No Kids - No Debt - No Regret

[TheMastersNemesis]

Did not have kids. Did not want any. Because of that was able to retire early and live fairly well. I do not feel I did not miss that much. People who want kids that is fine it is a personal decision.

For me when I look around I see a lot of people who have good and successful children. I also see friends and people who had kids with divorces, pregnancies, and all kinds of other troubles. The parents still have kids at home and many are even raising their grandchildren. Many seniors are going broke because they will do anything for their children which is what they should do.

I saw this economy coming when Reagan won and my wife and I were not making enough money at the time to think about kids. We barely could afford a house much less child care and everything else. It took years to be in a situation to have a decent pension. I bought my pension out and left because Reagan killed our agency and I had few years left to secure anything.

Had I had children I would have never been able to retire. And I would not be able to provide for them in a way I would have wanted.

Thanks to the GOP the economy and job market is a mess. There is NO job security any more. And there is no secure future for the children or their parents because the new corporate CEO is busy stealing all the money, pensions, and anything else that is not tied down. Our corporate CEO's are nothing but entitled thieves stealing people's time and lives.

Now the GOP wants to scuttle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and everything else and give it to the Kochs, the Petersons, the Coors, et al. Yet I see no real outrage where people are challenging these crooks. All I see is division and diversion.

When I talk to an under 30 something I wonder what they are going to do when they are my age. Something has to change
and big business has to be challenged because the new business class does not care about this country.

ADDENDUM - The problem is that the "global economy" mantra is nothing more than a way to find cheap labor no matter where it is. It started with Reagan and a cadre of business leaders who made a deliberate decision to scuttle this country and sell it off piece by piece to the lowest bidder. And they essentially sold us out to the Chinese communists and built their economy and NOT ours over 30 years. The GOP has been complicit in this endeavor as have been the Chamber of Commerce.

Reagan was really a devil and he should be in hell.

[NMDemDist2]

1. +1

I haven't retired yet, but am close.

no kids, no debts and no regrets

[madokie]

2. You can bet if there is a hell reagan is there

[seabeyond]

3. i am glad you are happy with your choices. i feel so blessed to have experienced life with my two

boys. they have not only enhanced my life so, but taught me so many wonderful things i would not have gotten to experience.

it is good when we are happy in our personal choices.

[femmocrat]

44. Same here.

And now that I have a grandchild, I am overjoyed to peek into the future. Every sacrifice we made to raise two wonderful sons was well worth it. We have been richly blessed. It was the right decision for our family.

I'm glad that you have found fulfillment in your choices as well.

[kelliekat44]

71. 4 children, 3 grands, plenty of debt, retired, no regrets. To love and be loved...a gift. nt

[WinkyDink]

169. I feel loved by my husband. DNW children (or pets. Not the caretaker type.).

[krakfiend]

126. 3 kids, plenty of debt and a small regret

Wished I listened and tried harder when I was younger. Great kids, great wife, even with all the typical problems every family has. Money, school, job, republican neighbors.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. we have two kids and I had no idea it would cost this much to raise two kids

I of course would not change having kids. I tell my kids all the time, my favorite part of being a parent is seeing who they will turn out to be. Watching them develop into individuals with their own thoughts, opinions, fears, dreams, and talents is something that makes me happy and brings a smile to my face everyday. It is much more difficult than I ever imagined though. Keeping them in supposedly good schools has meant living in expensive neighborhoods that we could barely afford. My son has autism. We have never been able to afford behavioral treatment for him. He gets all of his therapy through the school district which I am grateful for but am also angry at because although the therapy has been great for him he is failing academically. The public school systems are not equipped to handle educating special education children. The middle class is disappearing and for those of us trying to feed, clothe, and educate our children it is getting harder and harder every day. I think we have been chipped away at for decades and we were not paying attention, but I think the financial crisis of '08 has opened some people's eyes. The country has woken up to the inequalities and are demanding a fair chance to feed and educate themselves. Things happen in cycles. You learn that in history class. The rich hoard the wealth until the people revolt and take the money back. For a while things are okay again. And then inevitably the rich begin hoarding the wealth all over again. It's encouraging and discouraging all at the same time. I believe we will fight to regain some fairness and balance. The question is how long will it last until the cycle begins all over again.

[spooky3]

24. The sad thing is that middle class people should not have to make the choice between having

a child and being able to retire at a reasonable age.

[HughBeaumont]

28. Exactly. Our parents and grandparents never had to make that decision.

Then came Reagan and Regan. The End.

[AldoLeopold]

127. Perhaps its for the best

There are too many people on this planet.

[spooky3]

134. If that is true, a failure to provide adequate pay and benefits for deserving work should not be

the determining factor.

We should instead as a society directly address the question of whether we should limit population growth and if so, which methods should be considered ethical and appropriate.

[AldoLeopold]

135. Absolutely Agreed

But in my occupation and experience, I'll take whatever I can get.

[JDPriestly]

58. I wonder where the autistic and mentally disabled children were when I was growing up in the 1940s a

1950s.

I suspect that they were placed in mental institutions. In that respect, we have come along way although we have a long way to go yet.

Learning more about the brain and how it works is key to being able to help mentally and socially disabled children.

[liberal_at_heart]

77. The ADA helped a lot

but the funding to help disabled people is not there.

[CountAllVotes]

85. children like this

They were locked up in mental institutions for the most part. Then came Ronnie and he let them out here in Calif. This also included special educational funding for such children like this.

The cost to help and raise such children fell on the parents which left the rest of the family alone and abandoned as there is only so much a family can afford if they are indeed working class.

Sad reality it was and still is IMO.

And people wonder why you want no kids? How about growing up in an environment like this? Talk about laying the pathway for a total chaotic dysfunctional household, you've got it.

What I saw was enough to make anyone NEVER want any children, ever. Sad isn't it?

Has it improved? I really do not believe it has improved much if any and the ADA is a pile of steaming B.S. IMO.

[a11ig8r]

93. There weren't as many back then.

With every psychologists diagnosing a kid who is a little different with massive new types of anxiety and pumping them up full of drugs, it's created a new industry for big pharma. It's all about the Benjamins. Anxiety disorders are really a first world problem.

[xtraxritical]

100. Exactly, it's another medicare scam for doctors preying on hysterical young mothers.

[Squinch]

152. Simply not true. It's a real condition, and it is exploding in frequency. It's cruel to suggest

that a mother who believes in her child's autism diagnosis is being hysterical. That's a pretty irresponsible post.

[liberal_at_heart]

116. I'm sick of this crap

My son has autism. And no I don't give him any pychotropic drugs. I'm a big believer in behavioral therapy for autism. I am however not totally against medications as some people are. Mood stabalizers saved my husband's life and I know several people myself included who antidepressants have helped. I have had an allergic reaction to a medication my doctor gave me for my excessive daytime sleepiness so I don't take that medication anymore. If a medication is not right for a person they shouldn't take it. If they experience side affects they should contact the doctor immediately and if the symptoms are life threatening they should go to the ER. It is obvious that drug companies are out for profit. I wish we could change that. I do not think medicine should be for profit. I think the entire healthcare system should be universal healthcare for all. But I will not refuse medication that will help myself or my family. What about people who get cancer? Are they suppose to refuse treatment because the drug companies are evil profiteers? No. We work to change the system not refuse the care.

[Kennah]

177. Autism isn't exactly an anxiety disorder

Mercury poisoning is believed to be one of the contributors. Cancer rates spiked ever since we started playing with petrochemicals. In effect, we as a civilization are poisoning ourselves and creating more kids on the autism spectrum and more people with cancer.

I'm ADHD, but I was never medicated nor treated. Instead I was told to "Focus, and work harder." Wife exhibits some SPD traits, but also never medicated nor treated. She was tossed in Special Ed for a couple of years, back when Special Ed was a warehouse for delinquents.

No surprise all 3 of our kids show varying degrees of SPD and/or Asperger. We don't medicate them, but we're fortunate the Olympia School District is pretty well in touch with kids who are quirky or different.

[DhhD]

99. Unlike the Great Depression, our money, over the past 30 years, has been removed from our country

so it is never coming back.

Congress keeps allowing it to move away from our control. Both Bush's allowed our money in the Treasury to be used as bailout to money corporations.

Take for instance, the US Department of Education. GOP wants to raid IDEA-Individuals with Disability Education Act. This money is reauthorized every Spring by Congress. School districts can write a Grant Application to get the money for special programs and special education teachers. It is a huge amount of money that can pay for an aid and/or a Pathologist, especially trained to provide the latest therapy, for your child. There are literally billions and billions of dollars in the IDEA fund. And the US Dept of Education will help the school district write the grant.

During the first presidential debates, Romney spoke of this fund, IDEA. GOP wants to CLOSE the US Department of Education: a part of the GOP Platform.

In my opinion the Bush's set up, No Child Left Behind, to use this fund. (Feel free to do some research on Learning Disabilities and Language Disorders, on just how. GWB was Governor of Texas.) In my opinion, the present GOP wants to raid this fund and every other fund set up to help the working class and their families. The thought of any more Bush's in government, scares me. More and more of the working class money and control is drifting away. Voting in the upcoming elections is the only way the working class can get back in control.

[Dustlawyer]

104. That is b/c we have let special interests go unchecked! We no longer have representative democracy!

We need to all spread the word and demand COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM (CCFR)!!! Our politicians need to be answerable to us again, not the corporation that gave them a $500,000 contribution and a trip to some exotic location. Also, not the group that threatened to back a challenger in the next election if they did not vote in lockstep with the other bought Congressmen and women! Also, the Judge/Justice making decisions that affect us all and still must run for re-election. When we vote, most of us do not even know who these jurists are! You can bet the U.S. Chamber of Commerce does! These Judges are human too (most anyway)! This is what goes on legally right now! Spread the word and do not stop, CCFR is the only fix for our predicament!

[safeinOhio]

5. Retired 11 years ago.

No kids, etc.

Share the same thoughts.

[socialindependocrat]

6. No kids, no debt, no regrets and retired

I resigned myself to no kids when I saw my older sister after she had a baby.

Tired, bedraggled, stuck in a cycle of Feed - Nap - Change - feed


over and over and over and over

The other deciding factor - I went to college at 18 and never went home.
I ended up 325 miles away and saw my folks twice a year.

My sister is in debt

[HiPointDem]

7. i thank my stars i don't have kids on a near-daily basis.

[xtraxritical]

101. Same here. What the world does not need is more people.

[RoccoR5955]

114. +1

[XanaDUer]

128. Me too

I feel sympathy for young parents I work with.

[Swede Atlanta]

8. The decision to have children or not is very personal....

I support any family and their respective decisions.

I have two dogs and that is expense enough from veterinary care to dog sitters to toys, etc. I could not imagine the cost of raising a wonderful child.

I find it disheartening when conservatives say that the whole reason for marriage is to procreate or that tax and other policies should be focused on the husband-wife, nuclear family.

We are a diverse nation in so many ways. All families should be respected and supported, not just those that conform to some conservative litmus test.

[loyalkydem]

9. I envy you especially the NO DEBT part

[a la izquierda]

33. Me too.

Don't have kids, but I have $$$ in student loans

[CountAllVotes]

10. standard words heard too often

I'll admit it, I've been asked if "something is wrong" by other women more than once. I've had this aspect of my persona questioned in depth by possible employers even. This is a very personal issue I believe.

However, as a childless woman (God save me! ) I concur with your thoughts.

The most selfish words I ever heard were from a woman I knew at one time that decided to have a child out-of-wedlock for one reason: SO SHE would have someone to take care of HER when she gets old.

When I see a newborn baby these days I often wonder why would anyone care to bring a child into this world that has certainly changed a lot since my birth time (1950s). I don't like what I see -- children being shot and killed at school, etc. etc. etc.

& recommend.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

12. Same here. Thank God daily

I never had any. Hope to retire one day with little to no debt. I don't see how people do it with kids. I see a LOT of them who don't financially. Then, what about the kids? I shudder to think of it. I am a cynic who does not believe anything will improve much for regular non- wealthy folks. And sure as heck not for their kids.

[liberal_at_heart]

15. my husband grew up in a household where there was alcoholism and abuse

When he was a boy he said he didn't want any children. He didn't want to bring innocent children into this ugly world. Well, sometimes things change when you fall in love. Maybe it's partially biological or evolutionary but sometimes you're so in love and the love and the passion are so consuming you want to extend that love into having a baby with that person whom you are in love with. This may not happen with everybody, but it was the case for my husband and I. We have tried to create as safe and loving environment at home as we can for our children. The world is still an ugly place, but when you have loving people around you it becomes more bearable. At least that is my experience.

[Number23]

129. Beautiful post. I agree with all you've said

It is very easy to say "why would you want to bring children up in such an ugly world?" But if everyone thought that way, who would change things?

The world is a terribly ugly place sometimes. Surrounding yourself with love is one way to make it better. And for alot of people, that means having children and that is a decision that shouldn't be criticized either.

[Nederland]

19. Somebody has to take care of you

Apart from tragic accidents or mishaps, we all grow old and will need people from the next generation to provide for us. All having no kids means is that someone else had to do the hard work of raising the people that will take care of you...

[CountAllVotes]

26. So, one should have a child so it can care for them some day?

What if said child is born with a birth defect and requires extra care, education, medical assistance, etc. and never makes it to the point of being able to even care for itself, much less me?

Ever thought about that?

I have and that is because I have witnessed it.

Having a child to care for you when you are old is plain selfish and possibly a horrific mistake of the worst kind IMO.

[Nederland]

31. No

I agree it is a lousy reason to have kids and that the only people that should have kids are those that truly want them. I have to admit however, that it irritates me when people without kids act like they have done some great service to society. I am not accusing you of this, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. The only reason I posted is because I think people forget that in choosing to have no children you simply shift the time and expense of raising the next generation to someone else.

[theaocp]

36. Say what?

I'm not having children, yet I teach elementary school. I think I'm doing all kinds of services to society through my lack of new mouths to feed AND educating the next generation. Thoughts?

[Nederland]

45. You teach kids for a living

That is admirable. How about your co-workers with kids? They teach AND they are raising the next generation. Are they contributing more or less to society than you?

[PeaceNikki]

49. what? is the world having a 'people' shortage? wow, shitty question...

[Nederland]

55. In some countries yes

Take a look at the demographics of Japan and many countries in Europe. They are looking at a serious shortage of people needed to take care of those who will retire in the next decade or two.

Don't confuse those that choose to have one or two children with those that have more children than they can support.

[quakerboy]

122. In the world. Not selective.

Is there a people shortage?

Is there a good reason that we need more people in the world than we have today? And is there any reason to believe there wont be more people in the world in 10, 20, 30, 50, and 90 years than there are today?

Assuming that the answer to both is No(barring a catastrophe wiping some large portion of us out) then the shortage you mention is by choice/design, and can be solved by the simple expedient of offering people from areas that are having trouble supporting their populations the chance to move to places which are not having those issues.

[Nederland]

139. You can't look at the world as a whole

The fact that Ethiopia is over populated is not going to help you when you are dying of cancer in a country with a nursing shortage.

[quakerboy]

155. Bologna.

There are no lack of people from ethiopia who are willing to come to the USA to work. Or Japan. Or anywhere in europe. I don't need a white person raised in the US to care for me in a nursing home.

Which is a fact you would be well aware of if you worked in nursing homes. A significant portion of the workers in most nursing homes in my area are ESL. Central American, North African, Filipino, or Romanian, most often in my experience. They are willing to come to a new country and work at a relatively low rate to do this kind of (often) dirty, unpleasant, thankless work.

The limitations to moving populations to where they are needed are almost completely artificial. We dont need to have more babies and more people. Given mechanization, we actually have a situation where we need far less people to do the same amount of work as in years gone by. We do not need more people to get done the things that we need/want as a society.

[Nederland]

157. Disagree

There are no lack of people from Ethiopia who are willing to come to the USA to work. Or Japan. Or anywhere in Europe. I don't need a white person raised in the US to care for me in a nursing home.

True, there is not a lack of people willing to come here, there is a lack of qualified people willing to come here. I have no doubt that a growing percentage of people working in nursing homes are from outside the US. With so many people choosing to not have children the demand for qualified people to work in these positions is only going to increase. However, if you think that the educational systems of third world countries are capable of producing enough qualified people to take care of the coming wave of retiring baby boomers, you are sadly mistaken.

[quakerboy]

180. Incorrect

It takes less than 6 months to train a not overly bright or motivated high school drop out to work in a nursing home. Even counting in the extra difficulties of learning a different language, you have much more motivation with most immigrants. Also, coming from a developing nation does not by any stretch mean that they are unintelligent or less competent.

Fact is, I am not making a hypothetical situation. I was in a nursing home this morning. I know for a fact that at least 1/3 of the workers speak with an accent, and not because they are from Canada, UK, or Australia, but because their family origin is a non-english speaking country. In that particular facility I believe a significant portion of the employees are actually from North Africa. Not Ethiopia, but close enough that the point stands.

In addition, I read an article not all that long ago about how some European countries are doing the exact same thing. Its a global world, despite the best efforts of those who wish to isolate themselves. Pretending that it is not is self deception, and leads me to wonder about the motives.

[Nederland]

165. There is no shortage of people obviously

There is however, a shortage is of qualified, educated people. The reason is that the people who live in areas that have strong educational systems are choosing not to have kids.

[athena]

158. The problem with Japan and Europe

is that they refuse immigrants.

The U.S. birth rate is also below replacement level, but the overall population of the U.S. is growing because of immigration. Same with Canada, on an even larger scale.

Given that the global population is growing, any country that is suffering from a shortage of people should get over its xenophobia and start admitting more immigrants, rather than telling its women to have more babies. It is extremely selfish and short-sighted to suggest that low birth rate is a problem when there is reason to think that we may already be very close to the maximum number of people the Earth can support.

[Nederland]

159. A very American way of looking at the problem

Everything you say is true, provided you don't give a shit about your culture. Countries in Europe like Sweden and Germany that provide large incentives for people to have children do so because they don't want to see the destruction of their culture. The US doesn't really have a distinct 'culture' given that is almost entirely made up of immigrants. People in other countries however, frequently don't share the same apathetic attitude.

[athena]

163. A very European response, to claim that the U.S. has no culture.

If you don't see "culture" in the U.S., it's because you have a highly self-centered view of what "culture" means. I say that as someone who has lived not only in the U.S. but also in Canada, Japan, Europe, and the Middle East.

The beauty of Canada and the U.S. is that we value all cultures. When someone comes in and brings a part of their own culture along, that makes all of us richer.

[Nederland]

166. Isn't it appropriate to have a European response?

After all, you are suggesting a change in the way Europe does things...

[Bonobo]

162. Japan does not refuse immigrants.

You need to educate yourself on the subject because you are wrong.

[athena]

164. Not only does Japan refuse immigrants, it tries to send back the ones who are already there.

From http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/10/immigration-lessons-for-the-u-s-from-around-the-world/

Japan has one of the strictest immigration policies in the world and has historically been closed off to outsiders. It has a foreign population of less than 2% - six times smaller than the percentage of the U.S.

(snip)

Japanese-Brazilians filled manufacturing jobs and became the third largest minority in Japan.

But in 2009, with unemployment running high, Japan actually offered money to them to leave the country – $3,000 for each worker to cover travel expenses.

And the flight was essentially a one-way ticket – anyone who took the offer couldn’t come back to Japan with the residence status they once had.

From http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/weird-wide-web/top-5-worst-countries-for-immigrants

Tokyo's government officials will pay immigrants to get out of their country -- literally.

Passed in the spring of 2009, the "Nikkei" Law (Nikkei refers to a Latin American immigrant of Japanese descent) offers unemployed Latin American immigrants $3,000 to leave Japan and return to their home country, Foreign Policy reported. Their family members also get $2,000 for the relocation. There's just one catch: you only get the payment if you promise that you will never return to Japan to work. Not exactly the fairest trade we've ever heard.

See also:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20120306ad.html
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20121021x3.html

[Bonobo]

171. Look, it's just not true.

I know Japan's immigration laws. I have visitied and spoken with the city legal office's wrt to immigration law.

if you have a job and live in Japan for 5 years, you can immigrate. Period.

For me, I can do it in 1 year because I am married to a Japanese person.

The Brazil thing you linked to has nothing to do with Japan's immigration policy.

http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2221.html

Naturalization

Foreigners, who have resided in Japan for at least five consecutive years (less if married to a Japanese national), have shown good conduct, have never plotted against the Japanese government, have sufficient assets or ability to make an independent living and are willing to renounce any other citizenship held, can be granted Japanese citizenship.

[theaocp]

60. They are adding to the problem of overpopulation. Anything else? n/t

[Nederland]

61. Only if they have more than two kids

It is a mistake to think that because having too many children is detrimental that having none isn't. The reality is that too low a birthrate--seen in Japan and much of Europe--is just as dangerous.

[theaocp]

63. Dangerous?

In what respect? What do you mean?

[Nederland]

65. The social safety net falls apart

The social safety net that provides retirement benefits and medical services for older people assumes that there will be a sufficient number of younger people to provide those services. In many first world countries, there simply aren't anymore.

[theaocp]

66. An interesting concept.

Can you provide me with data on our lack of younger people? Thanks.

[Nederland]

68. Certainly

Right now its only a problem in Japan and Europe. The US birthrate is around 1.9 the last time I looked, and that number is probably a healthy one. In other words, I agree with you that the world needs fewer people, but you have to be careful about how quickly you do it. If trends continue however, the US could be in the same boat as Europe. Places like Italy that have birthrates around 1.3 are basically screwed unless something changes in the near future. You simply cannot halve your population in under 50 years without some serious social unrest.

Here is a good article, but you could also look at the wikipedia article on 'Population Decline' for a more academic review.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[a11ig8r]

94. "contirbuting to society" is 1 per center propaganda

It's a concept like "work ethic" that those in power use to chain those of us not in power.

[liberal_at_heart]

53. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you and Nederland

Nederland is saying that you would be shifting the burden of taking care of the next generation on to someone else and you said you were doing a service through your lack of new mouths to feed. Caring for fellow human beings is never a burden. It is part of being human, and having fewer mouths to feed is not a service to society. It is typically the republicans who think of taking care of our fellow humans as burdens and we see where that gets us.

[theaocp]

59. Since we don't take care

of all the mouths that are already here, I'd say you're wrong. Fewer NEW mouths to feed is a GREAT thing until we are taking care of what's already existing. Sorry.

[Nederland]

62. Since we don't take care

of all the elderly people that are already here, what is your plan for them? Have even fewer people to take care of them? The baby boomer generation is just starting to retire, and if it were not for immigration we would not have enough people to take care of them.

[theaocp]

64. Again, say what?

Where to begin? What is your ratio for necessary births to "care" (whatever that means) for the elderly? 1:1? 5:1? What are you talking about? You want more immigration to care for the retiring baby boomers? Okay. Whatever. That's using the people of our planet that ALREADY EXIST to care for others that ALREADY EXIST. Sounds good to me. I still maintain it's a negative to bring more people into our world when we don't take care of those that ALREADY EXIST. Anything else?

[Nederland]

67. Overpopulation is not uniformly distributed

Yes, people in the developing world are having more children than they can support. In much of the developed world however, people are having too few children to provide the benefits promised to the generation about to retire. Your mistake is to lump the two together and think that they cancel each other out. The excess population in the third world cannot provide the services that the elderly in the first world needs because they lack the necessary education and training.

What ratio is required? It depends on how much the baby boomer generation expects to get. Judging from what we've seen so far, they seem like a rather entitled group. I imagine that they will expect to be taken care of rather well, and may be in for a rude awakening to discover that the younger generation isn't very interested in waiting hand and foot on people that they are not related to.

[DeschutesRiver]

90. Children regularly pay others to care for their elderly parents - why is it okay for

them to rely on societal resources that they or taxpayers pay for, but not for a person who has no children, whether by choice or because they predeceased them/are ill themselves/are not financially able to provide advanced care, etc?

Hospice. Hospitals. Nursing homes. Home health care assistance. Lawn care and household maintenance and cleaning that an older person can no longer physically do. And so on - there is quite a list of things that children of elderly parents turn to in order to gain assistance from others to whom they are not related for their aging parents physical and mental health care issues. You can run a number of scenarios, but I do not see many children who have the ability or financial wealth necessary to quit their jobs to care full time for a pair of parents with an advanced illness that requires round the clock availability, or turning a patient to prevent bed sores every few hours, or dealing with an aggressive or hostile alzheimer patient or just helping to maintain a running household even under the more normal circumstances that arise for old people. There are more old age issues out there than I can list that children are not equipped to deal with, at some point in an ill parent's life or even in the child's life if they are old enough, whether that point comes early or later.

It can be as simple a scenario as children now in their 50s/60s who can no longer care for two parents in their 80s-90s, because the children are old enough that they have health issues that prevent home care; say, arthritis, bad knees, shoulder replacements, etc, that won't allow them to bath their parents or help them on/off a toilet or turn them in bed every few hours if they are complete invalids. It can be a scenario where children refuse to care for elderly parents due to abuse they were dealt from them in their childhoods. Can be because children can't afford to quit their jobs and not take of their own children where the elderly parent requires full time assistance. Can be because the kids are selfish little creatures. Lots of reasons why people's kids don't care 100% for their aging parents until the end, and rely on outside assistance for which they or their parents pay.

I don't understand why it is okay for a child to use societal resources provided by people for hire when caring for elderly parents becomes beyond their ability, but not a childless person. Different vector, but same result.

Younger people have never been some kind of 100% reliable source of care for an aging parent. Did you see this link about China ordering children to just "visit" their elderly parents (not care for, but just a visit?) as they are neglecting them at record rates. And they had no Boomer generation that might feel entitled to being cared for "hand and foot". Those kids won't even stop by to say hi, so I doubt they are caring for their parents either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014349947

And I'm guessing for any wealthy boomers, yep, the younger generation of complete strangers will wait on them hand and foot if the pay is right. I've never seen a wealthy person who could afford a home nurse not be able to find one or a dozen to employ in their households. Any boomer who feels entitled due to their wealth will hire people to care for their old selves just like they used to hire lawn care or car detailing or housekeepers or a cook or you name it. I am assuming by "entitled" and "waited on hand and foot" you are referring only to boomers who have money and can make that happen, yes? They will keep finding people to employ even if they have to go outside of the country to find people who are desperate and will work for pennies in order to survive. Happening right now.

[spooky3]

133. good post. Two other points:

Many children in our mobile society live nowhere near their parents. They may have left the community where they grew up to attend college and then to pursue careers. Unless they are financially able to quit their careers many years before normal retirement age (and pay their pre-Medicare eligibility health care costs, etc.), sell their homes and relocate themselves, spouses, children, etc., it's pretty unrealistic to expect that they can help much with elder care, in any ways other than financial.

The discussion in this thread has largely ignored the reality that generally (although not in all cases) it is the female child or relative on whom elder care responsibility has typically fallen in our history. While that was never an easy responsibility to bear, it might have been more feasible when women were not maintaining their own careers. But now, even if they are located in the same community, it is not realistic to expect that women can give up careers (or get extended, unpaid leave) in their 40s and 50s to care for elderly relatives, without considerable costs to their (and their families') own financial stability.

[DeschutesRiver]

153. Those are great points as well.

We are a mobile society, have to be in some cases to get ahead in life. And I don't imagine that most parents would want their children to have to quit their careers and put their lives on hold for perhaps decades to care for them, if there is any other way of making it work, ie, hiring services if one is fortunate enough to have the resources to do so, or using government services if appropriate, along with help from any relatives who may be able to do so.

And in my experience, just what I've personally seen, it is typically women to whom these tasks fall - in total agreement with you there.

[Nederland]

137. Yes, they pay somebody else...

...and that somebody else is of a younger generation. The point is simply that if everyone took the easy way out and choose to not have children there would be no one to care for this generation when it gets old. People who choose to not have children are basically counting on the fact that somebody somewhere will take the time and energy to raise the people that will care for them when they get old.

[DeschutesRiver]

154. You say that choosing to not have children is "the easy way out"?

I'm not sure I understand that. What does that mean?

And I don't believe that people who do devote themselves to careers caring for an older clientele are unhappy that they can be paid to do something they enjoy.

Maybe I don't see caring for the elderly as such a horrible thing, ie so bad that someone would rather be raised and trained to do anything else for pay than that. And to my knowledge, parents don't spend their time and energy raising children for a specific career path in elder care of some sort. The good parents raise them to do well in life, and if working with older folk is where they end up, I presume that they enjoy their field or work related to caring for old folk. Old age isn't a disease or some horrific affliction.

I also don't see why it makes a difference between whether that elder person had kids who survived, had kids who predeceased them or never had children due to infertility or due to choice (whether it was because they were selfish, or had mental illness or genetic abnormalities in the family or themselves, or because they are alcoholics or about a million other reasons, like they had no desire to be a parent).

It appears that the objection is that people are getting paid to do this, when it should be done by the children for free. And that if one chooses not to have children, then they are taking the easy way out by not raising their own indentured servants, so to speak.

[Nederland]

156. You are missing the point

Try to understand the following:

1) I am not having children with the expectation that they will take care of me when I get old.
2) I don't see caring for the elderly as a horrible thing.
3) My children can choose whatever career they want.

Ok? Now I'll make two statements I believe are true:

1) Raising children is really expensive (and no, tax benefits do not remotely cover the cost).
2) The people that take care of the elderly are almost universally younger than their patients.

Therefore, when people who chose not to have children retire, they are being cared for by other people's children. And I am not just talking about those directly taking care of them (nurses, etc.), I am talking also about the economy as a whole. The vast majority of things that elderly people need to survive (food, water, housing, clothing, medical care, electricity, etc.) are produced or provided for by the generation that follows them. Sure, maybe a small handful of what an elderly person needs comes from another person their own age, but by and large that is not the case. It should be a simple and obvious fact that if no one from this generation chose to have kids, getting old would be a horrific experience. Basically you would have to work until they very day you died. It wouldn't matter how much money you saved up for retirement--you can't purchase services from people that do not exist or buy goods produced by people that were never born.

Get it?

I'm not saying that people should be 'forced' to have children or anything ridiculous like that. Having kids is a choice. People that don't want to have have kids should not have kids. I am also not complaining about how expensive raising children is or asking for more government help. Having kids has been a joy and I would make same choice again in a heartbeat, despite the fact that it has/will cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars and enormous amounts of time.

All I object to is the smug attitude of people like the poster in post #79 who claim that not having children is a 'great service to society'. Seriously? Since when is having a whole lot more money and a whole hell of a lot more time some sort of noble sacrifice? When you add in the fact that his/her life plan assumes that a fairly large number of people will not perform the same 'great service to society' that he/she did, it becomes down right irritating.

[DeschutesRiver]

167. Has been nothing to "understand", until this post and the last paragraph explained your real issue

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:45 PM - Edit history (3)

Had you been more clear on what is really bothering you, we could have dispensed with a lot of this, except it is interesting to think about all these issues as they relate to our aging population, and what we think of them, and how we respect our elders (or not).

So I get it - elder care is not the issue about which you are concerned.

Rather it is that you find childless people who think they are in any way benefiting society as much as you did when you had children to be "down right irritating." I will take your interpretation of post #79 for the moment, as I can't find it up thread & my dialup is very sticky this morning due to cold weather. Here are a few alternative explanations off the top of my head:

Valid reasons other than smugness for believing that not having children is a great service to society:

1. Some people believe that not contributing to overpopulation is a benefit to society. One thing I know as fact is that the U.S. population wasn't 313 million when I was born or growing up.

2. Some people believe that climate change is real, and that one way to mitigate our impact is to have fewer people. Not enlarging one's carbon footprint in this way would be considered a benefit to society.

3. Some people believe that to not have a child when you have a heritable mental illness that is life altering results in a benefit to society. Same would be true if one made the childless decision due to alcoholism, drug addiction that has not been resolved and could result in a child being born with a fetal syndrome, etc. Can not see how this is not both a great benefit to society and a noble personal sacrifice by someone who desperately wants a child but who consciously chooses to make this tough call (because there is no guarantee that the child would have had the illness too, for example, in the case of mental illness in the family tree).

4. Some people believe that not having a child because you do not want to have a child is a benefit to society. One could argue that at a minimum whatever societal services may be needed by that child as it is raised or after it grows up will not be incurred by society, which is a benefit.

Valid reasons for why childless people can pay for services that others choose to use their children to provide to them for free:

1. Those who have, as you state, "a whole hell of a lot more time" often choose to spend it working, which benefits society.

2. Those who have, as you state, "a whole lot more money", probably have the exact same amount of money you have. But since it will not cost them the "hundreds of thousands of dollars" that it cost you to raise children, they will deploy those same "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to providing jobs to children that other people like you raised. Not just in elder care areas later in life, but throughout their lives. Maybe they take the extra money they can make in the time they don't spend raising a kid, and use that too for their needs. Maybe they donate it to charities and philanthropy of any size, large or small. And it resulted from their decision to not have children. Our entire economy relies on jobs, which are performed in the main by people who were "raised by other people". I cannot see the evil in this, and would count it as another societal benefit. It is different from how a person with children contributes to society, but it is not a failure to contribute just as much even though childless.

Childless people who raise awareness in others of how it can be just as beneficial in some cases to not have kids as it would be to have raised kids aren't necessarily being smug, any more than are parents who point out their sacrifices and contributions to society by having had kids. Nor is someone who points out the societal benefits of their decision to not have children taking away those other societal benefits made possible by the decision to have children. It doesn't take much effort to think of hundreds of examples of potential benefits to society by making either choice. Anyone who believes this is a one way street is mistaken.

And if everyone decided to not have children, getting old would not be a horrific experience. Getting old would not exist in the first place. Of course, there hasn't been an instance of a total refusal to procreate occurring globally in recorded history, and it would have to happen globally to be of any significance. If I have missed an example, lmk. Otherwise, I can think of localized historical examples, such as populations who send their young ones off to wars from which they do not return, leaving the older ones behind who can't repopulate. But in those cases, they either find people (say they raid other tribes for slaves or children, for ex. after devastating war situations) or they die because they can't meet their needs. And in the meanwhile, their part in civilization comes to an end, while the rest of the world chugs on procreating.

So unless this instance of no one having children goes global and occurs simultaneously, it isn't an issue.

ETA: Do you perhaps live in an area where either younger or older or retired childless people do not volunteer in their spare time, so maybe you aren't aware of their contributions in that regard? Or are not aware that childless people of all ages pay school district taxes either directly through home ownership or indirectly through rent payments, thus helping to fund the future of those younger people that you state shouldn't have to take a job working for people who refuse to birth their own caregivers? Or never thought about how people without kids may be the ones who have the time to fill in for co-workers who have child related emergencies and issues, or who are on parental leave that isn't given to the childless, who may be caretakers for their own elderly parents or relatives? Are none of these things a benefit to society?

[Nederland]

168. Response

I believe the ideas in last paragraph of my post was already expressed very early on (in post #31), but I can understand why you might not have read that one. If you had, we could have dispensed with a lot of this discussion.

As for you list of valid reasons other than smugness for believing that not having children is a great service to society, I take no issue with #3. I think #4 is a fallacy because in saying "whatever societal services may be needed by that child as it is raised or after it grows up will not be incurred by society, which is a benefit", you are only considering one side of the equation. Yes, children consume an enormous amount of social services, but over their lifetimes they produce much, much more than they consume. Teachers will be quick to tell you that money spent on education is one of the best values in government because for every dollar spent on educating a child, the government gets back seven dollars (in real dollar terms, not inflated nominal dollar terms) in additional tax revenue over that child's working life.

As for #1 and #2, they would be more convincing reasons if the people that express them could explain their retirement plans. If they plan to never retire and continue working until they drop dead I suppose they have a point. However, our entire social safety net is built upon the assumption that benefits delivered to one generation come from the labor of the next. I don't know many Democrats that are interested in dismantling the Social Security system that virtually introduced the concept of retirement to the population at large, or the Medicare system that ensures that people will have healthcare long past their working years.

As for the valid reasons for why childless people can pay for services that others choose to use their children to provide to them for free, I think you need to work out the math. Regardless of how a childless person spends their extra time or extra money, their contribution to society typically ends with their death (I say 'typically' b/c a very small number of people produce great works of art or invent things that benefit society long after their deaths--but those people are rare). In contrast, the time and money I spend raising a child is an investment that benefits society for as long as my descendants continue to reproduce. Over the long term, there really is no comparison.

Regarding your other points:

Do you perhaps live in an area where either younger or older or retired childless people do not volunteer in their spare time, so maybe you aren't aware of their contributions in that regard?

I am aware of the fact that many childless people volunteer their spare time. I am not aware that they do so at a higher rate than people with kids. If you have evidence of this I'd be happy to look at it.

Or are not aware that childless people of all ages pay school district taxes either directly through home ownership or indirectly through rent payments, thus helping to fund the future of those younger people that you state shouldn't have to take a job working for people who refuse to birth their own caregivers?

We all pay taxes whether we have children or not. The difference is that by raising a child my total contribution extends past my own lifetime, making it vastly larger.

Or never thought about how people without kids may be the ones who have the time to fill in for co-workers who have child related emergencies and issues, or who are on parental leave that isn't given to the childless, who may be caretakers for their own elderly parents or relatives? Are none of these things a benefit to society?

This is a good point. People with children do have to take more time off for emergencies than people with no kids. I have not seen the statistics that would quantify the value of that difference, but would be interested in seeing them.


I think the most compelling argument I can make is to note the character of the countries that spend far more money helping their citizens raise children than the United States does. A review of the incentives that a place like Sweden offers its citizens to have more children speaks volume about how one of the most liberal and progressive countries on the planet views the issue.

[DeschutesRiver]

173. Response

I read the first response to me again, #137. Didn't see mention of it there. I think #31 is a conversation that you were having with someone else, not me. And I still cannot find #79.

As for the fallacy of #4, how do we know that all children produce much much more than they consume in social services? I assume that you mean only those children who end up fitting the definition of productive? Because we do have those who end up in prison, or on the streets, or involved in crime or drugs or both, or in rehab, etc. who consume more resources than they contribute, and many for the entire duration of their lives. That 7 dollar return to one dollar invested only applies to the children who end up having a working life. And how do those in red states where the ratio is 2 dollars of services delivered to 1 dollar of tax collected fit into this equation, because that is not an example of children growing into adults who produce much much more than they consume.

As for #1 and #2, your argument that childless people have "a whole lot more money" because they do not have the expense of child raising does provide the answer regarding retirement plans. The "hundreds of thousands of dollars" that you said you've spent on your kids would be funds that a the childless person in #1 and #2 can save for their retirement. And deploy to hire things done that they cannot do nor indenture their children to do for them. Which gets us back to the point that irritates you, ie that people without kids might hire your kids to do these things for them, with the money they've saved by no having kids in the first place. There is probably a joke about a shortcut in there somewhere, but I am not going to make it.

And regarding your other points:

I am aware of the fact that many childless people volunteer their spare time. I am not aware that they do so at a higher rate than people with kids. If you have evidence of this I'd be happy to look at it.

It was your argument to which I referred: "Since when is having a whole lot more money and a whole hell of a lot more time some sort of noble sacrifice?" So whatever the childless choose to do, by your argument they will have more time in which to do it. I merely gave one example of where a childless person may not have more spare time, because they are doing something that contributes to society with what you regard as that "hell of a lot more time". If they have more time due to spending no time raising children, it is logical to assume some time could be spent either volunteering or working more hours in order to save for retirement, for example, so that they are not solely dependent up on social security. If you have evidence, however of childless people having a "whole hell of a lot more time" on their hands than one with kids does, I'd be just as happy to look at that. Of course, I can also just use my common sense and experiences to fill in the blanks.

We all pay taxes whether we have children or not. The difference is that by raising a child my total contribution extends past my own lifetime, making it vastly larger.

I already offered an alternative view above, but for clarity, that is true only if and when the child becomes and remains a productive member of society with a working life, as you stated. Do you have any evidence it will work out that way, ie that the child you raise will extend your total contribution past your own lifetime, making it vastly larger? It is likely your fervent hope, as it is for all good parents, but society spends a lot paying for all the rest of the times that it doesn't work out according to the best plans. And since you the parent will be long gone by that time, it is not possible for any parent to know whether their family's contributions will be in the plus or minus categories generations down the line.

Believing that only by raising a child can a person make contributions that extend past their lifetime, and that those contributions will always be positive in nature such that they enlarge your original contribution vastly must put an enormous burden on a child to perform well, because if they don't, then the parent will have made no meaningful contribution to society.

Interesting POV to see children as things which take up all available time, and hundreds of thousands of dollars and that are viewed as investments. I'd hope that if they turned out to be bad investments, they similarly wouldn't just be written off.

I don't think I could tell any kid that if they don't give birth and raise a child, that there is no way they can contribute as much to society as anyone who births and raises a kid. Not with a straight face, anyway.

I don't have the same irritation with people in general who choose to have children that you have with people who choose not to have children, as it doesn't seem logical to do so. Nor do I define societal contributions in such a narrow way, nor do I weight them solely on the single criteria of whether someone has given birth or not given birth. I can agree that if some individual on either side of the argument were to be smug about their way being automatically the only best choice, I'd find it silly in the extreme and not able to be supported by any tangible evidence.

[Nederland]

182. Interesting response

Last edited Thu Jan 3, 2013, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Let me get this straight. You argue against having children on the grounds that some of those children will consume more money in services than they produce in taxes, and then immediate turn around and argue for being childless on the grounds that some of those people will save the hundreds of thousand of dollars they save in not having children for their retirement.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the percentage of children that consume more money in services than they produce in taxes is large? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the percentage of childless people that set aside for their retirement the hundreds of thousand of dollars they save in not having children is large? If not, your argument falls apart.

We know that the percentage of children that consume more money in services than they produce in taxes is fairly small. The total number of people in prison in 2012 amounted to 0.7% of the population. Even if you add in all the people who are also on parole or probation you only reach 3.1% of the population. If you total all the people that are permanently disabled due to illness, addiction or other causes you only add another 13 million people--still a small percentage. Simple put, there is no evidence that a significant percentage of children will end up not making a positive contribution to society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_B18120&prodType=table

[liberal_at_heart]

70. that's a rather callous way of looking at humanity

We as a species always have poor people, always have war, always have people killing people. There will never be a time when every mouth is fed. I guess we could all do each other a favor never have another child and all die off. We'd also do the planet a favor by doing that too. But sorry, the human race doesn't work that way. Human beings have emotional connections to each other. They fall in love. They have children. They take care of each other.

[Zoeisright]

79. People without kids HAVE done a great service to society.

In choosing to have children you are saving the earth from another polluter and another body to help ruin it. The most selfish people I know have kids; one has a genetic disease in her family and had kids because she wanted "her own".

And bullshit we're shifting time and expense of raising the next generation to someone else. That's the dumbest argument for having kids I have EVER seen.

[liberal_at_heart]

82. I have a mutated gene that puts me at risk of cancer

My mother died in her early thirties. My grandmother died in her early thirties. I had a preventative surgery and have not yet gotten cancer. I had two children including a girl. I am glad my mother had me even though she died young and even though she may have passed on a mutated gene to me. And I am glad I had my two children. If you don't want to have children that is fine with me. I believe everybody should do what is best for them but no you are not providing some noble service to humanity by not having children. I myself will do what love guides me to do and for me that was marrying the man I love and having children with him. As far as the Earth goes, the Earth won't heal until our entire species is gone or at least until 2/3 of us are wiped off the face of the Earth by some asteroid or deadly pathogen. Until then love will cause humans to fall in love and have children.

[Nederland]

138. So can I assume that you will commit suicide...

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2012, 11:21 PM - Edit history (1)

...once you are no longer able to work and/or take care of yourself?

Or do you plan on taking advantage of the fact that not everybody out there did a "great service to society" by not having children?

[shanti]

111. having children

is absolutely no guarantee that they will be there for you in your time of need.

[Nederland]

141. On the other hand, not having children is a guarantee (nt)

[postrinserepeat....]

119. OMG, how disgusting!

First of all, I plan to take care of MYSELF. There are plenty of people around the world in "undeveloped" countries who lug heavy items well into their 80s or even 90s. This society creates the sickly, disabled meme for anyone over a certain age. That is not how I choose to envision myself at an advanced age.

To even think of having an agenda with your children is unimaginable to me. I find it incredibly offensive and besides, nursing homes are likely filled with people who thought the same thing.

[Nederland]

140. Really?

You don't think you'll need anyone younger than yourself to provide:

1) Food
2) Water
3) Health care
4) Electricity
5) Internet Service
6) etc.

Yeah, good luck with that.

[Iris]

146. Huh?

[Nederland]

150. Could you elaborate a little more?

What exactly is confusing?

[madinmaryland]

124. Are you serious? I have children and in no way would I ever expect them to care for me.

That's bizarre.

When I get old, I do not expect them to care for me.

[Nederland]

136. Not necessarily your own children

...but someone else's.

The point is that the people that take care of you when you get old are going to be younger than you--i.e. the next generation. If you didn't have children, you are simply assuming that somebody out there will raise someone to take care of you.

[RB TexLa]

142. Yes, yes, we know and they are also going to have to "Pay our God damn Social Security!"

I'm already laughing at your kids over that.

[Nederland]

144. Or maybe they won't

Maybe they will decide they don't want to care for a generation of people that did nothing for them.

[RB TexLa]

145. That did nothing? Like pay taxes to build the schools they learned in, pay the first responders to

keep them alive when faced with fire or other tragic event. And all without extra exemptions or child tax credits.

Try that bullshit somewhere else.

Or are you going to come back with "WE BUILT THIS!" and the childfree have contributed nothing.

[Nederland]

147. Please

Do you honestly think that the amount of time and money it takes to raise children is offset by exemptions and tax credits?

Yes, I will concede that it was an exaggeration to say "did nothing", but there is no question of who pays more--both in terms of time and money.

[Nederland]

149. And it is not offset by government, not even close

So what is your point?

[Pharaoh]

11. 2 kids 3 grandkids

I worry about them.

I have no debt, and a small government pension. Post office.

I would suggest to anyone, not to bring any more kids into the world. I fear it is going to get pretty ugly in the future.

Although, I have hope of a great transformation, and we won't go down that road, I hold out hope for that.

[awoke_in_2003]

13. I am 42...

and I think I will have two retirement choices. The first is "die on the job". The second is "take a Harley off the grand canyon while shooting a flare into the gas tank". I call that my Evel Knievel plan. They will kill SS eventually, pensions are non-existent, and 401ks are about as safe as going to Vegas.

[Faygo Kid]

14. Just one, love her, but has done nothing with her life

It pains me to admit it, of course, but mid-30s is time to do something, for sure. And she is still costly. But, great memories of Christmases past and family vacations. It is what it is, whatever the choice.

[coldbeer]

16. I have six grandchildren and they are treasures

I planned on having no children. We loved the two
we had and they gave us this award. Oh, it is difficult
and expensive but they are a reward. I pay taxes and
insurance so I have debt. Thanks to Social Security I
can pay those bills, stay warm, and eat.

[hfojvt]

17. I have no debt

but I definitely regret not being able to raise a child and a step-child.

[BigDemVoter]

18. No human kids, some debt, NO regret!

[glinda]

20. Same here! haha

[Tobin S.]

21. The owner of the company I work for had one child,

a son who he sent away to college at the age of 18. The young man died in a frat house fire not long after that. The owner is in his mid-80s now and he's been a multimillionaire for at least 30 years. He still runs the company. He comes to work every day even though he needs a walker to get around and medication to keep him alive. His son should be running that company right now.

I bet he'd give it all away, though, if he could have his son back.

[RebelOne]

22. Two adult kids, no debt and no regrets. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

34. Three adult kids, small credit card debt, no regrets.

I wouldn't trade it for all the freedom of a single life in the world.

[JoePhilly]

23. Would not trade my 3 kids for anything in the world.

My 19 year old son is in college now. Very smart and introspective. Majors in Psych. Loves history and politics. Looks like Jesus, if Jesus played football.

My 13 year old daughter is an A-B student. Plays fast pitch softball 2 years above her age. Cooks, is incredibly mature. Senses the feelings of others. Works hard at anything she does.

My 11 year old daughter is the actress. She can be shy, but once she is "on stage" she's deadly. Probably smarter than either of the other two.

My wife and I can afford them all ... but even if we were struggling, I'd never be sorry.

[liberal_at_heart]

25. it's all worth it

I don't care if I were to end up penniless. Being my kids' parent has been a privilege and has brought me immeasurable happiness.

[JoePhilly]

30. My parents were always on the brink of bankrupt ...

but I never felt they did not want me or my sister.

Getting to see my kids succeed, and at times fail, has no price.

[DapperDon]

27. On the flip side of that, it wouldn't matter if I were in debt up to my eyeballs,

nothing brings joy to me like my children do. It is very much a personal choice. My children were well planned and are well taken care of. It is cliche, but there is no love like the love a parent feels for a child.

[adigal]

47. Me, too.you cannot measure the joy they bring me, and the worries, in money

On the other hand, my sister has no children and is very happy, also. Everyone should be able to decide on kids, or not. I respect her for making the right decision for her life.

[liberal_at_heart]

54. There is no right or wrong when it comes to having children

It is whatever is best for that individual. My kids have brought me lots of happiness, but I also know people who did not have children who are also happy. My husband's aunt and uncle didn't have kids and they are very happy.

[adigal]

50. Get them to apply to the best schools they can get into

The better schools will pay 100% of cost if your child gets in! And not just the big ivies. Here are some others: Hamilton College, Dickinson College, Kenyon College, Trinity College, Connecticut College, Vassar College, Middlebury College, bates College, Colby College, Bowdoin College, Haverford, Amherst, Williams, and lots more. Do your research, some are SAT optional, they like kids from the middle and lower middle classes. My son went to a little Ivy and it cost us less than a NY state school did for my other son!

[lunasun]

83. checking in to that -thanks

no regrets but often wonder/worry about our children's future and I do not mean the money or good job part....
I keep having hope( along with my own actions ) that things will change or problems are solved

I think of a song one of the kids had a few years back
Jonas brothers - believe it or not ha ha
called Year 3000
I've been to the year 3000.
Not much has changed but they lived under water.
And your great great great grand daughter,
Is doing fine (doing fine).

That put a smile on my face when I heard that
Maybe we can not yet conceptualize for the future how humanity will endure/progress

On the other hand, I have plenty of friends with out kids and no regrets for those guys either

[abelenkpe]

32. K&R

Younger and had kids though. I know I'll never retire or be able to provide for them like previous generations. I still love them though. You're break down of the situation is spot on.

[1620rock]

35. No kids, never wanted any, never had any...

...in fact I prefer the company of my cats to 99.9% of the 'people' I'm obligated to share the planet with.

[JeaneRaye]

39. Same here

I could have said the exact same thing.

[CountAllVotes]

86. +1,000

I could not agree more.

Cats not kids!!!

[a11ig8r]

96. Agree

I worry more about what would happen to my kitties if something happened to me.

[HughBeaumont]

37. August 3rd, 1981 was "P-Day".

That's when the Plutocrats were pretty much given free reign, keys-to-the-kingdom rule over America . . . thanks to their inside men Reagan and Regan (often the way some people misspell "Reagan", but unintentionally getting the leadership correct . . . ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)

On August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO no longer wanted to be included within the civil service clauses that had haunted it for decades. In doing so, the union violated a law — 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p. — that banned strikes by government unions. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work. Subsequently, Reagan demanded those remaining on strike return to work within 48 hours, otherwise their jobs would be forfeited. At the same time, Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis organized for replacements and started contingency plans. By prioritizing and cutting flights severely, and even adopting methods of air traffic management that PATCO had previously lobbied for, the government was initially able to have 50% of flights available.

On August 5, following the PATCO workers' refusal to return to work, Reagan fired the 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored the order, and banned them from federal service for life. In the wake of the strike and mass firings, the FAA was faced with the task of hiring and training enough controllers to replace those that had been fired, a hard problem to fix as, at the time, it took three years in normal conditions to train a new controller. They were replaced initially with nonparticipating controllers, supervisors, staff personnel, some nonrated personnel, and in some cases by controllers transferred temporarily from other facilities. Some military controllers were also used until replacements could be trained. The FAA had initially claimed that staffing levels would be restored within two years; however, it would take closer to ten years before the overall staffing levels returned to normal. PATCO was decertified from its right to represent workers by the Federal Labor Relations Authority on October 22, 1981. The decision was appealed.

snip

Michael Moore said that Reagan's firing of the PATCO strikers was the beginning of "America's downward slide", and the end of comfortable union jobs, with a middle-class salary, raises, and pensions. Wages have remained stagnant for 30 years. Moore also blamed the AFL-CIO for telling their members to cross the PATCO picket lines.

President Reagan's director of the United States Office of Personnel Management at the time, Donald J. Devine, argued that "when the president said no...American business leaders were given a lesson in managerial leadership that they could not and did not ignore. Many private sector executives have told me that they were able to cut the fat from their organizations and adopt more competitive work practices because of what the government did in those days. I would not be surprised if these unseen effects of this private sector shakeout under the inspiration of the president were as profound in influencing the recovery that occurred as the formal economic and fiscal programs."

His team stopped progress dead in it's tracks.

[Raine]

38. No kids but can't say I don't have regrets but often I'm relieved

when I see the state of this country and world they would be left.

[LuckyTheDog]

40. One kid. Adopting him was worst financial decision we ever made -- by far.

But I would not trade him for anything. It was in many ways the best thing my wife and I ever did (with the possible exception of getting married in the first place).

If you don't think you will feel like that when everything is said and done, don't have kids. The sacrifices are real and enduring. For many of us, it's worth it. But anybody who has kids needs to know going in that life will be very different.

[nolabear]

41. I would rather live modestly with family than like a lonely queen.

I adore my children. They are wonderful human beings and I'm proud to have put my time and effort into making them. I can't imagine life without them.

[uponit7771]

97. +1

[Jokerman]

108. It's not like those are the only two options.

There are plenty of people who have children yet end up lonely while many child-free people are surrounded by friends.

Ending up lonely often has more to do with the type of person you are than whether or not you reproduce.

[nolabear]

112. Right. And that's the type of person I am. I love both friends and family. Not judging.

Just weighing in.

[mokawanis]

42. You made sensible choices

And I'm glad it worked out for you. Being debt-free must really feel good.

I raised 3 kids and worked a LOT of overtime for many years to provide the things they needed. They all have needed financial assistance at some point in their lives, but they are pretty much independent now.

I will work a few extra years before I retire, as a direct result of making the choice to have kids, but it's been worth it to me. Knowing what I know now, I would make the same choices.

[Bonobo]

43. Just last night, the thought crossed my mind how much money I would have if...

I had not married, had not had children.

Millions. I would have millions.

And I would never have met or brought into the world the 3 greatest children I ever could have imagined or met my wonderful wife.

I wouldn't realize just how lonely and empty my life either.

I wouldn't trade my children for all the riches in the Gates family.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

46. no kids and damn proud to maintain a SMALL CARBON FOOTPRINT because of it.

So much land being eaten by developers. Humans have insatiable desires--of course! In itself there is nothing wrong with that; its how things are, how we're made. We all want to live as comfortably as we can and satisfy our needs and desires. All creatures want that--to live.

The more people, the more strain on the planet. As the human population expands, other species dwindle and die out to make room for our endless needs. It's tragic in itself and tragic for us , because we destroy the very things that make our survival possible and worthwhile.
But having a relatively short lifespan, we're not too good at seeing the long term effects of our actions. We tend to do what we *want*, not thinking of the larger ramifications.

I am proud that I knew at a young age that I wasn't interested in kids, *and* that the world didnt need any contribution to the sheer numbers of us from me.

[smccarter]

48. Filed for a marriage license... there were checkboxes at the bottom of the form...

___ check here if you plan to have children

___ check here if you opt for a bank account

We opted for the bank account.

Just a joke, but we've always been lower to mid middle class... never really made a ton of money. We have been able to pay off one house and are well on the way to paying of a second. The retirement accounts are getting fat. The wife actually works for a company... wait for it... this is a good one... that will pay out a pension when she retires. Not even a government job... go figure. If that holds up, the stock market doesn't tank, and the jack asses don't mess with social security, we should be fine.

We talked about it a few times. Neither was ready when the other was. I absolutely don't regret the decision not to have children. We're pushing 50 now, so the discussion will never happen again. We come and go as we please, can be as selfish as we want, don't have to worry about any little beggars needing school supplies, automobiles, tuition, bail, rehab... etc....

Of course... as the generations that follow continue to be smaller than those that came before, we'll always find ourselves having fiscal issues.

[CranialRectaLoopback]

51. Two kids, two college debts, no regrets

But it shouldn't be that way.

[Throd]

52. Two girls - Tons o' debt - No regrets.

Raising children isn't for everyone. As long as you have no regrets, don't worry about which choice you made. It was obviously the right one.

[PasadenaTrudy]

56. No kids either!

I thank my lucky stars every day for this!!

[Kokonoe]

57. I decided to have kids young.

If you have good parents, it would be wise to have children.
Family relationship tends to reflect yourself.
Your children will be an image of your parents.

[annm4peace]

69. Just this year I have regret

I never thought I wanted my own child and definately not to give birth.

but this year, at 46... I have strong regret not having a child... also didn't have a husband or boyfriend.


I know a single woman can do all sorts of things to have a child but I don't think I would be good at it.

so now I look at friends and family who have kids with envy.

what a bitter joke. Why didn't I have these feelings 10 years ago ?

[liberal_at_heart]

73. I'm sorry you are feeling this way

Maybe there are still options for you. You could adopt an older child or a teenager. There are teenagers who age out of foster care and are basically turned out into the world with no help. Or you could become a foster parent.

[NotThisTime]

121. It's not too late, I had a friend 48, she had twins with help and then a single 11 months later...

She started to regret her decision when she was 43 or 44....

As for me, I think if I knew then what I know now I likely would have done things differently. Turns out I have a genetic neuro degenerative disease that seems to have passed on to one child, the other we don't know... if I had only known.... It's a heartbreak beyond compare.

[Number23]

130. Single, educated women with steady incomes are adopting more and more

Perhaps this is an option for you?

[democrattotheend]

72. I used to be adamant that I didn't want kids

But now as I hit my late 20's and people I know start having them I am wavering a bit. I have no kids now but I think I want one sometime in the next 5 years. But it's going to be a really tough decision for me, because I don't feel ready to take care of someone else when I feel like I can barely take care of myself.

[liberal_at_heart]

74. You still have lots of time

[athena]

160. I used to be like you.

And let me tell you, I'm really glad I didn't give in. All kinds of people told me I would one day change my mind. They were wrong. I am now 37 and have recently had my tubes blocked. It was one of the best decisions I have ever made. Not everyone has to have children.

Once you have had a child, you can't go back. I suggest you think hard about whether you really want a child, rather than doing it because of peer pressure. Many people who have children live to regret it, but this is so painful that they can't even admit it to themselves. Mostly to convince themselves that they made the right decision, they go around lecturing others about how great it is to have children.

If you really want to take care of another human being, you can always adopt a child. Given the rate at which we are polluting our world, I can think of little justification for bringing a new person into this world. Take a look at this, for example:
http://st4tic.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/how-plastic-weve-become-our-bodies-carry-residues-of-kitchen-plastics/

[MrMickeysMom]

75. Maybe you would and maybe you wouldn't be in the same situation...

It really seems to be a mix of luck and hard work to decide to have children. I was not blessed with my own, rather, as a step mother, but even if I did have a say (most people just find themselves pregnant, which makes the decision easier), I thought long and hard about having any for the same reasons you did.

The fact is, we don't need to feel guilty, or that someone has to take care of us. In the long run, we take care of our extended families, if we become close to those in our communities, so you don't have to have children to look out for you in old age. On the contrary, sometimes, it's more of a struggle because of the course the next generation takes in their lives.

It's got to change for our country. That is a fact. There are many reasons stated in this thread to validate that.

[Ibisa]

76. No kids, just a wife and dog.

No kids, just a wife and dog. I started out in pretty bad debt, but learned my lesson and now I'm sure that I am in better shape then most.

I like the freedom of not having kids, but now that I am getting older, I realize that it is likely that myy wife or I will have noone to visit us in the nursing home

My biggest fear is that my hard work saving will be eliminated by revaluing the currency or crazy inflation. It will crush me.

[liberal_at_heart]

78. always knew I wanted kids, didn't think I wanted a dog

But when my husband got his service dog I just loved him right from the start.

[spanone]

80. two kids - no debt - no regrets

i would certainly regret not having/ knowing/ loving my two children.

[tandot]

81. you know, I am 49 and I have an almost 4 year old boy

I never expected to have a child. I didn't have a stable relationship until I was in my late 30ties and it took as a couple of years to conceive. I think I would have been fine either way ... but having my little boy now, it is impossible to imagine a life without him.

After Newtown, I was horrified ... I look at my little boy and I am certain that I couldn't live on without him.

[mykpart]

84. Wonderful that couples can choose whether to become parents.

Let's hope the tea party doesn't succeed in taking away that choice! All children should be wanted and provided for. There would be fewer mental health problems and dysfunctional families. I respect the choices of each of the posters.

[NNN0LHI]

87. My wife and I had 2 beautiful daughters and I retired young

I was recently diagnosed with Stage-4 Cancer. My wife and I don't know what we would do without the girls right now. Damn they are helpful.

I agree Reagan was the devil.

Don

[CountAllVotes]

88. OMG Don

I had no idea. I am very sorry to learn of this.

I am glad you have family to support you during these very incomprehensible and trying times and I wish you the very best.

[DeschutesRiver]

92. Stupid evil cancer

I am so sorry that you are in the middle of such a thing.

I recall from another thread that you are one who appreciates nature and is fortunate enough to be right in the middle of the action in the countryside as I am. It sounds like between your location, your children and your early retirement, you have tasted some of the best things in life, and I hope your days continue to be full of those things that bring you joy.

[WinkyDink]

170. {{{{NNNOLHI}}}} Best wishes to you.

[NNN0LHI]

181. Thanks to all you guys, (CAV,DR,WD), for the kind words

Don't worry about me though. I am going to beat this stuff. I am old enough to have had bigger challenges than cancer before during my lifetime, and I beat them. I'll beat this.

Thanks again. A lot.

Don

[DiverDave]

89. Well, arent you special

big deal.

[Jokerman]

109. No reason to act like a condescending jerk...

just because you disagree.

[Skittles]

179. that's how jealous people respond

[hobbit709]

91. Donna and I never wanted kids because neither of us wanted to risk the hell we went through.

[DeschutesRiver]

95. No kids, no regrets.

The reasons that I had for deciding to not have kids were good ones, and so it was the right decision for me.

[OnionPatch]

98. Husband and I had only one.

We felt like we took the "midway" approach between having none and having a larger family. Since one child does not replace two adults, we felt we weren't exactly contributing to overpopulation. As for whether or not you want to spend your resources raising a child; that's a personal choice. I never understood the judgmental stuff between the two sides. I don't see either side as having some moral leg up over the other.

[thelordofhell]

102. I'm Doug Stanhope.......and that's why I drink.............

[RKP5637]

103. IMO too many have kids for their own personal satisfaction and not for that of their kids! n/t

[Moostache]

105. 5 Kids More Debt than I will ever pay and I would not give up any of the kids for all the debt $$$

I had a much longer, snarky response written but chose to delete it...

My choices in parenting, career and marriage have led me to being very satisfied with my life. I am sorry others do not derive the same level of enjoyment from their choices. Just know that having kids or not having kids is not in and of itself the reason...

[BarackTheVote]

106. Most of the Liberals I know had 1-2 kids if any

the (Religious) Conservatives have 6, 7+. I get the sense this is a trend nation-wide. If it is, I'm afraid of an Idiocracy situation, here. You help create the future through your kids and your parenting. We are handing this country over to a generation that could be composed predominantly of racist, selfish, ill-educated, hatemongering, climate change deniers.

So, yes, it's your choice whether you have kids or not. Fine either way, free country for now and all that good sh*t. But people who choose to not have kids aren't better than those who do and aren't more noble or intelligent or what have you. Sorry, but that's a lot of what I saw in this thread and it kind of pisses me off.

[treestar]

107. You would have gotten lots of tax breaks for having the kids

The country goes out of its way to help people be able to afford them.

[flamingdem]

110. K&R Reagan era = our demise n/t

[judesedit]

113. Reagan defunded organizations that helped the homeless have shelter,food,clothing & basic needs

Even his own son knows this and isn't proud of his father for it. His adopted son (Nancy's?) seems pretty brainwashed, but even he admits Reagan never hugged him or told him he loved him all the days he knew him. A very cold, greedy, narcissistic, bigotted bastard, I'd say.

[stuntcat]

115. I would kill myself before I'd give the rest of this century to my child.

NOTHING in the rest of this century is a gift to a baby anymore.

[ErikJ]

117. I have lots of kids. I dont know where they are though.

I was a sperm donor for 6 months before I said enough. They never told me how many kids resulted but it could be several dozen as far as I know. It was pretty easy money. A fun job you might say. ha.

I was the 6th out of 8 kids so I never had a drive to have kids. Had enough of that.

[Initech]

118. The GOP are corporate shills and the CEOs are corporate criminals.

They're all crooks- lock em up and throw away the key!

[Deep13]

120. Same here.

I would never saddle myself with that kind of liability. Besides, my childhood was miserable and I would not want to subject anyone else to that.

[The Jungle 1]

123. Life is kids

Wow I don't think you could be more wrong. The joy and pleasure my kids have brought me can never be measured against a dollar.
Yea something has to change. If we cannot have a society where folks can have kids, a roof, food, healthcare, and a retirement then why do we even need an army. What is there to protect? The rich man's investment? Is that what we protect?

[Kokonoe]

132. OK

[michigandem58]

125. I've never been as pessimistic, I suppose

We have three great daughters, three grandkids, finacially secure, no regrets.

We taught our daughters how to take care of their money and build financial security. While I support SS and realize how some depend on it, we've taught our children not to.

[exboyfil]

131. Two girls - almost 17 and 15

The 17 year old is a High School Junior who just finished her first semester of Engineering. The 15 year old is in a HS Junior Microbiology class and wants to be a doctor.

I get satisfaction every year putting my end of year bonus money into a 529 for them. I do not regret the money I have spent and will spend on them in the slightest. I was fortunate to have a dad who valued education above all else, and I have worked to instill that in my children.

I am actually optimistic about the future, and I think my daughters will help to make this world a better place. I don't know if they will have kids, but I will love them as well if I live long enough to meet them.

I salute those who do not want kids and don't have them. Too many kids grow up with parents who do not love them or even without the sperm/egg donors who are not rightfully called mothers or fathers.

My youngest daughter called me by my first name once - I told her to always call be dad or father - I have earned that title, and it is my greatest title (worth far more than my BS or my two masters degrees).

[RB TexLa]

143. Life is so much easier without them. Other people can raise children.

[JReed]

151. Two kids- some debt- total joy

The mother and I live apart, the kids split time between. I support them all happily. We all live relatively close to make this happen.

Can't tell you the depth of how the relationship is with myself and the kids. It's the same way for them and their mother.

My life is richer with these boys, without them I would be less. Never thought I would have kids.

Happy New Year.

Life goes on....

[Romulox]

161. People with kids seem to have an innate need to proselytize--a telltale sign of doubt... nt

[Bonobo]

172. This OP is an example of the opposite though. nt

[Scout]

174. happily child free.

i love my nieces and nephews, and great nieces and great nephews.

other people's children are mostly great!

just never really wanted my own.

[mfcorey1]

175. Thirty five years employed, retired, 2 kids, 3 grands, regret ex-son-in-law, some debt.

[Prometheus Bound]

176. I will never understand how an OP this bad gets over 100 recs.

Maybe people just read the title and feel the same, so they rec it.

[Skittles]

178. a lot of people think their kids will help them

when it may very well be the other way around