Just my thoughts. Idk.
There's a certain level of elitism in this thinking, namely in the fact that educated, wealthier people tend to underestimate how happy poor people are. To a point, wealthier people are happier and worry less, but I don't think it's in practice so much more that say one wealthy, well-educated person has more total happiness than two poor people.
It circles back to kids. There are a lot of things in my life, in terms of education and career path that make me happy. I worked very hard in grad school for several years and got exactly the job I wanted, and that accomplishment makes me happy. But my daughter makes me much happier than that, and she was the product of five minutes and something it takes no education or intelligence to do...
In a vacuum, if a couple has only one child, that child had better grow up to support those two people in retirement. If four grandparents only have one grandchild, it's even worse.
The current answers to that problem are immigration (in which case someone else is still paying for benefits) or incredibly low take-home pay for workers (lots of withholding for personal or public retirement funds).
This was more of an opinion coming from my hometown, where we have an epidemic of twenty-somethings divorced with three kids because they took on too much too fast.
edit: also, when you're at a bar and the first questions are: - are you divorced? - how many kids do you have?
But I agree that people should be wiser about planning their lives out. I'm not sure that's a solvable problem, though.
Eh, I think Japan's problem is more that they have a very narrow idea (ethnically speaking) as to what they want Japanese people to look like. If they were willing to loosen up a bit on that, there are plenty of people who would be willing to come, become Japanese, and if it's anything like immigration here in the US, probably have a fair number of children.
In SF, applications developers, dental hygienists, and registered nurses all earn, on average, around 100k a year. Two of them together would together earn about $220k a year in SF. That's workable.
That's depressing. Sure, it might be workable too. But depressing. That's a little over a million dollars in FIVE YEARS. Ok ok, one or two more for final take-home pay.
And that's still merely "workable" rather than "Oh boy we've got it made!"
People tend to underestimate both the amount of stress that small children are and the gradual reduction of stress capacity that comes with age. You are good at pushing yourself to the limit? That's great. How do you cope with 24/7 low-level stress for months without _any_ break?
My wife and I decided to do the kids thing early in life (relative to other academics) and now are finished with our family planning while yet having to reach any sort of "steady career-path".
Best choice ever.
But I must add that I do this with the strong social safety net of Germany in my back. I'll never be homeless, I'll never go hungry and my children will get an excellent education, _no matter what_.
However, ensuring that you can still afford to pay all the bills for months --or years, preferably-- on end in the event that your source of income disappears... that seems to be the most important of the ducks. Whether it's a home you own or six months' mortgage/rent is just details.
Have you ever tried to put an infant car seat in the back of a 1994 Mazda MX-6 coupe? It might change your priority list.
>It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement.
Location, location, location. My dad moved his family to a place he could afford so he could take care of them.
I could make the same salary in San Francisco that I make in Austin, TX, but the same salary goes a /lot/ farther in Texas than it does in California.
I am sure I could live well in texas - but the companies and sector I want to work in, for me personally, only exists in SF.
From one dad to another: I'm trying to provide the same. You're inspiring.
Amazingly, rich people spend more than poorer people.
Move or learn to live frugally. Many people cannot afford a house/family until they get married and combine incomes.
Freedom? More like not being able to afford the expenses of having a family.
I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles, but I can't afford a house and can't fathom trying to raise a family on my income. It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement. If this is freedom, I hope I don't get any more liberated than I already am.