowding. Would you rather your children have the opportunity to live in a house, or be permanent apartment/condo dwellers?

I guess it’s highly regional, but for the US as a whole at least hasn’t had a population decline in ever. Which means that following your logic, sooner is better. I think a more practical bit of advice, if a house if a concern, is to buy a house to raise your children in.

> Which means that following your logic, sooner is better.

This is a collective action problem. Everyone benefits in terms of room with a smaller population. But yes, the individual benefits by defecting from the collective action.

> if a house if a concern, is to buy a house to raise your children in.

Not raise in, live in. It would be economically convenient to pass your house down to one of your children at the point when you are downsizing for retirement and they are wanting to begin a family.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com