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.

 

[FallenApple]

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.

Yes, but this decrease is compensated for by money.

Mating Market Value=L +M

where M is money. So while L falls, M goes up. And only a small part of L falls.

L=1/a + h +s+d

where a is age, h is height, s is facial symmetry, and d is sexual dimorphism of the face. (strong jawline, etc)

So only 1/4 of the looks component falls.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, but this decrease is compensated for by money.

Somewhat compensated for by money.

For women looking to start a family, I'll wager that a compatible partner for raising a family (such as someone in the same phase of life) is a far bigger factor than looks or money.

I think the statistics will bear me out. I'll bet that an age difference of less than x years will show as a bigger factor in families with children than good looks or increased money.

 

[FallenApple]

Somewhat compensated for by money.

For women looking to start a family, I'll wager that a compatible partner for raising a family (such as someone in the same phase of life) is a far bigger factor than looks or money.

I think the statistics will bear me out. I'll bet that an age difference of less than x years will show as a bigger factor in families with children than good looks or increased money.

The statistics are here. A man's market value reaches its highest at an older age.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/online-dating-out-of-your-league/567083/

 

[DaveC426913]

Dating is not starting a family.
This is a straw man.

 

[FallenApple]

Dating is not starting a family.
This is a straw man.

Why do people date?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do people date?

Women date well after child-bearing years - indeed, until death.
Women date who have no intention of having children even while fertile.
Thus: many reasons, only one of which is to have babies

 

[FallenApple]

Women date well after child-bearing years.
Women date who have no intention of having children.
Thus: many reasons, only one of which is to have babies

There are strong evolutionary reasons why females prefer males with resources. The pregnant females are basically incapacitated during pregnancy and the children would be defenseless at young age. This is especially so during early human evolution where the environment was much less forgiving than modern societies.

Its not like the psychological preferences for a wealthy man just switch off after childbirth. Just like how our desire to eat high caloric foods don't switch off after we eat enough to survive. Evolutionary artifacts.

Furthermore, it is even more counterintuitive for the desire for a wealthy man to suddenly switch on after a woman's childrearing years, when it counts the least, evolutionary speaking.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think you'll find that the statistics bear me out.

The frequency of having a first child will drop off rapidly as a function of paternal age.

 

[FallenApple]

I think you'll find that the statistics bear me out.

The frequency of having a first child will drop off rapidly as a function of paternal age.

Maybe the confounding variable here is the fact that older men, if failed to have children at an earlier age, are simply not desirable enough to mate regardless. Has there been studies controlling for this potential confounder?

If a desirable man so chooses to delay having children, would his odds rapidly go down just because he aged?

A proper study would only look at the subpopulation of males that are highly desirable/and or acceptable in physical appearance and merely decided to attempt to have children later.

 

[Svein]

For a chilling story about that decision, try to find and read the old SF story "The Marching Morons" by C. M. Kornbluth.

 

[DaveC426913]

If a desirable man so chooses to delay having children, would his odds rapidly go down just because he aged?

Yes. As witnessed by the preponderance of families where the parents are of similar ages. I'm certain you will find a statistically strong downward trend of paternal-age-at-first-child.

 

[FallenApple]

Yes. As witnessed by the preponderance of families where the parents are of similar ages. I'm certain you will find a statistically strong downward trend of paternal-age-at-first-child.

This doesn't prove that waiting has a detrimental effect. Those that don't have children early could have been weeded out of the selection process early. Entirely plausible.

 

[DaveC426913]

This doesn't prove that waiting has a detrimental effect. Those that don't have children early could have been weeded out of the selection process early. Entirely plausible.

It does.

It demonstrates that what might be a plausible scenario is not, in reality, a common or likely scenario.
IOW, your chances will be slim.

 

[FallenApple]

It does.

It demonstrates that what might be a plausible scenario is not, in reality, a common or likely scenario.
IOW, your chances will be slim.

correlation doesn't imply causation. comeon, we all know that. You can't just interpret the data in aggregate without any theoretical explanation.

 

[DaveC426913]

correlation doesn't imply causation. comeon, we all know that. You can't just take the data in aggregate without any theoretical explanation.

It has nothing to do with correlation or causation.
Statistics will simply show what is happening - regardless of why.

 

[FallenApple]

It has nothing to do with correlation or causation.
Statistics will simply show what is happening - regardless of why.

But it does. Here's an example. If we notice that ice-cream sales go up whenever there are shark attacks, does that mean we should ban ice cream merchants? Of course not. The causal driver is the fact that it's summer.

Unless there is strong theoretical reason why the correlation you cited is necessary due to age, then it could entirely just be a spurious relationship.

 

[DaveC426913]

But it does. Here's an example. If we notice that ice-cream sales go up whenever there are shark attacks, does that mean we should ban ice cream merchants? Of course not. The causal driver is the fact that it's summer.

Unless there is strong theoretical reason why the correlation you cited is necessary due to age, then it could entirely just be a spurious relationship.

Your example is not analogous. It is fact that the start of families does drop off as age advances. We know why this is - both men and women do get less fertile as they age. So there's no mystery there.

That the frequency of starting a family drops off as a function of age is simply raw data. It does taper from maximum down to zero with age.

And it is directly germane to your plan.
If you propose to be of a certain advanced age, it can be shown that, statistically, your chances are greatly diminished (for possibly many reasons, but that one is certainly a major player).

My suggestion that the behavior of women wishing to start a family affect this rate is indeed conjecture. But it's just icing on the cake. The foundation of the connection between new families and parental age is irrefutable.

 

[FallenApple]

If starting a family drops off as a function of age, that is simply raw data.

And it is directly germane to your plan.
If you propose to be of a certain advanced age, it can be directly shown that your chances are greatly diminished.

If you can think of a confounding factor that might show another cause for first-child frequency to drop off with advancing age, be my guest.

I already did think of another confounding factor. Male desirability. Is it really surprising that many men who had a hard time getting a girlfriend when they are young continue to have a hard time when they are older? There are certain fixed biological traits that are selected for. It's not like those traits would just pop up when they are older. Also, people have a strong desire for relationships. Put two and two together and you have a lot of desirable men and desirable women getting together to have children. It makes sense mathematically.

Tell me, why on Earth would a handsome and rich, albeit older man have lower mating value than a younger less attractive man with no money simply because he's of similar age? The selection process I stated makes sense due to the fact that resources were so vital to a child's survival during early human evolution, that there would be selection for the monetary factor. Furthermore, it also make sense that women would select for good looking genes so as the child would be successful in mating opportunities. Look up Ronald Fisher's Sexy Son hypothesis.

 

[DaveC426913]

I already did think of another confounding factor. Male desirability. Is it really surprising that many men who had a hard time getting a girlfriend when they are young continue to have a hard time when they are older? There are certain fixed biological traits that are selected for. It's not like those traits would just pop up when they are older. Also, people have a strong desire for relationships. Put two and two together and you have a lot of desirable men and desirable women getting together to have children. It makes sense mathematically.

Your task - to refute the data I'm asserting - would be to show that the statistically demonstrable drop off of new families as the parents age is not directly due to aging.

Otherwise, how do you account for the decrease of new families as a function of age?

Tell me, why on Earth would a handsome and rich, albeit older man have lower mating value than a younger less attractive man with no money simply because he's of similar age? The selection process I stated makes sense due to the fact that resources were so vital to a child's survival during early human evolution, that there would be selection for the monetary factor.

And yet, we don't see a preponderance of younger mothers with significantly older husbands. They exist, but they are in the minority. The lion's share of new families are not like this. Showing that
1] factors such as wealth or good looks, while a factor, are not the major factor, and
2] that they make their presence felt across the spectrum, not correlated with age.

 

[FallenApple]

Your example is not analogous. It is fact that the start of families does drop off as age advances. We know why this is - both men and women do get less fertile as they age. So there's no mystery there.

That the frequency of starting a family drops off as a function of age is simply raw data. It does taper from maximum down to zero with age.

And it is directly germane to your plan.
If you propose to be of a certain advanced age, it can be shown that, statistically, your chances are greatly diminished (for possibly many reasons, but that one is certainly a major player).

My suggestion that the behavior of women wishing to start a family affect this rate is indeed conjecture. But it's just icing on the cake. The foundation of the connection between new families and parental age is irrefutable.

Male fertility doesn't drop off nearly as fast as female fertility. Which is why there is an observed effect of stable male desirably on dating websites(which are heavily looks based btw) across wide age ranges but there is a sharp spike in female desirability concentrated at a narrow age range.