Easier to FIRE with no kids?

[Michael Moore]

I use to be concerned about that seeing that I was unable to have children but then someone made the comment to me about all the elderly who's kids park them in a home then never visit.  Don't count on your kids to be your backup plan, they just might have plans of their own.

My grandmother used to give me that "but if you don't have kids who will take care of you in your old age" line. It didn't work.

It is another of those "do you feel lucky, punk?" deals. When I was working in the SSI program at Social Security I saw plenty of elderly people with well off kids who couldn't be bothered with them. Of course, it may be that they were really crappy parents and they did a good job of alienating their children. I've seen some people who were parents who had a view of their parenting skills and the esteem they were held in by their kids that appeared to be wildly different from the reality of the situation.

I think your best bet is to not plan on anyone else helping out. Then if they do, it is just extra icing on your retirement cake.

As to the topic, if you look at the numbers it seems there is no way that children can do anything but be a negative factor in FIRE. You've got $X going out for them, and you are unlikely to even break even on that with the tax deductions. I doubt that many children generate a positive cash flow to their families. There may be an intangible ROI, but that doesn't seem likely to be counted in one's FIRE portfolio.

This doesn't mean that people should be encouraged to not have children because of that - everyone has their priorities. Children were pretty much a negative number on our priority list, and we've got no regrets about having avoided them. If someone else wants to have them, it is no skin off my nose as long as they aren't bothering me. Parents who let their little monsters loose on an unsuspecting public are a different topic that I won't go into at this time.

For every "oooh, I love my child and have no regrets" story I bet I can find an offsetting "oooh, I hate my child and I was a fool to have had him/her". Isn't that just the way life is?

cheers,
Michael

 

[ProfHaroldHill]

For every "oooh, I love my child and have no regrets" story I bet I can  find an offsetting "oooh, I hate my child and I was a fool to have had him/her".  Isn't that just the way life is?

cheers,
Michael

Attitudes toward children might be a good litmus test for parents (and others) who are louts.

HH

 

[SLC Tortfeasor]

For every "oooh, I love my child and have no regrets" story I bet I can  find an offsetting "oooh, I hate my child and I was a fool to have had him/her".  Isn't that just the way life is?

You know, I'm actually pretty strongly set against having kids, but I have to admit I've never met anyone who actually has kids who expressed anything less than complete joy about being a parent.  Every time the subject of kids has come up, people who have them seem like they really, genuinely feel like their lives are vastly better thanks to the kids.

 

[yakers]

You know, I'm actually pretty strongly set against having kids, but I have to admit I've never met anyone who actually has kids who expressed anything less than complete joy about being a parent. Every time the subject of kids has come up, people who have them seem like they really, genuinely feel like their lives are vastly better thanks to the kids.

I strongly approve of people who do not want kids not having them. Its good for everyone. That said my boys (and my grand daughter) are more precious than gold. They are a major part of why I do the work and financial games that I do. I would suggest for everyone, but at least for me life is not about finances and physical assets.

"where your treasure is, there your heart will be also"

 

[SteveR]

You know, I'm actually pretty strongly set against having kids, but I have to admit I've never met anyone who actually has kids who expressed anything less than complete joy about being a parent.  Every time the subject of kids has come up, people who have them seem like they really, genuinely feel like their lives are vastly better thanks to the kids.

I wish this were true of all parents but it is not. There are many "parents" out there that never intended to be a parent but things happened and now they are. Some guys run away from this and leave the women with the whole burden to bear while others do the right thing but in the long run the relationship ends in divorce. The kids are the ones that suffer the most. It is really a shame that for many it is far to easy to make a child. There are too many forgotten or neglected kids out there.

If kids could be made from only loving dedicated parents imagine the possibilities.

 

[CyclingInvestor]

Attitudes toward children might be a good litmus test for parents (and others) who are louts.

HH

I have always used attitudes towards dogs as an indicator of character,
especially those who mistreat them.

 

[MasterBlaster]

W.C. Fields - "Anyone who hates children and animals can't be all bad !"

 

[ProfHaroldHill]

W.C. Fields - "Anyone who hates children and animals can't be all bad !"

This is a good quote, given the topic of the discussion.

Joking aide, whether to have kids or not has to be a very personal decision. However, a person's attutude toward kids in general is not. Any man who is not willing to do the best he can to ensure the welfare of children is a blighter and a sissy (to use a very old-fashioned word).

HH

 

[brewer12345]

I have always used attitudes towards dogs as an indicator of character,
especially those who mistreat them.

I am pretty much a pacifist, but when I hear of or see someone mistreat an animal, it all I can do to restrain myself from killing them with a shovel.

 

[Michael Moore]

Attitudes toward children might be a good litmus test for parents (and others) who are louts.

Coming as that does after a couple of the folks here mentioned that they had no desire to have children, that could easily be taken as being meant as an insult towards or snide comment about other members of this forum.

Since in your short tenure here I've seen you make other posts with similar (may I be so bold as to label them) loutish comments, I'd urge you to consider how your statements come across. If it isn't your intention to fall into a category (lout) that you seem to hold in low regard, then a bit of additional review before hitting the "post" button might be in order.

On the other hand, if that isn't a concern for you, you may as well just come out and tell us up front so people don't have to try and guess your intentions.

cheers,
Michael

 

[ProfHaroldHill]

Hi. The Other Michael. An Internet forum is a really interesting creature. This one especially so.

A significant number of the regular posters here have a lot to offer in the way of thoughtful, useful insight. A roughly equal number are . . . well . . . opinionated, overconfident, selfish, and ignorant. Ignorant in a general sense, not taking into account the technical knowledge of specialists. Ignorant in a deeply philosophical sense.

On this forum, a lot of good advice flows about FI. Much of the ER stuff, however, is really stupid. People who don't want kids because they cost too much, people who have kids and want to put them to work at an early age, people who want to disinherit their kids. People who hate their jobs. People who have trouble with their spouses or their patrents. People who pull themselves and their families down into poverty because they lack the psychological capital needed to function in the workplace. Losers.

Especially, I don't like the anti-kid crowd. I don't like the anti-elderly crowd either. And I don't like the me-first-and-only faction.

All told, however, this is just an Internet forum. Anyone who feels like skipping over any of my posts, or anything posted by anyone else, may simply do so (you are included in this category).

You know what? All told, fooling around here isn't worth the time it takes.

So, as someone else recently said:

Goodnight, and good luck!

HH

 

[MasterBlaster]

Rodney King - "Can't we all just get along ?"

ProfHH:

Please stick around, the more the merrier. But tread lightly on others.

 

[eridanus]

Much of the ER stuff, however, is really stupid. People who don't want kids because they cost too much, people who have kids and want to put them to work at an early age, people who want to disinherit their kids. People who hate their jobs. People who have trouble with their spouses or their patrents. People who pull themselves and their families down into poverty because they lack the psychological capital needed to function in the workplace. Losers.

Though we strive, not everyone is as perfect as you.

 

[pbrane]

a number of people who know about these things say that we've far surpassed the earth's carrying capacity of around 2 billion (we're at 6 now and heading toward 10). But I suppose the topic of overpopulation is taboo, as per usual.

Or maybe it's just because I'm from a dysfunctional family? (ha)

 

[Dry Socks]

a number of people who know about these things say that we've far surpassed the earth's carrying capacity of around 2 billion (we're at 6 now and heading toward 10). But I suppose the topic of overpopulation is taboo, as per usual.

Or maybe it's just because I'm from a dysfunctional family? (ha)

I don't think having 1 or 2 kids per family is driving up the population.

 

[greg]

a number of people who know about these things say that we've far surpassed the earth's carrying capacity of around 2 billion (we're at 6 now and heading toward 10). But I suppose the topic of overpopulation is taboo, as per usual.

I once heard that the absolute limit is 20 billion people. And even that many means that everything has to go just about perfectly, rarely a famine, everybody nice to each other, etc. With things that tight though, my guess is that we start suffering from the 'butterfly effect,' one phart in the USA and diarrhea occurs in half of China.

--Greg

 

[mikew]

Ah Malthusians
GO BIRD FLU!!!

 

[mark]

Living together not = married

"Why not just wear a ring and live life together? "

Living together is not the same as being married. Once you make a real commitment by being married, things change. That is why a trial period of living together is not really a trial period.

If you live together (without being married) long enough, you spouse is legally entitled to some of your assets if you split, I believe. May as well get married with a pre-nup.

 

[SLC Tortfeasor]

Re: Living together not = married

"Why not just wear a ring and live life together? "

Living together is not the same as being married. Once you make a real commitment by being married, things change. That is why a trial period of living together is not really a trial period.

If you live together  (without being married) long enough, you spouse is legally entitled to  some of your assets if you split,  I believe. May as well get married with a pre-nup.

Whoa, hold on there with the legal advice.  It's not necessarily as simple as that.  It is quite possible to live together with your significant other for a very long time without ever becoming common law spouses, as long as you have a little knowledge about what the laws are in your state.  There are a bunch of factors that I can't remember off the top of my head, but two of the most important ones that come to mind are that you don't hold yourselves out to others as husband and wife, and you make it clear to each other that you don't consider yourselves husband and wife.

I agree that living together is not the same as being married, but it's a lot more like marriage than just dating. 

I think it's sort of like swimming.  You can tell a lot just by looking at the water--you can see it's not frozen, see how choppy/turbulent it is, and see some of what may be lurking beneath the surface.  But it makes a hell of a lot of sense to dip your toes in (and maybe some more) without jumping in completely. 

 

[Michael Moore]

Not all states recognize "common law" marriages, and those that do generally require that the couple hold themselves out to the general public as being "married".

Living together is not the same as being married. Once you make a real commitment by being married, things change. That is why a trial period of living together is not really a trial period.

Um, we've been "living together" for 26 years now, which significantly outlasts the "real marriages" of many of our friends and relatives.

From my perspective it looks to me that being married is often not the same as living together. Maybe all those married people should try shacking up for a decade or two until they get the hang of things?

cheers,
Michael