Quote: (11-13-2018 05:03 PM)jselysianeagle Wrote:
The following is not an argument in favor of having children late in life, but I think a more balanced perspective is warranted.
Laner and Leonard - you've both raised excellent points but you're speaking from the perspective of raising kids in North America. OP, judging from the way he writes, is probably in a different part of the world and from a different culture. Why does this matter?
It matters because in North America, family ties, both immediate and extended, are generally weaker than elsewhere. Grandparents also live further away and are often not that involved in helping raise grandkids. This is in contrast to many other cultures such as East/South Asian ones where it's very common for parents to rely on grandparents to be heavily involved in the early years of raising children, which makes it considerably easier. Labor in these parts of the world is also dirt cheap, and it's not uncommon even for middle class folk to have multiple helpers, which makes things easier still with kids.
OP also mentioned that he's an overachiever, so even if he's not residing in a low COL area, he might be able to afford enough help + daycare.
Anecdotally, two of my cousins had a much older father, and if anything, it worked out great for them as growing up they had the best of everything. He was a well established guy and was able to give them everything to set them up for a good life.
So it depends on the particular situation of the OP. Even here in LA/NYC, I see plenty of first marriages where both man and wife are in their 30s, with first kids comin around the late 30s mark, and subsequent kids when the man is in his 40s. Usually in the cases I've seen, both were high earners and could afford additional help.
It's definitely a serious question to ponder, and yes there are downsides to waiting too long and these have been correctly covered by Leonard. I'm just trying to point out that it doesn't necessarily have to be as bleak as the picture he's painted...
This was basically what I was going to post.
Everyone agrees raising kids is demanding.
But support structures make a MASSIVE difference in your quality of life, available energy levels, and wear and tear.
Trump is loaded. He has had cooks, nannys, drivers, private schools, and first class everything his entire life and his kids lives. That's going to do wonders for your physical/mental health. But you don't need to be ultra rich to have kids a little later in life and not be drained from it. You need support.
Two types of support that are more accessible:
1. Marry into a family that has a lot of supportive relatives very close (like within 10 minutes of each other tops). Much easier to find outside the US although there are big tight supportive families within the US that all live within the same neighborhood.
2. Hire help. Get a live in nanny/au pair. Way cheaper/available overseas; need a bit more coin in the US but still do-able.
In my subjective opinion, you shouldn't be having kids after around 40 simply because the odds of you being around for much of the kids adulthood is much lower and whats the point of going through all the sacrifice in having kids if you don't get to see/mentor them as adults? Pretty sad to lose your dad to old age when you're only 20-25 years old.
Furthermore, I think you should only have kids because you enjoy the constant challenge of molding a human being with having no option to ever quit. That is the only guarantee really at the end of the day and even that can be taken away from you by the courts.
That said, I think it's better to not have kids at all as oppose to having kids under poor/undesirable conditions. Many people live interesting lives, contribute to society, and leave legacies without having kids. Does anyone really give a shit about George Washington's, Einstein's, or Hitler's kids (real or hypothetical)? We don't live in a monarchy.
I'm sure many would disagree with that last bit but that's how I see it.