Is waiting until 40 to have kids/marriage the key to expensive metros?

[plinko]

If I had waited until 40...yikes. I had kids at 34 and 38 and honestly, that feels a bit late. At 43 now with a 9 and a 4 year old it's exhausting.

Early 30s seems to be the sweet spot.

That being said, waiting until your 30's does provide options that aren't easily available in your 20's if you have kids. You can save money, you can buy a house, you are generally at least established in a career. By the time my wife and I got married in 2009 (I was 33 and she was 29), we could have lived virtually anywhere.

It's not that it can't be done in your 20's, but all of my friends who had kids in their 20's and are now empty nesters and moderately successful and even nearing retirement? They all live in places like Columbus and Toledo and Dallas and generally less expensive places. Anecdotal, sure, but I bet not far off the mark.

[Fresh]

Expensive, dense urban areas seem to inhibit people from having children and certainly makes them postpone it: Expensive rents, expensive house prices, worries about safety and space.

Low density cities or suburbs are much better options for people who wish to have multiple children and to do it early.

[MolsonExport]

A hundred years ago, couples regularly had 4-8 kids when they were crammed in squalid tenements. Just sayin'

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

A hundred years ago, couples regularly had 4-8 kids when they were crammed in squalid tenements. Just sayin'

... Your timing is way off.

4-8 kids is 1970s-80s.

Both of my parents (Dad born 1950; Mom born 1952) have 12 siblings each. My maternal grandfather was one of 22.

https://heritagefoundation.ca/herita...heritage-site/

It has undergone several alterations to accommodate the various families who have lived there, one of which had 22 children.

100 years ago, families of 15-20 were very, very common. At least here.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I was 36/38 for my son's/daughter's births. It didn't seem that old at the time, but now I am 50, and I am sure glad that I didn't wait longer. Then again, I only met my (now) wife when I was 34 (she was 29).

I was 38/40 for my two kids, and while I feel ever so blessed that we were able to squeak in two happy and healthy babies before it got too late, it's definitely a touch older than I would have ideally planned.

However, similar to you, I didn't even meet my wife until I was 35 (she was 32), so it was what it was. 1 year of dating, 1 year of engagement, then several months of trying + nine months of pregnancy, and our first child was born 2 days after the 3rd anniversary of me and my wife's very first date.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

A hundred years ago, couples regularly had 4-8 kids when they were crammed in squalid tenements. Just sayin'

You don't even have to go back that far. Both of my parents are 1 of 6, and while they didn't grow up in squalid tenements, they were both raised in humble little bungalow belt houses with 3 bedrooms: one for mom & dad, one for the sisters, and one for the brothers. And all 8 of them somehow managed to share a single bathroom. That's just how a shitload of families (even middle class ones) rolled in those days, and no one batted an eye-lash about 3 or 4 kids sharing a single bedroom via bunk beds.

[SIGSEGV]

Yeah the idea that a kid needs their own room is very modern...

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yeah the idea that a kid needs their own room is very modern...

My grandmother's sister ended up having eight kids - largely because she ended up with two sets of fraternal twins. The two girls got their own room, but the six boys had to share a single room. I believe they did it via two sets of triple bunk beds. Not sure where they put the clothes.

[eschaton]

I do want to push back a bit against the idea that dense urban areas or high housing costs are the reason that families are small. There are poorer states with below-average fertility, like Maine, West Virginia, and New Mexico. Also, fertility rates are very low across all European countries, even though in a lot of Eastern Europe housing prices are relatively low (lots of places to live because so many have migrated elsewhere).

AFAIK, the single biggest determinant of total fertility rate is a woman's level of education. The more education a woman gets, the less likely she is to have children - and if she has kids, she will have less children and wait longer to have them. This holds constant across basically every country. It also helps explain the few groups in the U.S. that still have high birth rates - like the Amish and Hasids - as they cloister their women and don't give them educational opportunities.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

... Your timing is way off.

4-8 kids is 1970s-80s.

Both of my parents (Dad born 1950; Mom born 1952) have 12 siblings each. My maternal grandfather was one of 22.

https://heritagefoundation.ca/herita...heritage-site/







100 years ago, families of 15-20 were very, very common. At least here.

yes, I know.
My grandfather (born in Flanders) came from a family of 13 children (thus 15 people). He married my grandmother (born in England), who came from a family of 10 children (thus a dozen).

Quebec had some of the largest families in the world back in the days of the "Revanche des Berceaux"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Revanche_des_berceaux

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by dave8721

40 is too old to have a kid IMO (biologically getting close to actually too old to be safe for a woman at least). I had my first at 31 and 2nd at 35 and i noticed my energy level dealing with a kid was already lower at 35 than it was at 31. I can't imagine it at 42. Or dealing with a non-sleeping newborn at 50? Dealing with a rebellious teenager as a 65 year old? Paying for college right as you enter retirement?
Back in the 1950's when people had kids when they were 22-25 by the time they were 45, their kids were already out of the house.

I agree 20's is too young. 30-35 is the prime age for kids in our current society.

How is 35 "Prime age" but 40 is an absolute no go, full stop? I mean I would agree that 50 is really pushing it, but if you're 40, you're still in your mid-fifties when they enter high school, late fifties when they enter college, early 60's when they graduate and ideally go start making money, and if they get married and have kids at a more typical time in their lives, there's a solid probability that you'll have at least a good 15-20 years with the grandkids... so what's the problem? Or are you just talking about energy levels or something?

[chris08876]

Or if one wants to save, and cut years of bs out, maybe adopt like a promising 8 or 9 year old. Low maintenance, somewhat gifted 8 or 9 year old. The types that play the piano and one never has to worry about poor school performance.

Possibly adoption is a short cut for having kids late...

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

How is 35 "Prime age" but 40 is an absolute no go, full stop? I mean I would agree that 50 is really pushing it, but if you're 40, you're still in your mid-fifties when they enter high school, late fifties when they enter college, early 60's when they graduate and ideally go start making money, and if they get married and have kids at a more typical time in their lives, there's a solid probability that you'll have at least a good 15-20 years with the grandkids... so what's the problem? Or are you just talking about energy levels or something?

I don't get it either. People are living much longer, more active lives. My parents are in their mid-70's and probably more active than us. They can easily care for our child; why would it be difficult for us at half their age?

[Kenmore]

old parents....yuck

half the other parents in my kid's class look like grandparents already

[chris08876]

Does the stress of having a kid age people quicker?

I think the answer is yes.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Or if one wants to save, and cut years of bs out, maybe adopt like a promising 8 or 9 year old. Low maintenance, somewhat gifted 8 or 9 year old. The types that play the piano and one never has to worry about poor school performance.

Possibly adoption is a short cut for having kids late...

Those are not the kind of kids available for adoption. If you go the domestic route, chances are you'll get a "troubled kid" due to some combination of genetic and environmental factors. That is to say, people who tend to give their kids up for adoption tend to have mental illness issues which can pass on to their kids, and the experience of coming from a "troubled home" along with the instability of the foster care system and orphanages traumatizes kids. IIRC over half of kids who "graduate" into adulthood directly from orphanages end up homeless. Kids who are well-behaved, bright, and attentive typically have other family members willing to care for them and never end up in the foster system - or are pretty quickly scooped up.

International adoption is another thing entirely. Many kids adopted internationally are much more "normal" and can grow into well-adjusted adults, though countries with bad orphanage systems (such as Romania or Russia a few decades ago) can have similar issues to U.S. adoptees. There's also the ethical issue with international adoption that there is always more demand for kids than supply, which leads to child theft in home countries. This is part of the reason why popular countries tend to cycle around every few years - a country gets really popular, which triggers demand, which in turn triggers bad actors to start taking small children from happy families and selling them, which eventually triggers a government crackdown. International adoption is not an easy/cheap process though in any case, requiring tens of thousands of dollars in fees, and often weeks taken off from work visiting the home country before you will be allowed to take the child home with you.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Does the stress of having a kid age people quicker?

I think the answer is yes.

Totally anecdotal, but when my daughter was born (I was 30) my beard pretty quickly shifted from no gray to over half gray - like over two years or so.

It's slowed down since then, but I'm 41 now, and outside of my mustache, my beard is pretty much all white now. At least my hair is still mostly brown...and mostly there.

[JManc]

Energy level between 35,40, 45, etc tapers off. I'm almost 47 feel no different than I did at 30 and am in better shape than I was at 30 actually until 10PM rolls it's ugly head around. I couldn't imagine having little ones at my age.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by JManc

Energy level between 35,40, 45, etc tapers off. I'm almost 47 feel no different than I did at 30 and am in better shape than I was at 30 actually until 10PM rolls it's ugly head around. I couldn't imagine having little ones at my age.

As I said, I wasn't that old when I had kids, but it helped me to realize there is perhaps an evolutionary reason why it's relatively easy to pull all nighters when you're in your 20s.

[chris08876]

I'm a night owl at heart. Always been. But I kinda see it as a curse. I wish I was more of a morning person.

Although I read that night owls are evolutionary superior to morning folks... something to do with survival, night time, predators or something like that. But I do wish I was one of those bright and early folks, that has a smile in the morning. Those folks that wake up at 5 am, go to the gym and are just fine. Ughgh, I can't do that unless I take herbs or other things. But night time, or like afternoon onward, best time. But its an endless cycle. Than the difficulty falling asleep at night. Gym wise, nighttime or late afternoon IMO best time.

Possibly night owls excel with younger kids, like babies, as they will be up, so not as disturbed with the crying if applicable.

But yeah... mornings suck. That's why Jesus Christ invented stimulants. Makes mornings better. Imagine morning without coffee or Yerba Mate or Kratom? Would suck, absolutely suck!

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As I said, I wasn't that old when I had kids, but it helped me to realize there is perhaps an evolutionary reason why it's relatively easy to pull all nighters when you're in your 20s.

Yeah, I would pull allnighters all the time in undergrad. In grad school, they became harder. The last all-nighter I did (during an Antarctic high-altitude balloon launch, 3.5 years ago) took me weeks to recover from.