Not having children to save money

[FallenApple]

Apparently, it costs over $200,000 to raise a child. This is not an insignificant amount of money. By forgoing children, I can easily buy a vacation home in another country. I can also make more money than I would have otherwise by spending the allotted "family time" on working or a side hustle.

Has anyone here gone this route? Anyone unhappy with this choice?

 

[DaveC426913]

If a vacation home is what makes you happy, and children do not, then buy a vacation home instead of having children.

My advice would be that you not make a life decision about having children based on how much money it will save you.

More to your question, I'll wager that very few people who have made a life decision not to have children do it for money reasons.

 

[2milehi]

You don't miss children until you have them.

 

[davenn]

Apparently, it costs over $200,000 to raise a child. This is not an insignificant amount of money. By forgoing children, I can easily buy a vacation home in another country. I can also make more money than I would have otherwise by spending the allotted "family time" on working or a side hustle.

Has anyone here gone this route? Anyone unhappy with this choice?

I have gone both routes
2 kids to my first marriage, son and daughter, they are now 30 and 29 respectively

No kids to my second marriage. and this has allowed my wife and I to do a bit of traveling etc that
otherwise would never have happened. Cindy and I have never regretted not having kids.
She is from a big asian family, so the peace and quiet away from kids suites her, and I am not complaining Dave

edited ... added family

 

[HAYAO]

It's their choice. I believe I have absolutely no say on someone else's matter, when their choice don't do anything negative to me.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't miss children until you have them.

My friends with kids also seem to not miss not having kids until they have them.

 

[pinball1970]

Apparently, it costs over $200,000 to raise a child. This is not an insignificant amount of money. By forgoing children, I can easily buy a vacation home in another country. I can also make more money than I would have otherwise by spending the allotted "family time" on working or a side hustle.

Has anyone here gone this route? Anyone unhappy with this choice?

What age range are we talking about? Is this over a parents life time or till adulthood? 18, 21?

 

[TeethWhitener]

She is from a big asian,

Is that any way to talk about your in-laws?

 

[TeethWhitener]

What age range are we talking about? Is this over a parents life time or till adulthood? 18, 21?

I've seen this figure (or comparable ones) thrown around for raising kids through age 18, excluding college costs (which can be another $200k).

From my own observations, if you're not sure you want kids, don't try to figure it out by having them. They're a big life decision, and I've seen a lot of relationships falter or fail because of the extra stress of kids. From my own experience, if you're sure you want kids, no amount of money can compare to the experience of being a parent.

 

[gmax137]

https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/expenditures-children-families-annual-report

a brief page thru reveals questionable assumptions

 

[pinball1970]

I've seen this figure (or comparable ones) thrown around for raising kids through age 18, excluding college costs (which can be another $200k).

From my own observations, if you're not sure you want kids, don't try to figure it out by having them. They're a big life decision, and I've seen a lot of relationships falter or fail because of the extra stress of kids. From my own experience, if you're sure you want kids, no amount of money can compare to the experience of being a parent.

I was trying to work out how much more I have to pay!

 

[davenn]

Is that any way to talk about your in-laws?

hahaha edited ... asian family...

I didn't proof read that too well huh

 

[CWatters]

After having children you will need the vacation home :-).

 

[FallenApple]

If a vacation home is what makes you happy, and children do not, then buy a vacation home instead of having children.

My advice would be that you not make a life decision about having children based on how much money it will save you.

More to your question, I'll wager that very few people who have made a life decision not to have children do it for money reasons.

I'm fairly risk adverse. If I don't already have a nest egg, I would rather forgo children as some sort of financial guarantee of a retirement ahead of time. Maybe in my forties or fifties when I have enough saved such that nothing could go wrong, I would have children then.

Actually, it is unfortunate that I have to make this tradeoff, but make it I will because I need some sort of guarantee that I will live comfortably all the way through old age. I need to be able to sleep at night.

 

[DaveC426913]

Maybe in my forties or fifties when I have enough saved such that nothing could go wrong, I would have children then.

That's going to be tough to do, unless you plan on adopting. You'll have a tough time finding a partner.

 

[CWatters]

Maybe in my forties or fifties when I have enough saved such that nothing could go wrong, I would have children then.

I was in early 40s when we had our two. It's pretty exhausting work and now wish I'd had kids when I was more like 30-35. When you are 60 will you still be fit enough for that white water rafting trip they want to go on :-)

 

[TeethWhitener]

I was in early 40s when we had our two. It's pretty exhausting work and now wish I'd had kids when I was more like 30-35. When you are 60 will you still be fit enough for that white water rafting trip they want to go on :-)

I’m in my 30s and it’s still exhausting. (Source: 6:30am post on a Saturday with Minnie Mouse in the background.)

That's going to be tough to do, unless you plan on adopting. You'll have a tough time finding a partner.

In many jurisdictions, at least in the US, a single childless person is basically at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to being able to adopt. They usually try to find people who have some experience raising kids.

I'm fairly risk adverse. If I don't already have a nest egg, I would rather forgo children as some sort of financial guarantee of a retirement ahead of time. Maybe in my forties or fifties when I have enough saved such that nothing could go wrong, I would have children then.

Actually, it is unfortunate that I have to make this tradeoff, but make it I will because I need some sort of guarantee that I will live comfortably all the way through old age. I need to be able to sleep at night.

No guarantees in life. Financially, kids are like any other big expense. All you can do is plan well and hope for the best. There are thousands of folks who planned well and wanted to retire but had the bad fortune of being in their mid-60s in 2008.

Also, kids will do you no favors in being able to sleep at night (literally).

 

[FallenApple]

That's going to be tough to do, unless you plan on adopting. You'll have a tough time finding a partner.

Middle aged men with money shouldn't have a problem getting into relationships. Worst come to worst, I can get cosmetic surgery to look younger if I really have to.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Middle aged men with money shouldn't have a problem getting into relationships. Worst come to worst, I can get cosmetic surgery to look younger if I really have to.

I think @DaveC426913 means that fewer and fewer people remain single as you get older.

Also, getting into a relationship != raising kids with someone. To paraphrase Denis Leary, it’s the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing a bullet.

 

[skyshrimp]

Apparently, it costs over $200,000 to raise a child. This is not an insignificant amount of money. By forgoing children, I can easily buy a vacation home in another country. I can also make more money than I would have otherwise by spending the allotted "family time" on working or a side hustle.

Has anyone here gone this route? Anyone unhappy with this choice?

I don't plan to have kids. I'd rather live a life of leisure. I can chose this option atm as I don't have a significant other. I want to be free to do as I please without being chained down. If you bring a child into this world, you have to devote your limited time to seeing them fly straight. I've killed two possible serious relationships in fear of being trapped. I'd probably love it, but I'd rather be free and unrestricted.

 

[Nugatory]

If I don't already have a nest egg, I would rather forgo children as some sort of financial guarantee of a retirement ahead of time.

Statistically, having adult children living nearby is a better predictor of a happy old age than wealth.

Middle aged men with money shouldn't have a problem getting into relationships.

A relationship, yes. A relationship in which you would want to raise children? Not so much.

 

[pinball1970]

I was in early 40s when we had our two. It's pretty exhausting work and now wish I'd had kids when I was more like 30-35. When you are 60 will you still be fit enough for that white water rafting trip they want to go on :-)

Late 20s and it still went wrong. Not mature enough? wrong woman? It's weird, not something I planned yet now it's probably the only thing that gives my life real meaning. Kids really mess you up.

 

[DaveC426913]

Middle aged men with money shouldn't have a problem getting into relationships. Worst come to worst, I can get cosmetic surgery to look younger if I really have to.

With all due respect, neither of those tactics are likely to work out well.

Neither money nor surgery are going to fool someone who is looking for a mate to start a family.

 

[FallenApple]

With all due respect, neither of those tactics are likely to work out well.

Neither money nor surgery are going to fool someone who is looking for a mate to start a family.

The science is clear on this: men that are wealthy and good looking for their age are more desirable than men that have neither of those.

 

[DaveC426913]

hile you did ask for advice, this might not be where you thought it was going to go. Simply say the word and I will put the brakes on this line of discussion. Meanwhile:

The science is clear on this: men that are wealthy and good looking for their age are more desirable than men that have neither of those.

Getting cosmetic surgery does not necessarily equate to becoming more attractive - and certainly not invisibly. I'll suggest that the majority of cosmetic surgery is done for two reasons:
1] to make the recipient feel better about themselves, and/or
2] to appear better in public (from a distance and under controlled circumstances and timelines), Contrast with whether you might or might not appear more attractive to a potential mate.
Cosmetic surgery itself is an advertisement about the priorities of the recipient.

So, 'cosmetic surgery' does not automatically equal 'better looking to potential mates'.

But even if it were to be granted that a man might look better for his age to a potential mate, it still does not suggest that wealthy, good looking older men will attract women of an age where they are looking to start a family.

In short, to women looking to start a family " he is trying to look 20 years younger than his age" may well be more of a downvote than an upvote.

 

[FallenApple]

Alas, this is a red herring: true or not, it does not advance your argument.

It does not suggest that wealthy, good looking older men will attract women of an age where they are looking to start a family.

Men can date younger. I've dated 8 years younger than me before. It really shouldn't be too hard for a middle aged man to date a younger woman by the time he is financially ready to have children.

It makes more sense that way. The woman would still be in her fertility window and the man would be old enough to have the savings make make sure he is completely ready to safely have children while minimizing potential unforeseen difficulties by being financially ready.

There are some components of a man's appearance that doesn't fade with time. For example, if a man is of good height, then that positive trait will not decay with time.

 

[DaveC426913]

Men can date younger.

Again, dating is not mating. And dating is not starting a family.

 

[FallenApple]

hile you did ask for advice, this might not be where you thought it was going to go. Simply say the word and I will put the brakes on this line of discussion. Meanwhile:
Getting cosmetic surgery does not necessarily equate to becoming more attractive - and certainly not invisibly. I'll suggest that the majority of cosmetic surgery is done for two reasons:
1] to make the recipient feel better about themselves, and/or
2] to appear better in public (from a distance and under controlled circumstances and timelines), Contrast with whether you might or might not appear more attractive to a potential mate.
Cosmetic surgery itself is an advertisement about the priorities of the recipient.

So, 'cosmetic surgery' does not automatically equal 'better looking to potential mates'.

But even if it were to be granted that a man might look better for his age to a potential mate, it still does not suggest that wealthy, good looking older men will attract women of an age where they are looking to start a family.

In short, to women looking to start a family " he is trying to look 20 years younger than his age" may well be more of a downvote than an upvote.

Fine, I agree that cosmetic surgery can only do so much. But much of physical attraction is based on height, of which doesn't decay with time. Therefore, only a part of the looks will decay.

Furthermore, while 20 year gap may be too large, I don't think a 10 year gap will be.

 

[FallenApple]

Also if a man already looks good to begin with, then he presumably will look good further down the line. Often a good facial appearance is heavily due to sexual dimorphism of the face and symmetry, which do not decay as well. Only the skin elasticity and quality decay with time. The height, masculinity of the face, and it's symmetry will remain intact.

 

[DaveC426913]

Fine, I agree that cosmetic surgery can only do so much. But much of physical attraction is based on height, of which doesn't decay with time. Therefore, only a part of the looks will decay.

OK, all that means is that it is constant factor. If you are tall, your odds across the board will go up - when young or old. But you chances will still be reduced as a function of age.


In other words:
Your "Looks" quotient is inversely correlated with your age, while height as a constant. Simplistically like this:
L ~ 1/a + h

where
L= Looks (good)
a = age
h = height

Regardless of whether h is large or small, L will fall of as a rises. A large h simply means your L started higher.

Also if a man already looks good to begin with, then he presumably will look good further down the line. Often a good facial appearance is heavily due to sexual dimorphism of the face and symmetry, which do not decay as well. Only the skin elasticity and quality decay with time.

Fair enough. If you are already good looking and tall, then yes, you are indeed lucky, and your chances are better across the board.

But it will still drop as a function of the gap between your age and the age of women looking to start a family.