With the increased estimated life expectancy, it makes sense that people are having kids later in life

New / Design m.vignelli
Jun 5 45 Comments

And it’s also strategically a good idea to have 40 year old kids when you turn 80 yourself.

Edit: wanted to pose this as a theoretical question, putting health risks aside.

comments

Want to comment? LOG IN or SIGN UP
TOP 45 Comments
  • F5 Networks bhai-log
    Late kids is not good. Many risk factors for genetic defects shoot sky high. Early 30s or late 20s are perfect time for having cute little ones.

    Not having them is fine as well. Anyway, it’s a personal choice.
    Jun 5 17
    • SAP tjjW71
      Facebook, I don't understand your latest comment in light of your earlier one (when was the discussion ever about the kids' ages?). But, I've conveyed what I wished to, so will stop here. Thanks.
      Jun 5
    • Facebook kcAlzxb
      OC was talking about older mothers increase the chance of genetic defects (in the child). And that mothers late 20-early 35 were would have cute kids.

      I tried to say in my first reply that mothers in late teens to early 20s is better biologically for the child (as in fewer birth defects in the child)
      Jun 5
    • F5 Networks bhai-log
      SAP - take it easy dude. There is more to life than arguing over what’s right scientifically.
      Jun 6
    • F5 Networks bhai-log
      Just because you don’t know what you don’t know but still want to argue, I am posting this. Won’t be responding to you because it’s not my duty to educate. School should have done that.

      https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2206136?guccounter=1

      The late teens or early twenties are “best” biologically, according to John Mirowsky, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin. That’s when “oocytes are fresh and the body’s reproductive and other systems are at a youthful peak,” he wrote. Women in their twenties are least likely to have developed chronic health problems that would put them or their babies at risk, and they have the lowest rates of miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth, and infertility. But early pregnancy doesn’t work well in today’s society, which is organized around smaller families and more full-time employment for women.
      Jun 6
    • F5 Networks bhai-log
      I am sure you are not a parent and never had to go through the genetic tests - so I will believe your posts are coming out of opinion and not facts. Next time read and know about the topic before behaving like this.
      Jun 6
  • Microsoft / Eng sunofa🍑
    With the increased chances of health risks for baby and mom, it makes sense people don't ignore science.
    Jun 5 0
  • Amazon PT Cruiser
    People are not having kids because nobody can afford it.

    DINK can barely afford a house, adding a kid too early into the mix ensures you’ll never get one.
    Jun 5 1
    • Facebook kcAlzxb
      Not even just houses. More time spent studying get into the top colleges, leetcode to get the best jobs, living with parents so it’s harder to meet up, internet promoting hookups and staying open for something better, incel culture normalizing men staying immature, etc
      Jun 5
  • Expedia Lark71
    It is so funny that IT people making or boasting of 300K cannot afford kid(s) and middle or even lower middle class have 2-3 kids. Then these same DNK complain about immigrants taking over country.
    Having kids or not having kids is personal choice but dont bring cost into it. Damn, high income really have poluted brains to put a price tag to everything.
    Jun 5 2
    • Microsoft
      Pined

      Microsoft

      PRE
      Amazon
      Pinedmore
      As someone who has friends in multiple socio-economic classes, I think the reason for this is that expectations for raising an upper middle class child are very high.

      My lower-middle class / working class friends don’t expect to spend any money on their kid’s education, or for babysitting, or housekeeping, etc. While upper middle class families assume they’ll be paying for private school, day care, private child care, summer camps, tutors etc. Maintenance of an upper middle class lifestyle for the next generation is costly. Maintenance of a working class lifestyle costs only food/clothes/shelter.
      Jun 5
    • Meetup oFkV17
      100% true.

      Kids are not expensive if your life isn’t expensive. But if you try to lululemon-ify raising kids, yeah it’s going to cost you.

      Class signaling isn’t cheap.
      Jun 6
  • New / Design Yesterday-
    This is dumb.

    1 in 8 couples have a hard time getting pregnant.

    When women reach 40 they have a 5% chance of getting pregnant.

    Now add in the costs of just going through with the pregnancy is something around 30k.

    So the only people getting Prego are those in the Midwest who have low cost of living, could get a house on those 60 -80k salaries and afford a kid on top that.

    Us in the bay in particularly can’t afford jack.

    So if you can’t afford jack when you’re in your 20’s.

    The cost of having a baby is ridiculous (not even factoring the potential costs to send that fool to school)

    And then by time you think you’re financially ready, bam you can’t have one.

    So it isn’t some great strategy to wait. Life is just making it seem like less and less of a good idea and then by time it may be right to have, one you can’t. Ain’t that some shit?
    Jun 5 4
    • Microsoft giffy
      Great explanation.
      Jun 5
    • Snapchat
      <bitmoji>

      Snapchat

      PRE
      Facebook
      <bitmoji>more
      Only if people could get rid of one misconception. You don't need a house to have kids.
      Everything else in bay area is on par with the salaries
      Jun 5
    • Google / Eng Yolorice
      Great answer
      Jun 5
    • New / Design Yesterday-
      @bitmoji

      I wouldn’t say it’s a misconception but more of a preference.

      I don’t want to have kids living in an apartment because I know I personally need space for my mental health. And if I have a kid in my 2 bedroom apartment, it will be challenging to find a place to breathe in my own home.

      And I’m not sure everything else is on par for salaries. Again the price of just giving birth to a kid is around 30k. Then considering just sending the kid to school gets a bit more insane because public schools in the bay are kinda crap. So you’re looking at 40k+ a year to send your kid to private school. Add in other activities the kid might be interested in such as sports... a lot of athletics are the “pay to play” model. I’m not even considering day care, or babysitting costs because I’m not familiar with those numbers. (Most of my information has come from building projects in the kid/baby space)

      So I’d disagree that Bay Area salaries are great for raising a kid. Unless you’re in a solid leadership position or been one of the lucky few in the startup world.
      Jun 5
  • Accenture dvqkdif
    impregnating someone these days = $$$ , if you don't have enough money then that means low quality of life for you, the kid, and mother
    Jun 5 1
    • Intel pFVD84
      “Enough” doesn’t exist. Life is about trade offs.

      It’s mostly a myth about quality of life being low if you don’t have “enough” money, at least as it relates to most of the population on Blind. Traditional family set up with one parent making $100K can do just fine. Like our parents, you move out to the ‘burbs or out of CA once school age hits so you don’t have to pay for private school.
      Jun 5
  • Amazon Coatl
    I had my first kid at 20 and my last at 33. I don't see how anyone could have the energy required to raise a kid at 40.
    Jun 6 0
  • New / Design m.vignelli
    OP
    Edit: wanted to pose this as a theoretical question, putting health risks aside.
    Jun 5 3
    • Microsoft / Eng sunofa🍑
      Yeah, but it's like asking "why people don't fly, putting gravity aside of course"
      Jun 5
    • New / Design m.vignelli
      OP
      Conversations can be entertaining :) of course we can always discuss TC instead, since it’s always rooted in reality
      Jun 5
    • Axtria DesiLaunda
      @microsoft 😂
      Jun 6
  • Amazon pappapps
    Watch the opening sequence in the movie Idiocracy. It explains everythjng.
    Jun 5 1
    • Arthrex quarks
      Love that movie and how true of a dystopian society we are going to have.
      Jun 5
  • Arthrex quarks
    If cloning is plausible with a viable pre screened egg we can have kids whenever we want. Human evolution is anyways going towards asexual reproduction.
    Jun 5 0
  • Microsoft giffy
    Now I understand why the population in western countries is so less compared to Asia.
    In Asia raising a kid is not at all a big problem.
    Cost if schooling is very less.
    Now a days few so called high tech schools are charging hefty amount in India also.
    Jun 5 0
  • Google Earbud
    No. The risk of various disorders for the baby rises quickly after the mother reaches the late 30's.

    It's not about life expectancy, it's about career and financial goals. Children are expensive, and student loans need to be paid back. Houses are also expensive. Some people don't want to put their career and future earnings on hold to raise a child.
    Jun 5 0
  • Meetup oFkV17
    Life expectancy hasn’t changed much if you remove infant deaths.
    Jun 5 1
    • Arthrex quarks
      Check ourworldindata.org. Thanks to advance medicine we are going towards immortality.
      Jun 5
  • Oath fTBk83
    Raising kids is exhausting, you won’t have the energy after 40
    Jun 9 0
  • Intel pFVD84
    Freeze your eggs. Problem solved.

    The other factor people aren’t considering is that under the current healthcare system, you are pretty unhireable if you get laid off in your 50s, particularly if a white male. That’s due to your healthcare costs (can be well over $50K of cost to the company for a family of four) as well as your skill deterioration. So picture having a couple teenagers getting ready to go to college and your lifetime earning is done.
    Jun 5 0