Hacker News Reader

Comment by mullingitover | Hacker News Reader

> It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed the next generation such freedom that they can dally as singles for significant portion of their lives.

Freedom? More like not being able to afford the expenses of having a family.

I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles, but I can't afford a house and can't fathom trying to raise a family on my income. It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement. If this is freedom, I hope I don't get any more liberated than I already am.

View on HN

At least you responsibly considered this. Having a family is a big deal in Utah, and we have too many people who just go for it in their early 20s, no college, no career path. It doesn't end well. I'm not anti-family, but I resent the attitude here that it's something you have to do, or even some sort of god-given right. Families should be well-planned. Quality over quantity of life.

Just my thoughts. Idk.

That's one way of looking at things. Another is that countries like Japan are having huge issues because nobody is having kids anymore. Quantity of life matters, too.

But I agree that people should be wiser about planning their lives out. I'm not sure that's a solvable problem, though.

>Another is that countries like Japan are having huge issues because nobody is having kids anymore.

Eh, I think Japan's problem is more that they have a very narrow idea (ethnically speaking) as to what they want Japanese people to look like. If they were willing to loosen up a bit on that, there are plenty of people who would be willing to come, become Japanese, and if it's anything like immigration here in the US, probably have a fair number of children.

Or maybe being a heavily populated island nation is the root of their problems, both in terms of what kind of person they find acceptable and how many people can be tolerated in the limited space they have.

Japan will not survive in any real way, demographic numbers are such that whatever might survive will not look very much like Japan does now. They simply are not having enough kids, and have been on that path for a very long time with no sign of the dramatic change they would need to survive.

> Quality over quantity of life.

There's a certain level of elitism in this thinking, namely in the fact that educated, wealthier people tend to underestimate how happy poor people are. To a point, wealthier people are happier and worry less, but I don't think it's in practice so much more that say one wealthy, well-educated person has more total happiness than two poor people.

It circles back to kids. There are a lot of things in my life, in terms of education and career path that make me happy. I worked very hard in grad school for several years and got exactly the job I wanted, and that accomplishment makes me happy. But my daughter makes me much happier than that, and she was the product of five minutes and something it takes no education or intelligence to do...

Also, childless people, on average, will cost more to society than they contribute. To be conservative, pension programs (including social security) rely on there being at least as many people around in the future to pay the bills. If you don't have any kids, someone else's kids are paying the bills.

In a vacuum, if a couple has only one child, that child had better grow up to support those two people in retirement. If four grandparents only have one grandchild, it's even worse.

The current answers to that problem are immigration (in which case someone else is still paying for benefits) or incredibly low take-home pay for workers (lots of withholding for personal or public retirement funds).

On the other hand, the most significant way you can reduce your environmental impact (short of ending your own life) is to not have children. In that regard, it's the most responsible decision anyone can make.

By that logic, suicide is the most responsible decision anyone can make.

There are enough people on earth, and the global population is increasing. You don't need to personally replace yourself; immigration can handle that task. It's only when you don't allow much immigration that you have to start getting worried (such as with Japan)

I'm skeptical that encouraging all the thoughtful, responsible people to stop breeding will turn out to be a good decision in the long run.

My opinion is not that everyone who has kids is screwed. My observations are that many people don't plan it well. This is possibly not the same issue in the tech centers where the salaries are middle-rich class and people are generally more educated and rational in their decisions.

This was more of an opinion coming from my hometown, where we have an epidemic of twenty-somethings divorced with three kids because they took on too much too fast.

edit: also, when you're at a bar and the first questions are: - are you divorced? - how many kids do you have?

How did this rule come about, that you need to own a house before you can have a child?

You don't. However, having a house, a family, and a retirement fund was a realistic goal in generations past, and it's not really a 'middle class' option anymore.

It's not an achievable goal in San Francisco, but not everyone lives in San Francisco.

It's semi-achievable in San Francisco. It takes two incomes, and you have to make sacrifices.

In SF, applications developers, dental hygienists, and registered nurses all earn, on average, around 100k a year. Two of them together would together earn about $220k a year in SF. That's workable.

>...about $220k a year in SF. That's workable.

That's depressing. Sure, it might be workable too. But depressing. That's a little over a million dollars in FIVE YEARS. Ok ok, one or two more for final take-home pay.

And that's still merely "workable" rather than "Oh boy we've got it made!"

If the goal is "Buy and own a house", pulling in $220/year pre-tax probably isn't enough to get the job done. Unless you're living extremely scarcely in the meantime.

I think the meat of the issue is right here:

>It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement.

It isn't a "rule" per se. It is a "nice to have".

Not necessarily owning a house, but a person at least needs to live in a neighborhood with good schools, which tends to mean paying more for housing.

It's very easy to fall into the notion that you need to have ALL of your ducks in a row before having (planned) children. My wife and I called it "the tyranny of the ducks" and eventually learned to push back a bit. In our case, it was not freaking out over putting a car seat in the back of a small 2-door car instead of a big 4-door car.

Of all the ducks, I think the number of doors on the car isn't that high on the priority list :P

However, ensuring that you can still afford to pay all the bills for months --or years, preferably-- on end in the event that your source of income disappears... that seems to be the most important of the ducks. Whether it's a home you own or six months' mortgage/rent is just details.

Of all the ducks, I think the number of doors on the car isn't that high on the priority list :P

Have you ever tried to put an infant car seat in the back of a 1994 Mazda MX-6 coupe? It might change your priority list.

I find it to be one of the most horrible misconceptions about life that you have to be securely "settled" before having kids. Many older new parents (aruound 35-40) I observe struggle a lot more than we (30) do with raising small children.

People tend to underestimate both the amount of stress that small children are and the gradual reduction of stress capacity that comes with age. You are good at pushing yourself to the limit? That's great. How do you cope with 24/7 low-level stress for months without _any_ break?

My wife and I decided to do the kids thing early in life (relative to other academics) and now are finished with our family planning while yet having to reach any sort of "steady career-path".

Best choice ever.

But I must add that I do this with the strong social safety net of Germany in my back. I'll never be homeless, I'll never go hungry and my children will get an excellent education, _no matter what_.

> I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles

Location, location, location. My dad moved his family to a place he could afford so he could take care of them.

I could make the same salary in San Francisco that I make in Austin, TX, but the same salary goes a /lot/ farther in Texas than it does in California.

But if the choice, then, is to live in California and not have kids versus living in Texas and being about to have kids, than I guess I'll never be a father.

Natural selection at work.

That's fine, as long as you recognize that is your choice. "mullingitover" had the thesis that freedom doesn't really have anything to do with not having a family, that it's entirely related to expenses. But not having a family /is/ related to freedom: he values the freedom to live in California more than being able to afford a family while living somewhere else.

Opportunity is also a function of location.

I am sure I could live well in texas - but the companies and sector I want to work in, for me personally, only exists in SF.

I recently moved from SF to Austin, quite liking it here. Doesn't feel like a sacrifice at all and knowing I have the option of starting a family, owning a home, starting a business, or just living large is quite freeing.

Welcome! If you want to grab a beer, I'm @thenthj on twitter.

Children are not too expensive as long as they don't go to a private school. I am 39 my kids are 17 and 18 now. I have never made more than $55,000 (one income family). The kids are about off to college.

The average cost of raising a kid in America is $241,080. http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/14/pf/cost-children/

It would be pretty awesome to spend that amount. Spending far less my kids are fine. I traded out website work for flight training for son who has 55 flight hours and is going to the University of North Dakota to becomes flight controller. For my daughter she has had Russian language training for about five years now (one lesson a week). I wish I could spend more but at l think the key thing is to give kids a special skill for a career.

> families earning less than $61,590 a year in rural areas will spend the least, at $144k

Amazingly, rich people spend more than poorer people.

$55k is an above-average household income. Kids cost a lot more in time, energy, and flexibility than cash.

Among all the "Yeah, the 100,000+ salary doesn't quite cut it, I cannot afford kids" you're my hero. You started much earlier than I did (something I regret at times, when my eldest is 17 I'll be past 50..) and I love your trading skills further down this thread (website -> flight hours).

From one dad to another: I'm trying to provide the same. You're inspiring.

Wouldn't your theoretical spouse have an income too?

In this bizarre Leave It To Beaver right-wing fantasy world where the "traditional family" is so critical, that would be an unforgivable violation of the rules.

Generally even if the theoretical spouse doesn't have an income, if they can provide primary child-care support it is significant in increasing the affordability of having a child.

Hopefully, though probably with her own debts and burdens.

I have 3 kids and a stay at home wife.

Perhaps you should move then. You are free to do that after all.

Move or learn to live frugally. Many people cannot afford a house/family until they get married and combine incomes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com