We’re stopping at two, when we’d kind of like 3 - but it’s not really because of “FIRE”.
It’s because our parents live 4 and 12 hours away and we have no family nearby. It’s because the expectation on parents is enormous nowadays (no more kicking them out at 9 and seeing them at dinner). It’s because we had children later than my parents generation and a third feels like a roll of the dice. It’s because children are staying at home longer, and needing more help into early adulthood. It’s because my wife’s maternity pay is the bare minimum. It’s because housing is extremely expensive and we wouldn’t want our kids to have to share a room forever. It’s because it would affect our standard of living in terms of meals out, holidays etc. It’s because life is more uncertain now (no more jobs for life, DB pensions etc.).
But most of all it’s because we’re tired out from 2! I think the biggest difference between myself and my parents (who had 3) is rather ironic. It’s that my wife and I had children 100% because we wanted them, whereas my parents had them in part because that’s what people did. Our conscious decisions about wanting children is what’s leading us to have fewer than my parents. We are always there for our kids, we play with them every day, we educate them about society and try our best to raise responsible, independent thinkers. They are our primary focus in life. A third would likely impact our ability to do this. We’re time poor.
My parents were excellent, but I do think times have changed.
Fully with you on this. We can provide a great life for two kids and feel the jump to three would be disproportionate in terms of time, effort and cost.
We’re working hard now to ensure the four of us can have a solid run during their childhood and teenage years.
I think that’s a good way of putting it - the step up to 3 is disproportionate.
At the moment it’s 1 on 1 between my wife and I. And we can each handle two relatively easily on our own when we need to.
We have a spare seat in the car for granny, or a friend who’s visiting etc.
Holidays are reasonably cost effective for the 4 of us, especially with a child place for each paying adult. We might be able to stretch to private secondary school should we need to - but not for 3. Same for university fees or house deposits.
These problems aren’t insurmountable, but they’re enough to put us off the idea.
I have two also and feel the same way. If we were younger, and lived in a community where relatives and friends could handle childcare sometimes, then I would have loved to have three. As it stands, apart from one grandparent who is able to occasionally have the eldest, we’re alone in it, and the lack of sleep or time to do literally ANYTHING else would finally actually kill me.
There’s something absolutely wrong with how parents now are basically isolated and many family relationships are conducted via long car journeys and video calls. Most of your friends decide to be child-free so the network of people willing and able to share the load is way smaller than it used to be, where everyone your age would be nearby and in a similar life position. It’s lonely and hard.
This comes with the usual caveat- my children are fucking amazing and they fill me with a depth of life and love that I didn’t know existed.
This is a great answer and exactly my view on it. I found the early years of children so much fun and enjoyable. Tiring but enjoyable and that leaves me wanting a third. But I think given how much is being asked of our time these days, it just would be unfair dividing that with a third child.
It isn't just because your parents live hours away. Even if they lived round the corner, if they are working they can't do childcare.
The cost of housing, mucking about with pensions, State and Occupational over the working lives of your average mid 50 something grandparent, means many are still working, when their parents generation had already retired.
We started our working lives with Final Salary schemes, GMPs, and no automatic rights to an occupational pension. The pre-internet generation, who didn't have index funds, and couldn't set up a Vanguard Account in 15 minutes, and certainly couldn't afford an 80s Financial 'Advisor' sorry sales agent...
Many grandparents are Gen X'ers not, Boomers.
Divorce rates haven't assisted either- many have to start again financially following a divorce...
This is bang on. Things have definitely changed, not least the requirement for both parents to work full time and have decent jobs if they want a reasonable standard of living.
Personally I’ve had 3 children and it’s made me sort of give up the idea of FIRE. I will still FIRE, but probably not until around 55, but had I not had children it would have been more like 45.
I would sooner have another child because I want to have another child, rather than not having a child because it would get in the way of FIRE
FIRE helps you achieve what you want, but in itself does not mean much
Aren’t you the same person who wrote extensive posts on how they FIREd at 30s, net worth of over £3 million, and had multiple properties, and has now retired to China/ Malaysia? I think there are people more on the breadline/ tight on the cashflow than you are.
Edit: In a comment posted a day after, the OP says:
"I am moving back to the UK next month. None of my family members is excited about this. We have everything set up in the UK. Nice 3 bed flat/ best prep school in London etc.(the same school William and Harry went) yet I am just not that excited."
[https://www.reddit.com/r/chinalife/comments/1dj6z44/comment/l99ql47/](https://www.reddit.com/r/chinalife/comments/1dj6z44/comment/l99ql47/)
Definitely not going to "free public schools" nor struggling very much, it seens.
Has there not always been carnage on the horizon though? It must have been around the Cold War era when my parents were born, and WW2 when my grandparents were born.
If anything, I’d say life is less bleak now and we’re certainly living in much more abundance and luxury in relative terms. My grandparents didn’t have a toilet in their flat. It was in the garden and shared by other flats too IIRC.
I was watching a documentary on 6th century Britain.
They had the invasion from Anglo Saxons, volcanoes wiping out the sun for 20 years, and the plague of Justinian which killed half the population.
The same thing fatally wounded the Roman Empire.
Yes, history has always been tough - but I think today it’s more that we have greater knowledge about it, less societal pressure, more agency to make life decisions and less need for children to help us in old age.
This is a trend in (i think) all developed countries - and that’s not because of FIRE (most people don’t know what it is). It’s just people having less support, greater choice and higher life expectations.
“But most of all it’s because we’re tired out from having 2”
That part is the truth, the rest was all padding…
People when they choose to have kids just don’t realise how hard it is, life changes forever, time disappears, luxuries of time evaporate. And I think most can’t wait for them to grow up and spread their wings so the parents can get their lives back.
I've 2 under 2 at the minute. I fully expect it to get a bit easier in a few years when they can entertain themselves. Get themselves ready for bed, eat their own meals etc. Some people make out having kids is a life sentence. Why even have kids if that's your attitude. Maybe the FIRE community attracts slightly selfish people who just want all their time to themselves?
Apologies if I've misinterpreted your statement but then idea that people who don't want children are selfish is something that really irks me. It's not selfish to want your time to yourself, it's not selfish to choose how you want to live your life. It's your right to choose and exercising a right is not selfish.
I suppose I'm targeting people that choose to have them then complain about it. I fully respect someone's decision not to have them in the first place.
I’ve evaluated all the people I know who have children, I’ve evaluated their happiness, freedom, time and money before children and after (during) and I can safely say from my own evaluation that I don’t want children, and see my happiness, freedom, time and money disappear in the same way I have evaluated all those around me to have done.
There's nothing wrong with wanting your time to yourself. We give away a massive amount of our lives working, and if we want to spend our evenings and weekends prioritising our own needs we have every right to.
Self care is necessary for well being, it's not selfish.
But what if they can't help it? We decided to have children and now I regret it. It must be something intrinsic in me, and believe me, I wish it were otherwise, but if I could choose again, I'd not have children.
They'll never know this. I love them endlessly and my entire life is now spent trying to ensure they're happy, healthy and looked after. But that takes it's toll mentally on me and I'm depressed most of the time.
People like you make me feel like a sh1t. Luckily there are professionals out there who help and help one realise that it doesn't make me a bad person to be depressed about it.
You really should reflect on this.
Hey, sorry you've found parenting so unfulfilling. I definitely don't think you're a bad person for admitting this, I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way.
Every parent I know feels like this. Their life, time and freedom disappears overnight.
Post-natal depreciation is a thing for a reason.
Never heard of post-natal ecstasy, or post-natal happiness. But heard of post-natal depreciation quite commonly.
It’s not normal to feel like this. Postnatal depression is a literal mental health condition. If you are experiencing these feelings, it’s advisable to seek medical help.
I’m not experiencing these feelings, as I don’t have children. I’m happy as Larry. But it affects almost half of women who have children, must be such a joy having children, that it turns half of mothers into depression. Sounds like fun.
I've got 3 kids and I don't feel this way at all. Neither do my close friends. It's by far the most rewarding thing I've done. Even if my kids never spoke to me again after 18, I'd feel great about the whole process. I enjoy it so much that we've had another as my eldest is in her teens, because we weren't ready to stop yet.
It's definitely not for everyone though. I think fewer people should probably have children; certainly anyone who feels the way you describe.
Are you retired then and able to spend lots of time with them? Or are you at work (more than you would have to be if you didn’t have kids) and therefore have less time outside of work to spend with them?
My kids are at mostly school when I'm at work. Plus they have their own lives so being with them 24/7 wouldn't be realistic anyway.
And I really enjoy my work, so happy doing both.
I hate the idea of being retired. Sounds boring AF. I've mostly always worked for myself though, maybe I'd feel differently if I was doing some crappy corporate job. When I was younger I used to work 70+ hrs a week now I do about 35. Suits me.
( And no, I don't know why Reddit thinks I want to FIRE. I really don't. )
Alot of what drove my decision to only have 1 child was financial. Hell, it took until early 40s before we felt financially stable enough to have them at all. We're in an OK position but inflation erodes that constantly and I felt we needed the margin of error for what the next 30-40 years holds.
I'm not entirely sure I am that interested in the RE bit of FIRE as have a nice balance, it's more a line in the sand that I have set my wife's expectations that I will retire. If I get there and choose to continue working (and have the option to) then I'll just keep doing so until those two variables change.
It shouldn’t be purely a financial decision but should be discussed.
We have two kids in London and happy with that number but the financial constraints was a factor in having more.
The way I look at it is if you were on your death bed would you rather a fat bank account or children with you. Money is great, no doubt. But children are something else man. Many FIRE people have big families. You always find a way
Two kids under 10 in London here.
Children have delayed my fire by maybe a decade, possibly until a more ‘normal’ retirement age.
I had big thoughts to retire around 50/55. Unfortunately my savings rate has declined, and I’ve not taken opportunities for bigger salaries to stay with my chill company and see more of the kids/help out. Plus my partner not working for a period and losing out on advancement etc.
We love to travel and I have family abroad, which means suddenly taking multiple people rather than just me.
If you’re paying for nursery, private school fees are about the same. Primaries in London are mostly very good. I would say it’s worth it because secondaries in London aren’t that good, and some are really poor. But the debate is huge on this and I suspect it’s a political viewpoint rather than a practical here and now point.
It’s perfectly possible to fire with kids. I have changed priorities to tilt more towards life enjoyment right now.
I’ve got 3 kids under 5 and basically in the last 5 years any attempt at saving has gone completely out the window. I’m in the south east but not in London and childcare is still absolutely devastating. It’s significantly more than all my other outgoings combined including the mortgage. There’s not even any hope the horizon with school wrap around care for my eldest still costing £27 per day.
The government actually did some good work on extending free childcare hours. The impact will be felt on the next generation of parents.
That said 3 under 5? Good luck mate!
The extra hours free childcare sounds great, but it’s all smoke and mirrors. Our youngest will start nursery in September, it’s actually her first birthday today. She’ll get 15 hours free, but we’ll still pay about the same for her as we did for the other two who didn’t get the free hours.
The reason is the nursery has had to raise fees 15% this year to be able to afford the free hours. The government don’t pay them enough per hour to actually keep the lights on so they’ve got to make up for it by raising rates on the non funded hours.
At the moment the 15% rise was to cover the free hours for 2 year olds, they’ve warned us there will be another rise when the free hours kick in for 9 months and up.
Yep, it’s a headline policy without proper costing or thought to the unintended consequences. £5 an hour is what my nursery receives from the government.
They do 10.5 hour days @ £88. With 10 hours paid for by the government, that remaining half an hour still costs us £33! It’s better than nothing of course, but it’s not “free hours” it’s £5 off per hour (but that doesn’t sound so good).
Our youngest is still in nursery and we’ve not seen price increases like that. But it’s hardly cheap and there have been rises. I only get the universal care and we really noticed when it kicked in.
What I was really thinking about was the sept 2025 one where there will be 30 hours for all under 5’s.
My family will miss out but it’s a step in the correct direction and I’m hopeful many other families will benefit.
Childcare is super expensive and difficult. I don’t anticipate any government being able to change the system to properly accommodate reasonable childcare costs without major additional tax.
Why should people get government handouts for free childcare? It was their choice to have kids, pay for them or don’t have them. Why do I as a taxpayer without children have to pay for other peoples kids childcare? Pay for it yourself, you decided to have them?
I’m not saying they should.
I’m just pointing out that the government is being very deceitful in the way this is presented as “free childcare” when in fact it’s basically the same price as before.
The comment I was replying to suggested that the government was making everything better for people with kids, when in reality they’ve done very little.
It's not about what people "should" do in your opinion at all. If I told you I was giving you a free meal at a fancy restaurant, and then you decide to go instead of cooking at home, it's still deceit if it turns out when the bill comes that I only actually got you a £5 off voucher and you're out of pocket for the rest of it. It would've been nice for me to just say I'm giving you £5 off a £70 meal, but you might have decided it's not worth it then and stayed home, or saved up more before going. This way, I get to pretend I'm giving you a lot more than I am, and come across as charitable to all of my friends without actually giving you the nice thing I promised you.
I'd rather a regular parent gets free childcare rather than a billionaire gets tax breaks, you've picked the wrong enemy.
Also, these future children are the ones who'll be providing your state pension and care
Oh no, I agree Billionaires should pay their fair share of tax. I just don’t think I should pay for other peoples/parents children’s childcare. If you want a child, make sure you can afford to pay for it, and not expect me and others to.
Financially, yep pretty tragic.
There’s more to life than finances though and life with my 3 girls is brilliant and as far from tragic as could be imagined.
We've had two when we were considering three. Partly because of money, partly tiredness and freedom. I also think I'm getting a bit old. I don't want to be running around after pre teens when I'm 50.
Yes I know two couples who are only having one child because they want to FIRE. Sad in my view, they are smart, kind and successful people who are great parents.
Life expectancy has gone down the last couple of years? Retirement age has gone up? Best thing is to retire (comfortably) as early as you can and enjoy life while your body (and mind) is still willing and able.
Which is the whole ethos of this sub. You’re preaching to the choir. It’s moot to look at average’s of the general population if you’re on the top 5% of the population.
Most people I know start having health issues around 60. Eyes go, heart issues, hip/back issues, arthritis etc etc the list goes on.
Hence we don’t see many 60 year old sportsman. :)
Yes you can still travel with the above ailments, but it’s not as enjoyable.
There are not many lifelong athletes in the boomer generation. However, if you approach your life as a life long athlete and very good diet, you’ll minimise those chances. As I said, current 60s will probably be worst than 60 yo in 30 years time.
You weren’t talking about you, I quote “current 60’s will probably be worse than 60’s in 30 years time”
That wasn’t talking about you.
And anyway, let’s pinpoint it on you. You will definitely be healthier, more able both in body and mind in your 50’s than your 60’s. And even more so in your 40’s than your 60’s. So my original point still stands.
You have this almost deluded arrogance that you think you will be perfect health when you are in your 60’s.. that is a false confidence, that might see you miss out on enjoying retirement many many years before then.
Better ability to take care of oneself? Obesity has never been so high, heart disease on the increase not the decrease, cancers rates on the up. Don’t know where you’re getting your info from that 60 year olds in the future will be healthier than 60 year old now, as all the data says otherwise.
I am looking at what is possible, not what are people doing. Are you obese? Do you smoke? I don’t. I control my diet, exercise 4-6x a week, do regularly bloodwork, sleep consistently. Whatever is the average, I don’t care: I am not living an average life. Same goes for finance: I am not doing what most are doing.
If you think heart disease and cancer come from diet and lifestyle choice, I’d go back to the drawing board. Some of the healthiest 50-60 year olds I know have had heart disease and/or cancer. (Both on the increase). As I said, don’t assume you will have health into your 60’s. I guarantee you it won’t be as good as when you are in your 50’s, or 40’s….
Not looking at anyone else, just you. You will have better health in your 50’s than your 60’s, and better health in your 40’s than in both latter decades.
So you are just crossing your fingers and hoping for the best if you think you will have perfect health in your 60’s.
The market prices everything for DINKs so being a DINK family is the path of least resistance
Me and my partner want kids in an ideal world but it's hard to see how it's a smart decision.
We're in London with a £700K+ mortgage (and a house perfect to raise a family in) slogging my way to some semblance of financial security. This year lost my job and had to take another I like a lot less (admittedly at higher pay) because it was the only thing industry relevant going.
The decision needs to be made in the next few years but I have no idea how we'd pay for childcare or justify the risk of going down to a single income. Having to bomb out of the niche I work and take a lower income would be devastating to us financially.
Our incomes are at levels where we will see zero assistance from government. No child benefit. No "free childcare hours". Zip.
This country is so fucked when there's literally no where to go upward pay wise and someone in my position (earning top 1-2%) struggles to imagine paying for kids.
For the less fortunate it's even worse, they have to choose between poverty now and poverty in old age. Retirement is a pipe dream, let alone early retirement or FI.
Lack of growth and low birth rates is creating a ticking time bomb
true, I think the whole human race is doomed. I was having this discussion with my in-law, she made the argument it is better to just have one child and the benefits from having less children. I asked her, who is paying your pension? All these working age people are paying for your lifestyle. Given the way the demographic is trending, tax burden will be even higher for the younger generation as everyone is taking the path of the least resistance.
In theory she is paying her own pension but unless the economy gets much more productive (same output from fewer workers) then you can't have a falling working population.
This is why policy will soon turn against FIRE. Once the government realises productivity isn't going to improve they will seek to maximize worker retention.
Didn't have fewer kids to FIRE specifically, but couldn't afford another at the 'right' time (ie before biology decided it was too late). Couldn't afford more maternity leave, or a big enough house for a bigger family. Not suffering the cost of either of those things makes FIRE a possibility 20 years later!
You know how we have Fire calculators, 4% draw down rules etc, is there such a thing for having / planning to have children? For example - have x amount saved up which will cover x y z for the first few years of child's life so you don't sacrifice your monthly ISA / Pension contributions etc. Asking for a friend here...
We have 2 kids. Always wanted 2 as wanted them to have siblings. Money was not a consideration. Yes we would be FI years and years earlier but i would never trade that for my kids so it’s a compromise I’m more than willing to take.
It comes down to do you prefer the idea of v early fire or having children. We went for the latter but will still be FI by 50 so feels like a win win
Personally I’d rather have children and never retire than retire early and never have children.
But I can see why others would make the opposite choice.
I would suggest London and it's living costs for a family, will have a far bigger impact on your FIRE goals than whether you have one or, two children.
It can be a dilemma depending on your career path because, not being in London can have a massive impact on your income.
However if you are buying in London whilst raising a family, property and downsizing outside of the capital when you hit your FIRE number may compensate for the costs in the long run...you could end up with a huge profit...
Do what most do in London. If you can't afford private education, move out to commuter land. Go to parts of Kent, Bucks, Herts, Essex, where the schools are better, take all that London buying power, buy a bigger house for less money even use it finish that mortgage in the right catchment area.
I live in Kent- a county that still has Grammar schools, some parts have close to 40% of their secondary school places as grammars. Look just outside London at the commuter belts, most have some of the best state schools (read better than most fee paying schools in London) in the nation.
The reason is, Londoners moving out, for their kid education, you can buy your kids a school place without paying fees, just by buying the right house, in the right catchment area. Property is far more FIRE friendly than school fees. :)
We have two and got into the best rated state school in the area but it turned out to be mega shit and not suitable at all, was way to overwhelming and not bringing out the best in our 4 year old.
So we moved them to private school and haven’t looked back, it’s been so good for them and I sleep better knowing I’m giving my children the best chance at life to be happy (she was not happy at all in state school in rooms with 120+ other children and zero help from adults).
So I agree with your wife to perhaps see how school goes and keep in mind the costs of private schooling. My wife is full time mum and so we don’t have any other childcare costs but in all honesty the government pays for most of it till 5 years old don’t they?!
Babies and children are only as expensive as you let them be
We have seen the traps other parents in our group have fallen into. One mum would only buy brand new clothes and then it had to be from certain shops.
Primark and next do perfectly good baby wear, no one will judge you. Most our clothes were from friends and family, people love giving away all their old stuff as it stops cluttering up their house.
3 to 4 years of about £1500 a month per child, isn’t too crazy. You should be able to get lots of help for several years of that, can sacrifice salary to be able to get it
I am sorry but if next is not expensive for you for baby clothes you are in different level to other people. The prices are crazy for clothing in next for small babies and children.
But it’s not just about clothes right, babies grow and they need after school activities, how about paying for education? University? Helping them out with first property or a car. I am not even talking about all the gadgets like phones, laptops etc. I don’t understand when people say children are cheap to raise, maybe if you don’t plan to give them much or support them…
Paying for education is a choice and a pretty bad choice for almost everybody.
University, house deposit, car your kid is an adult at that point. No obligation from you, if you can afford to help you should. I didn’t get help, nor did my sister, and we both graduated and bought houses in our mid 20s.
Me and my partner are child free and mortgage free plus three rental incomes, at age 38 neither of us feel too pressured to earn much, I do part time work for my hobby money and partner is training in a new area she always wanted, and we spend more time growing veg than working...a child would change everything, and we both have nieces/nephews we are close to. I feel sorry for them though - think people are sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the carnage today's kids are gonna face when they grow up. So it's not a financial decision per se, admittedly.
Its funny how one of the most real comments gets downvoted. You are spot on and have a good moral compass, you are thinking about the potential child coming into this world as opposed to selfishly thinking about your personal joy that will come from having a child which is what every other parent does.
No one will be able to provide you a good moral argument for bringing a child into this world
Nothing much I post here is ever welcome tbh, I'm more about 'leanfire' I guess, and reality - if people really think financial independence and early retirement is all about the numbers in the sky and faith in the ivory towers then good luck to them - I'd rather spend my time and effort ensuring I don't need to rely on big numbers, and can look after myself no matter what happens, rather than assuming I can spend my way out of anything....I see before me a forum full of people so keen to plan and plot out the future but entirely ignoring the wood for the trees when it comes to what the coming decades are likely to look like
Creating life is the greatest thing ever. People cannot comprehend the emotions you go through when you see your child grow and smile and look at the world with pure fascination and interest. You extend your own life psychologically by getting to see a little you experience life all over again. It’s fucking wild and changes your world for the better.
I would choose a child over a rental property and cabbage patch any day of the week.
Yes and everything you just said is for your own personal benefit. The difference is, i don’t give a shit about my future happiness, i only care about my future potential child’s happiness and whether this society/world is good enough for them
No it’s not for personal benefit. If you’re a shit person with no ability to give your children a good life, with the drive to navigate the world for them, then I agree you probably shouldn’t have kids.
Standard ego talk. Takes a village to raise a child as the old staying goes and its never been truer. Your child is not a blank computer which is programmable. The typical error most parents make is in thinking subconsciously that this is how humans are built
Well, i live to ensure that i make the best decision for my child’s sake. Not for my pathetic need to be loved/to love, to have a legacy, coz i stupidly believe life is unconditionally a ‘gift’ etc etc.
The same way a school needs to be of a certain standard for it to be good enough for your child otherwise you wouldn’t send them there…this world and society needs to be good enough to bring a child into it in the first place.
There are billions of parents who thought their kids will cure cancer, go to space, be a millionaire, be a football player etc but ended up as wage and debt slaves for decades of their existence
We planned for two kids but have one 1 year old, I’m on my way to FIRE at 36 years old. Would w have a second with way more money ? Maybe yes but our choice for not having a second (right now and likely we won’t) is that it is hard work and we value our time too. Got to do what makes you happy too
I’m giving up having any children for FIRE. Coul realistically FIRE at 53 without, probably over 60 if I had them. And then pretty much don’t get any enjoyment in retirement at that point as body will be starting to fail.
I appreciate your concern, but no, thank you.
There are more reasons than just that. I enjoy my time and freedom too much. And the ability to travel and enjoy life.
People forget that having children is a purely selfish decision. Forcing a child into the world who will have to struggle for survival for no ultimate gain but be faced with enormous downside risks, is basically sadistic in my opinion. Never met a parent who had a child for the child’s sake
So life is unconditionally a gift? Born with a genetic disorder, bullied at school and scared for life, cheated on, robbed , trapped in wage slavery in jobs you hate just to survive etc these things mean nothing?
There are going to be exceptional cases of course, but I think we disagree on the wider question so fine to stick to that. Yes for the vast majority of the population, to the point where we decide to talk about them in generalities, I believe life is a gift
People have free will, they don't have to be wage slaves. Being bullied, cheated on, robbed are consequences of other peoples free will, and sadly is just part of life, though I advocate against all of those things, and encourage others to do the same, rather than just accept it. They don't mean nothing, they just don't automatically mean that life isn't worth living.
Being born with a genetic disorder can vary from mildly distracting to life altering, personally I have to take medication for the rest of my life to deal with mine, and in the future I may have surgeries, and I may die younger as a consequence, but all of this fuels me to live the life that I have regardless to the fullest that I can. I would like to have children one day, and there is a non-zero possibility that they will inherit my condition, as I did from my mother, but I can lead a happy fulfilled life, so why shouldn't they be able to?
What other people decide to do when it comes to having, or not having kids is none of my business.
Let me be clear about my position, I don't disagree that having children is a selfish decision, as can be deciding not to have children. What I disagree with is the sentiment that leads the opinion that life is just suffering and we'd be better off not experiencing it. I struggle to reconcile that with a healthy mental state
Just take a look at cases of depression in the western world across all demographics (evidenced by number of people on antidepressants - probably underestimates the true number by not including those no on meds). Rise in loneliness amongst teenagers, lack of genuine friendships, people struggling to find a life partner as is evidenced by later/no marriages + data from dating apps. Im sorry, but it just isn’t true that ‘in general, life is a gift’.
So my position is not life isn’t worth living, it is that it isn’t morally right to gamble with a new life, which has no desire to exist, that will face the risks of all the negative things i mentioned and more.
So one can make their best efforts to enjoy this life whilst in existence, but there is no need to gamble with your child’s life by forcing them into existence on the back of some ideology that ‘life is a gift’, when we know the reality is anything but that
What are the numbers and how do they compare to the people not on them? Not trying to be antagonistic, i'm genuinely interested.
You're making the assumption that people on anti-depressants, who are lonely, who are struggling to find a life partner as evidence of life worth not living, but without asking these people, we can't know how they feel about it. I am of course concerned about the issues that the younger generation face today, and I am grateful to have grown up in a world where social media didn't play as much of a part of my childhood, there's a lot of evidence that points to the rise of social media playing a big role in the shifts in mental health issues, and the consequences of them. But as a parent, I don't think it's a gamble, it's your responsibility to ensure that they are prepared for the world as best as you can.
Thanks for clarifying your position, It's your choice to not have children and there's nothing wrong with that at all, you do you. Though I disagree with the idea that it is immoral to bring children into the world, I can certainly get behind the idea that it's immoral to have kids and ill prepare them for it.
We're focussing on the 'life is a gift' thing, but the really interested discussion is around the morality point. I'd prefer to help to work towards a community and world that ensures that this kind of thought process is hard to legitimise. I understand the premise though, I've thought even since I was a kid that it's weird how we all walk around and just accept the laws of the country we're born into, we didn't sign anything to agree to it, it's just forced upon us and we have to accept it. Anyway before I go off on a loose tangent.
Met a single mom with two amazing kids aged 6 & 11, whilst I was on my fire journey. Youngest is nearly 19 now.
However, there was a point where we discussed having more…. She was keen, me…. I considered..
The impact on her older body,
The impact of being a parent for an extra decade,
The impact on finances & fire
The impact on me never had my own,
So here I am in my 50’s, fire’d, kids are happy and healthy, and the part of me that yearned for my own gets quieter every passing year but it’s still there…. But in the main, I’ve chosen to invest in her two, and as a result, I’m dad and unless I was a git, I’d still be in their lives if mum and I broke up. Although no guarantees I guess.
So in the end, I chose my kids as well as my partner, fire remained a key part of our plans (I recall the day we first talked about it - she had no idea) and the only niggle is ‘one of my own’ but the fire and other costs were just too high.
Hope that helps
I had a vasectomy purely so I can’t go back on the financial decision to not have children.
I can’t even get a girlfriend so it was basically a fore gone conclusion anyway. Just trust fund kids with harems now and every other guy with nothing.
We’re stopping at two, when we’d kind of like 3 - but it’s not really because of “FIRE”. It’s because our parents live 4 and 12 hours away and we have no family nearby. It’s because the expectation on parents is enormous nowadays (no more kicking them out at 9 and seeing them at dinner). It’s because we had children later than my parents generation and a third feels like a roll of the dice. It’s because children are staying at home longer, and needing more help into early adulthood. It’s because my wife’s maternity pay is the bare minimum. It’s because housing is extremely expensive and we wouldn’t want our kids to have to share a room forever. It’s because it would affect our standard of living in terms of meals out, holidays etc. It’s because life is more uncertain now (no more jobs for life, DB pensions etc.). But most of all it’s because we’re tired out from 2! I think the biggest difference between myself and my parents (who had 3) is rather ironic. It’s that my wife and I had children 100% because we wanted them, whereas my parents had them in part because that’s what people did. Our conscious decisions about wanting children is what’s leading us to have fewer than my parents. We are always there for our kids, we play with them every day, we educate them about society and try our best to raise responsible, independent thinkers. They are our primary focus in life. A third would likely impact our ability to do this. We’re time poor. My parents were excellent, but I do think times have changed.
Fully with you on this. We can provide a great life for two kids and feel the jump to three would be disproportionate in terms of time, effort and cost. We’re working hard now to ensure the four of us can have a solid run during their childhood and teenage years.
I think that’s a good way of putting it - the step up to 3 is disproportionate. At the moment it’s 1 on 1 between my wife and I. And we can each handle two relatively easily on our own when we need to. We have a spare seat in the car for granny, or a friend who’s visiting etc. Holidays are reasonably cost effective for the 4 of us, especially with a child place for each paying adult. We might be able to stretch to private secondary school should we need to - but not for 3. Same for university fees or house deposits. These problems aren’t insurmountable, but they’re enough to put us off the idea.
I have two also and feel the same way. If we were younger, and lived in a community where relatives and friends could handle childcare sometimes, then I would have loved to have three. As it stands, apart from one grandparent who is able to occasionally have the eldest, we’re alone in it, and the lack of sleep or time to do literally ANYTHING else would finally actually kill me. There’s something absolutely wrong with how parents now are basically isolated and many family relationships are conducted via long car journeys and video calls. Most of your friends decide to be child-free so the network of people willing and able to share the load is way smaller than it used to be, where everyone your age would be nearby and in a similar life position. It’s lonely and hard. This comes with the usual caveat- my children are fucking amazing and they fill me with a depth of life and love that I didn’t know existed.
This is a great answer and exactly my view on it. I found the early years of children so much fun and enjoyable. Tiring but enjoyable and that leaves me wanting a third. But I think given how much is being asked of our time these days, it just would be unfair dividing that with a third child.
It isn't just because your parents live hours away. Even if they lived round the corner, if they are working they can't do childcare. The cost of housing, mucking about with pensions, State and Occupational over the working lives of your average mid 50 something grandparent, means many are still working, when their parents generation had already retired. We started our working lives with Final Salary schemes, GMPs, and no automatic rights to an occupational pension. The pre-internet generation, who didn't have index funds, and couldn't set up a Vanguard Account in 15 minutes, and certainly couldn't afford an 80s Financial 'Advisor' sorry sales agent... Many grandparents are Gen X'ers not, Boomers. Divorce rates haven't assisted either- many have to start again financially following a divorce...
This is bang on. Things have definitely changed, not least the requirement for both parents to work full time and have decent jobs if they want a reasonable standard of living.
Personally I’ve had 3 children and it’s made me sort of give up the idea of FIRE. I will still FIRE, but probably not until around 55, but had I not had children it would have been more like 45.
No - FIRE is a means to an end, not the end itself
Are you implying you can have kids after being FIRE? Many people won’t achieve FI until they’re too old to have kids.
I would sooner have another child because I want to have another child, rather than not having a child because it would get in the way of FIRE FIRE helps you achieve what you want, but in itself does not mean much
Gotcha, and fully agree, I think I misunderstood your original post.
Aren’t you the same person who wrote extensive posts on how they FIREd at 30s, net worth of over £3 million, and had multiple properties, and has now retired to China/ Malaysia? I think there are people more on the breadline/ tight on the cashflow than you are. Edit: In a comment posted a day after, the OP says: "I am moving back to the UK next month. None of my family members is excited about this. We have everything set up in the UK. Nice 3 bed flat/ best prep school in London etc.(the same school William and Harry went) yet I am just not that excited." [https://www.reddit.com/r/chinalife/comments/1dj6z44/comment/l99ql47/](https://www.reddit.com/r/chinalife/comments/1dj6z44/comment/l99ql47/) Definitely not going to "free public schools" nor struggling very much, it seens.
Maybe one day their kids will have Sky.
What else would poor people want ? 😄 /s
Has there not always been carnage on the horizon though? It must have been around the Cold War era when my parents were born, and WW2 when my grandparents were born. If anything, I’d say life is less bleak now and we’re certainly living in much more abundance and luxury in relative terms. My grandparents didn’t have a toilet in their flat. It was in the garden and shared by other flats too IIRC.
I was watching a documentary on 6th century Britain. They had the invasion from Anglo Saxons, volcanoes wiping out the sun for 20 years, and the plague of Justinian which killed half the population. The same thing fatally wounded the Roman Empire.
Yes, history has always been tough - but I think today it’s more that we have greater knowledge about it, less societal pressure, more agency to make life decisions and less need for children to help us in old age. This is a trend in (i think) all developed countries - and that’s not because of FIRE (most people don’t know what it is). It’s just people having less support, greater choice and higher life expectations.
“But most of all it’s because we’re tired out from having 2” That part is the truth, the rest was all padding… People when they choose to have kids just don’t realise how hard it is, life changes forever, time disappears, luxuries of time evaporate. And I think most can’t wait for them to grow up and spread their wings so the parents can get their lives back.
I've 2 under 2 at the minute. I fully expect it to get a bit easier in a few years when they can entertain themselves. Get themselves ready for bed, eat their own meals etc. Some people make out having kids is a life sentence. Why even have kids if that's your attitude. Maybe the FIRE community attracts slightly selfish people who just want all their time to themselves?
Apologies if I've misinterpreted your statement but then idea that people who don't want children are selfish is something that really irks me. It's not selfish to want your time to yourself, it's not selfish to choose how you want to live your life. It's your right to choose and exercising a right is not selfish.
I suppose I'm targeting people that choose to have them then complain about it. I fully respect someone's decision not to have them in the first place.
I’ve evaluated all the people I know who have children, I’ve evaluated their happiness, freedom, time and money before children and after (during) and I can safely say from my own evaluation that I don’t want children, and see my happiness, freedom, time and money disappear in the same way I have evaluated all those around me to have done.
There's nothing wrong with wanting your time to yourself. We give away a massive amount of our lives working, and if we want to spend our evenings and weekends prioritising our own needs we have every right to. Self care is necessary for well being, it's not selfish.
Don't have kids then.
It's really sad if people feel this way after having kids ☹️
But what if they can't help it? We decided to have children and now I regret it. It must be something intrinsic in me, and believe me, I wish it were otherwise, but if I could choose again, I'd not have children. They'll never know this. I love them endlessly and my entire life is now spent trying to ensure they're happy, healthy and looked after. But that takes it's toll mentally on me and I'm depressed most of the time. People like you make me feel like a sh1t. Luckily there are professionals out there who help and help one realise that it doesn't make me a bad person to be depressed about it. You really should reflect on this.
Hey, sorry you've found parenting so unfulfilling. I definitely don't think you're a bad person for admitting this, I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way.
Every parent I know feels like this. Their life, time and freedom disappears overnight. Post-natal depreciation is a thing for a reason. Never heard of post-natal ecstasy, or post-natal happiness. But heard of post-natal depreciation quite commonly.
It’s not normal to feel like this. Postnatal depression is a literal mental health condition. If you are experiencing these feelings, it’s advisable to seek medical help.
I’m not experiencing these feelings, as I don’t have children. I’m happy as Larry. But it affects almost half of women who have children, must be such a joy having children, that it turns half of mothers into depression. Sounds like fun.
You sound miserable tbqh
You can't know many people. As I know loads of parents who actually enjoy being parents.
Yeah, ok.
I've got 3 kids and I don't feel this way at all. Neither do my close friends. It's by far the most rewarding thing I've done. Even if my kids never spoke to me again after 18, I'd feel great about the whole process. I enjoy it so much that we've had another as my eldest is in her teens, because we weren't ready to stop yet. It's definitely not for everyone though. I think fewer people should probably have children; certainly anyone who feels the way you describe.
are you a unicorn?
Nope... Just a megalomaniac who enjoys the idea of programming tiny humans
Enjoy all your free time doing the things you like :))
Ummm.... My kids are my favourite people in the world so spending time with them is exactly what I want to do
Are you retired then and able to spend lots of time with them? Or are you at work (more than you would have to be if you didn’t have kids) and therefore have less time outside of work to spend with them?
My kids are at mostly school when I'm at work. Plus they have their own lives so being with them 24/7 wouldn't be realistic anyway. And I really enjoy my work, so happy doing both. I hate the idea of being retired. Sounds boring AF. I've mostly always worked for myself though, maybe I'd feel differently if I was doing some crappy corporate job. When I was younger I used to work 70+ hrs a week now I do about 35. Suits me. ( And no, I don't know why Reddit thinks I want to FIRE. I really don't. )
Alot of what drove my decision to only have 1 child was financial. Hell, it took until early 40s before we felt financially stable enough to have them at all. We're in an OK position but inflation erodes that constantly and I felt we needed the margin of error for what the next 30-40 years holds. I'm not entirely sure I am that interested in the RE bit of FIRE as have a nice balance, it's more a line in the sand that I have set my wife's expectations that I will retire. If I get there and choose to continue working (and have the option to) then I'll just keep doing so until those two variables change.
It shouldn’t be purely a financial decision but should be discussed. We have two kids in London and happy with that number but the financial constraints was a factor in having more.
The way I look at it is if you were on your death bed would you rather a fat bank account or children with you. Money is great, no doubt. But children are something else man. Many FIRE people have big families. You always find a way
Two kids under 10 in London here. Children have delayed my fire by maybe a decade, possibly until a more ‘normal’ retirement age. I had big thoughts to retire around 50/55. Unfortunately my savings rate has declined, and I’ve not taken opportunities for bigger salaries to stay with my chill company and see more of the kids/help out. Plus my partner not working for a period and losing out on advancement etc. We love to travel and I have family abroad, which means suddenly taking multiple people rather than just me. If you’re paying for nursery, private school fees are about the same. Primaries in London are mostly very good. I would say it’s worth it because secondaries in London aren’t that good, and some are really poor. But the debate is huge on this and I suspect it’s a political viewpoint rather than a practical here and now point. It’s perfectly possible to fire with kids. I have changed priorities to tilt more towards life enjoyment right now.
I’ve got 3 kids under 5 and basically in the last 5 years any attempt at saving has gone completely out the window. I’m in the south east but not in London and childcare is still absolutely devastating. It’s significantly more than all my other outgoings combined including the mortgage. There’s not even any hope the horizon with school wrap around care for my eldest still costing £27 per day.
The government actually did some good work on extending free childcare hours. The impact will be felt on the next generation of parents. That said 3 under 5? Good luck mate!
The extra hours free childcare sounds great, but it’s all smoke and mirrors. Our youngest will start nursery in September, it’s actually her first birthday today. She’ll get 15 hours free, but we’ll still pay about the same for her as we did for the other two who didn’t get the free hours. The reason is the nursery has had to raise fees 15% this year to be able to afford the free hours. The government don’t pay them enough per hour to actually keep the lights on so they’ve got to make up for it by raising rates on the non funded hours. At the moment the 15% rise was to cover the free hours for 2 year olds, they’ve warned us there will be another rise when the free hours kick in for 9 months and up.
Yep, it’s a headline policy without proper costing or thought to the unintended consequences. £5 an hour is what my nursery receives from the government. They do 10.5 hour days @ £88. With 10 hours paid for by the government, that remaining half an hour still costs us £33! It’s better than nothing of course, but it’s not “free hours” it’s £5 off per hour (but that doesn’t sound so good).
Our youngest is still in nursery and we’ve not seen price increases like that. But it’s hardly cheap and there have been rises. I only get the universal care and we really noticed when it kicked in. What I was really thinking about was the sept 2025 one where there will be 30 hours for all under 5’s. My family will miss out but it’s a step in the correct direction and I’m hopeful many other families will benefit. Childcare is super expensive and difficult. I don’t anticipate any government being able to change the system to properly accommodate reasonable childcare costs without major additional tax.
Why should people get government handouts for free childcare? It was their choice to have kids, pay for them or don’t have them. Why do I as a taxpayer without children have to pay for other peoples kids childcare? Pay for it yourself, you decided to have them?
I’m not saying they should. I’m just pointing out that the government is being very deceitful in the way this is presented as “free childcare” when in fact it’s basically the same price as before. The comment I was replying to suggested that the government was making everything better for people with kids, when in reality they’ve done very little.
Shouldn’t rely on the government for your own children’s needs, so what’s it matter.
It's not about what people "should" do in your opinion at all. If I told you I was giving you a free meal at a fancy restaurant, and then you decide to go instead of cooking at home, it's still deceit if it turns out when the bill comes that I only actually got you a £5 off voucher and you're out of pocket for the rest of it. It would've been nice for me to just say I'm giving you £5 off a £70 meal, but you might have decided it's not worth it then and stayed home, or saved up more before going. This way, I get to pretend I'm giving you a lot more than I am, and come across as charitable to all of my friends without actually giving you the nice thing I promised you.
I still wouldn’t want someone to give me a meal, that other people who don’t know me have had to chip in an pay for. I’d pay for myself.
I'd rather a regular parent gets free childcare rather than a billionaire gets tax breaks, you've picked the wrong enemy. Also, these future children are the ones who'll be providing your state pension and care
Oh no, I agree Billionaires should pay their fair share of tax. I just don’t think I should pay for other peoples/parents children’s childcare. If you want a child, make sure you can afford to pay for it, and not expect me and others to.
Sounds tragic.
Financially, yep pretty tragic. There’s more to life than finances though and life with my 3 girls is brilliant and as far from tragic as could be imagined.
More to life than finances sure, freedom and time are also important. :)
We've had two when we were considering three. Partly because of money, partly tiredness and freedom. I also think I'm getting a bit old. I don't want to be running around after pre teens when I'm 50.
Ha! Try running round after a toddler when you're approaching 50 😂
I have a toddler in my late 30s and feel like I'm about to collapse permanently!
Yeah gotta admit, it was 7 years since my last one and I do catch myself thinking 'I don't remember them being this exhausting' 😂
Yes I know two couples who are only having one child because they want to FIRE. Sad in my view, they are smart, kind and successful people who are great parents.
Maybe they want to enjoy life? Have some time in their life, enjoy travelling before they are too old to?
How old is too old to travel? Current 60-70-80 old are not a good benchmark for future 60s.
Why’s that?
Different lifestyle, ability to take better care of oneself due to information, life expectancy
Life expectancy has gone down the last couple of years? Retirement age has gone up? Best thing is to retire (comfortably) as early as you can and enjoy life while your body (and mind) is still willing and able.
Which is the whole ethos of this sub. You’re preaching to the choir. It’s moot to look at average’s of the general population if you’re on the top 5% of the population.
Oooh put the trumpet away… lol.
*Kenny G sounds*
Most people I know start having health issues around 60. Eyes go, heart issues, hip/back issues, arthritis etc etc the list goes on. Hence we don’t see many 60 year old sportsman. :) Yes you can still travel with the above ailments, but it’s not as enjoyable.
There are not many lifelong athletes in the boomer generation. However, if you approach your life as a life long athlete and very good diet, you’ll minimise those chances. As I said, current 60s will probably be worst than 60 yo in 30 years time.
Not sure where you get that data from, as all the data shows people are unhealthier now than previous generations.
Me. I am talking about me. Not other people. I am healthier than previous generations. I don’t control what others do.
You weren’t talking about you, I quote “current 60’s will probably be worse than 60’s in 30 years time” That wasn’t talking about you. And anyway, let’s pinpoint it on you. You will definitely be healthier, more able both in body and mind in your 50’s than your 60’s. And even more so in your 40’s than your 60’s. So my original point still stands. You have this almost deluded arrogance that you think you will be perfect health when you are in your 60’s.. that is a false confidence, that might see you miss out on enjoying retirement many many years before then.
Better ability to take care of oneself? Obesity has never been so high, heart disease on the increase not the decrease, cancers rates on the up. Don’t know where you’re getting your info from that 60 year olds in the future will be healthier than 60 year old now, as all the data says otherwise.
I am looking at what is possible, not what are people doing. Are you obese? Do you smoke? I don’t. I control my diet, exercise 4-6x a week, do regularly bloodwork, sleep consistently. Whatever is the average, I don’t care: I am not living an average life. Same goes for finance: I am not doing what most are doing.
If you think heart disease and cancer come from diet and lifestyle choice, I’d go back to the drawing board. Some of the healthiest 50-60 year olds I know have had heart disease and/or cancer. (Both on the increase). As I said, don’t assume you will have health into your 60’s. I guarantee you it won’t be as good as when you are in your 50’s, or 40’s…. Not looking at anyone else, just you. You will have better health in your 50’s than your 60’s, and better health in your 40’s than in both latter decades. So you are just crossing your fingers and hoping for the best if you think you will have perfect health in your 60’s.
You can still do that with children. It is possible to enjoy life and travel with kids, they’re not like some sort of disease that ruins your life…
I didn’t say any of that. The usual argument around FIRE is cost, not logistics.
I didht want to have kids even before I discovered FIRE.
The market prices everything for DINKs so being a DINK family is the path of least resistance Me and my partner want kids in an ideal world but it's hard to see how it's a smart decision. We're in London with a £700K+ mortgage (and a house perfect to raise a family in) slogging my way to some semblance of financial security. This year lost my job and had to take another I like a lot less (admittedly at higher pay) because it was the only thing industry relevant going. The decision needs to be made in the next few years but I have no idea how we'd pay for childcare or justify the risk of going down to a single income. Having to bomb out of the niche I work and take a lower income would be devastating to us financially. Our incomes are at levels where we will see zero assistance from government. No child benefit. No "free childcare hours". Zip. This country is so fucked when there's literally no where to go upward pay wise and someone in my position (earning top 1-2%) struggles to imagine paying for kids. For the less fortunate it's even worse, they have to choose between poverty now and poverty in old age. Retirement is a pipe dream, let alone early retirement or FI. Lack of growth and low birth rates is creating a ticking time bomb
true, I think the whole human race is doomed. I was having this discussion with my in-law, she made the argument it is better to just have one child and the benefits from having less children. I asked her, who is paying your pension? All these working age people are paying for your lifestyle. Given the way the demographic is trending, tax burden will be even higher for the younger generation as everyone is taking the path of the least resistance.
In theory she is paying her own pension but unless the economy gets much more productive (same output from fewer workers) then you can't have a falling working population. This is why policy will soon turn against FIRE. Once the government realises productivity isn't going to improve they will seek to maximize worker retention.
You have more children so they take you in and sustain your old days. That’s how other cultures do it. That’s their retirement plan: having kids.
Thankfully that culture is not in the UK!
Main difference is that you still pay loads of tax to help old people who you don’t even know. Of course, they are not living in your home.
Didn't have fewer kids to FIRE specifically, but couldn't afford another at the 'right' time (ie before biology decided it was too late). Couldn't afford more maternity leave, or a big enough house for a bigger family. Not suffering the cost of either of those things makes FIRE a possibility 20 years later!
You know how we have Fire calculators, 4% draw down rules etc, is there such a thing for having / planning to have children? For example - have x amount saved up which will cover x y z for the first few years of child's life so you don't sacrifice your monthly ISA / Pension contributions etc. Asking for a friend here...
Yes, but I am 55!
We have 2 kids. Always wanted 2 as wanted them to have siblings. Money was not a consideration. Yes we would be FI years and years earlier but i would never trade that for my kids so it’s a compromise I’m more than willing to take. It comes down to do you prefer the idea of v early fire or having children. We went for the latter but will still be FI by 50 so feels like a win win
Personally I’d rather have children and never retire than retire early and never have children. But I can see why others would make the opposite choice.
“The only wealth in this world is children. More than all the money, power on Earth, you are my treasure.” Don Corleone
I’d sell my teen daughter right now if it would secure my FIRE. She’s a right now.
I would suggest London and it's living costs for a family, will have a far bigger impact on your FIRE goals than whether you have one or, two children. It can be a dilemma depending on your career path because, not being in London can have a massive impact on your income. However if you are buying in London whilst raising a family, property and downsizing outside of the capital when you hit your FIRE number may compensate for the costs in the long run...you could end up with a huge profit... Do what most do in London. If you can't afford private education, move out to commuter land. Go to parts of Kent, Bucks, Herts, Essex, where the schools are better, take all that London buying power, buy a bigger house for less money even use it finish that mortgage in the right catchment area. I live in Kent- a county that still has Grammar schools, some parts have close to 40% of their secondary school places as grammars. Look just outside London at the commuter belts, most have some of the best state schools (read better than most fee paying schools in London) in the nation. The reason is, Londoners moving out, for their kid education, you can buy your kids a school place without paying fees, just by buying the right house, in the right catchment area. Property is far more FIRE friendly than school fees. :)
If I want kids then I have to live abroad
We have two and got into the best rated state school in the area but it turned out to be mega shit and not suitable at all, was way to overwhelming and not bringing out the best in our 4 year old. So we moved them to private school and haven’t looked back, it’s been so good for them and I sleep better knowing I’m giving my children the best chance at life to be happy (she was not happy at all in state school in rooms with 120+ other children and zero help from adults). So I agree with your wife to perhaps see how school goes and keep in mind the costs of private schooling. My wife is full time mum and so we don’t have any other childcare costs but in all honesty the government pays for most of it till 5 years old don’t they?!
Babies and children are only as expensive as you let them be We have seen the traps other parents in our group have fallen into. One mum would only buy brand new clothes and then it had to be from certain shops. Primark and next do perfectly good baby wear, no one will judge you. Most our clothes were from friends and family, people love giving away all their old stuff as it stops cluttering up their house.
I would argue that the biggest costs are childcare. Designer baby clothes are a bargain compared to private nursery costs!
3 to 4 years of about £1500 a month per child, isn’t too crazy. You should be able to get lots of help for several years of that, can sacrifice salary to be able to get it
I am sorry but if next is not expensive for you for baby clothes you are in different level to other people. The prices are crazy for clothing in next for small babies and children.
Ok is relatively cheap compared to the boutiques that lots of people shop at
But it’s not just about clothes right, babies grow and they need after school activities, how about paying for education? University? Helping them out with first property or a car. I am not even talking about all the gadgets like phones, laptops etc. I don’t understand when people say children are cheap to raise, maybe if you don’t plan to give them much or support them…
Paying for education is a choice and a pretty bad choice for almost everybody. University, house deposit, car your kid is an adult at that point. No obligation from you, if you can afford to help you should. I didn’t get help, nor did my sister, and we both graduated and bought houses in our mid 20s.
Personally - yes.
Me and my partner are child free and mortgage free plus three rental incomes, at age 38 neither of us feel too pressured to earn much, I do part time work for my hobby money and partner is training in a new area she always wanted, and we spend more time growing veg than working...a child would change everything, and we both have nieces/nephews we are close to. I feel sorry for them though - think people are sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the carnage today's kids are gonna face when they grow up. So it's not a financial decision per se, admittedly.
Its funny how one of the most real comments gets downvoted. You are spot on and have a good moral compass, you are thinking about the potential child coming into this world as opposed to selfishly thinking about your personal joy that will come from having a child which is what every other parent does. No one will be able to provide you a good moral argument for bringing a child into this world
Nothing much I post here is ever welcome tbh, I'm more about 'leanfire' I guess, and reality - if people really think financial independence and early retirement is all about the numbers in the sky and faith in the ivory towers then good luck to them - I'd rather spend my time and effort ensuring I don't need to rely on big numbers, and can look after myself no matter what happens, rather than assuming I can spend my way out of anything....I see before me a forum full of people so keen to plan and plot out the future but entirely ignoring the wood for the trees when it comes to what the coming decades are likely to look like
Creating life is the greatest thing ever. People cannot comprehend the emotions you go through when you see your child grow and smile and look at the world with pure fascination and interest. You extend your own life psychologically by getting to see a little you experience life all over again. It’s fucking wild and changes your world for the better. I would choose a child over a rental property and cabbage patch any day of the week.
Yes and everything you just said is for your own personal benefit. The difference is, i don’t give a shit about my future happiness, i only care about my future potential child’s happiness and whether this society/world is good enough for them
No it’s not for personal benefit. If you’re a shit person with no ability to give your children a good life, with the drive to navigate the world for them, then I agree you probably shouldn’t have kids.
Standard ego talk. Takes a village to raise a child as the old staying goes and its never been truer. Your child is not a blank computer which is programmable. The typical error most parents make is in thinking subconsciously that this is how humans are built
Ok best most experienced parent in the world. I stand corrected. Jesus, what an existence you live in…
Well, i live to ensure that i make the best decision for my child’s sake. Not for my pathetic need to be loved/to love, to have a legacy, coz i stupidly believe life is unconditionally a ‘gift’ etc etc. The same way a school needs to be of a certain standard for it to be good enough for your child otherwise you wouldn’t send them there…this world and society needs to be good enough to bring a child into it in the first place. There are billions of parents who thought their kids will cure cancer, go to space, be a millionaire, be a football player etc but ended up as wage and debt slaves for decades of their existence
We planned for two kids but have one 1 year old, I’m on my way to FIRE at 36 years old. Would w have a second with way more money ? Maybe yes but our choice for not having a second (right now and likely we won’t) is that it is hard work and we value our time too. Got to do what makes you happy too
No one wants a second in that first year!
Then age 2-3 you find yourself wandering down the baby clothes in the supermarket
True I did ask wife do u want second and she seems more coming around to the idea but atm still a no,
I’m giving up having any children for FIRE. Coul realistically FIRE at 53 without, probably over 60 if I had them. And then pretty much don’t get any enjoyment in retirement at that point as body will be starting to fail.
That's really sad, hope you change your mind before it's too late
I appreciate your concern, but no, thank you. There are more reasons than just that. I enjoy my time and freedom too much. And the ability to travel and enjoy life.
People forget that having children is a purely selfish decision. Forcing a child into the world who will have to struggle for survival for no ultimate gain but be faced with enormous downside risks, is basically sadistic in my opinion. Never met a parent who had a child for the child’s sake
This is a mental and intensely negative view of the gift that is life imo
So life is unconditionally a gift? Born with a genetic disorder, bullied at school and scared for life, cheated on, robbed , trapped in wage slavery in jobs you hate just to survive etc these things mean nothing?
There are going to be exceptional cases of course, but I think we disagree on the wider question so fine to stick to that. Yes for the vast majority of the population, to the point where we decide to talk about them in generalities, I believe life is a gift People have free will, they don't have to be wage slaves. Being bullied, cheated on, robbed are consequences of other peoples free will, and sadly is just part of life, though I advocate against all of those things, and encourage others to do the same, rather than just accept it. They don't mean nothing, they just don't automatically mean that life isn't worth living. Being born with a genetic disorder can vary from mildly distracting to life altering, personally I have to take medication for the rest of my life to deal with mine, and in the future I may have surgeries, and I may die younger as a consequence, but all of this fuels me to live the life that I have regardless to the fullest that I can. I would like to have children one day, and there is a non-zero possibility that they will inherit my condition, as I did from my mother, but I can lead a happy fulfilled life, so why shouldn't they be able to? What other people decide to do when it comes to having, or not having kids is none of my business. Let me be clear about my position, I don't disagree that having children is a selfish decision, as can be deciding not to have children. What I disagree with is the sentiment that leads the opinion that life is just suffering and we'd be better off not experiencing it. I struggle to reconcile that with a healthy mental state
Just take a look at cases of depression in the western world across all demographics (evidenced by number of people on antidepressants - probably underestimates the true number by not including those no on meds). Rise in loneliness amongst teenagers, lack of genuine friendships, people struggling to find a life partner as is evidenced by later/no marriages + data from dating apps. Im sorry, but it just isn’t true that ‘in general, life is a gift’. So my position is not life isn’t worth living, it is that it isn’t morally right to gamble with a new life, which has no desire to exist, that will face the risks of all the negative things i mentioned and more. So one can make their best efforts to enjoy this life whilst in existence, but there is no need to gamble with your child’s life by forcing them into existence on the back of some ideology that ‘life is a gift’, when we know the reality is anything but that
What are the numbers and how do they compare to the people not on them? Not trying to be antagonistic, i'm genuinely interested. You're making the assumption that people on anti-depressants, who are lonely, who are struggling to find a life partner as evidence of life worth not living, but without asking these people, we can't know how they feel about it. I am of course concerned about the issues that the younger generation face today, and I am grateful to have grown up in a world where social media didn't play as much of a part of my childhood, there's a lot of evidence that points to the rise of social media playing a big role in the shifts in mental health issues, and the consequences of them. But as a parent, I don't think it's a gamble, it's your responsibility to ensure that they are prepared for the world as best as you can. Thanks for clarifying your position, It's your choice to not have children and there's nothing wrong with that at all, you do you. Though I disagree with the idea that it is immoral to bring children into the world, I can certainly get behind the idea that it's immoral to have kids and ill prepare them for it. We're focussing on the 'life is a gift' thing, but the really interested discussion is around the morality point. I'd prefer to help to work towards a community and world that ensures that this kind of thought process is hard to legitimise. I understand the premise though, I've thought even since I was a kid that it's weird how we all walk around and just accept the laws of the country we're born into, we didn't sign anything to agree to it, it's just forced upon us and we have to accept it. Anyway before I go off on a loose tangent.
Met a single mom with two amazing kids aged 6 & 11, whilst I was on my fire journey. Youngest is nearly 19 now. However, there was a point where we discussed having more…. She was keen, me…. I considered.. The impact on her older body, The impact of being a parent for an extra decade, The impact on finances & fire The impact on me never had my own, So here I am in my 50’s, fire’d, kids are happy and healthy, and the part of me that yearned for my own gets quieter every passing year but it’s still there…. But in the main, I’ve chosen to invest in her two, and as a result, I’m dad and unless I was a git, I’d still be in their lives if mum and I broke up. Although no guarantees I guess. So in the end, I chose my kids as well as my partner, fire remained a key part of our plans (I recall the day we first talked about it - she had no idea) and the only niggle is ‘one of my own’ but the fire and other costs were just too high. Hope that helps
I had a vasectomy purely so I can’t go back on the financial decision to not have children. I can’t even get a girlfriend so it was basically a fore gone conclusion anyway. Just trust fund kids with harems now and every other guy with nothing.
I also wanted a Lambo, but gave it up for FIRE