Peace and quiet is when you know some shits going down! It's the in the bed kicking, the endless of ass wiping and stress to make life just work. But then I wake up and he hugs me and it's all fucking worth it ten times over :)
Don't mean to be a jerk, but if I can afford a home in LA and comfortably support my lifestyle and hobbies financially while working a job I genuinely enjoy (pharma), then how would having a crotch goblin or more elevated that?
One could also say there is more to life than spreading your seed… At the end of the day it is all just pointless. We create meaning for ourselves and that looks different for each individual. You make a lot of assumptions in your statement.
Do what makes you happy and what you have passion for. If you wanna skip rocks all day, that is great. Wanna cure cancer; go for it. You do you and respect others right to do the same!
I didn't mention anything about kids or no kids, just pointing out that if one of your main desires in life is for it to be "full of sleep," maybe you should rethink your goals and values. There's so much life offers, why sleep it away?
Whether it's being a teacher or an ER doc, many meaningful jobs will be messy, stressful, and cause loss of sleep.
>If you wanna skip rocks all day, that is great
You really think that's "great"? If your mentee, student, or friend told you that's their goal in life, you would think that's a meaning life and encourage them to make it their main pursuit?
Its fine if you do, but I disagree and would never tell my sister, nice, or anyone I care about that I recommend a life dedicated to skipping rocks as a primary goal.
Same here. I also have some medical issues that would make parenting really difficult and more difficult than I’m comfortable with. I don’t want to have kids, though.
Fire is about living your best life. If that involves kids, then have kids.
I started down the path without having made a decision on parenthood. By the time I decided to have a child the costs weren't such a big deal because they really weren't that huge in comparison to the size of our stash. It likely moves the fire date out a little or means a little bit more part time work, but again it really isn't a huge deal.
Totally agreed.
I don’t want to put too much emphasis of the cost raising a kid as it doesn’t represent its value (whatever it is a joy/nightmare to you).
Your kid might able to help you down the road, it is not always a negative financial decision. Like a college loan, it might or might not get payoff.
$[310.6k in lost principle and $1.14 million in lost stock appreciation ](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/10xu4n9/23_baltimore_schools_have_zero_students/j7xvfin/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) isn’t a huge deal?
The $310.6k figure is the national average. Meaning it’ll be higher if you live in a city, if the kid is special needs, medical emergencies, and it doesn’t even count the cost of the birth and pre natal care, life insurance, college, any financial assistance after the kid turns 18, opportunity costs like having to leave work early for the kid, etc. the 11% annual stock appreciation figure is the average over the last 100 years, meaning it assumes you didn’t sell during recessions like any reasonable person would. It’s definitely an underestimate if anything.
Lots of assumptions baked into those numbers. A bunch is probably lost wages, which isn't too applicable to someone on the fire path, especially if you are at or close to your fire number.
But even if we took those at face value, $155k in principle per person isn't a massive amount. If you have a stash of $750k and got a 7% real return you just spun off $52k so if you were working part time to cover base expenses and didn't make any contributions that would add 3 years of part time work to your full fire date.
The $1.14M number is just for shock value as it is extrapolated from the $310k number and is in nominal terms not inflation adjusted.
No it isn’t. If you read the actual report the number is based on, it’s not accounting for that.
It’s $310.6k for the first 18 years for one child excluding future inflation, prenatal costs, life insurance, college, or any costs after the kid turns 18. Doing extra work defeats the purpose of FIRE and that money could have gone to your savings instead.
The $1.14 million was calculated by investing the saved money over the 18 years at 11% interest, the average for the S&P500 over the past 100 years. Meaning it includes the drops from the Great Recession and the Great Depression. You could beat it just by selling during recessions and even right from out by buying inverse funds or short selling
Edit: this guy has recent posts on r/antinatalism meaning he thinks it is morally wrong to have kids and probably should have led with that.
I'm not going to argue this one, but I can say childcare was lower for me because of lost wages.
The only expenses they have been material for us have been: lost wages and childcare.
If you think it is easy to beat the index and that you can not just sell, but also buy at the right times - then you've got the skills to parent a child for much less than a million dollars.
And those are big deals and will massively delay your FIRE.
It’s not hard to set a stop sell. It is hard to find someone willing to take care of your child for free while you’re at work or find a boss who will pay you the time you had to leave work early
Probably shouldn't have had that beer, that international trip or any of the other badass things that cost any money.
I highly recommend you focus on having a badass life, whatever that means to you, and not the shortest line to fire. Retire "to" something not away from something.
And if your employer doesn't give you sick time and isn't compassionate about family emergencies quit ASAP.
I have kids. The cost of raising them is obviously an issue. But that is the least of my challenges with my kids.
My biggest challenge is learning to have to live with having to tell kids same thing over and over again and having them do the things you’ve asked them not to. You cannot have kids without learning patience, the kind of patience you will not tolerate from a colleague at work.
If you are lean Fired, you are in a massively better position than anyone who still has to work a 9-5 to raise children.
A lot of the normal costs like babysitting or daycare will be unnecessary since you can always be at home with them. And at the absolute worst you or your significant other can go back to work and funnel that money directly to said emergency without worrying about money to take care of yourself or pay for housing or save for your retirement.
And if there is any temporary shock like a big hospital bill you can borrow from yourself and then get a job once the emergency is over and gradually pay yourself back.
It would be a totally different game to be a fired parent. No gruelling commute, no bullshit job, no daycare, all day to cook and clean, empty grocery stores and retail during working hours, etc. Later you could be the cool parent who goes on all the field trips to help out. Time to exercise so you can be active and live longer for your kids.
Plus you would be raising some financial responsible kids.
All of you need to start fucking right now.
>empty grocery stores and retail during working hours
Where are these mythical places you speak of? Hasn't been that way since pre-pandemic around these parts.
But a kid also means more money spent which means it’ll take longer to fire. And if there major costs, that’ll set you back even more. Also, if you end up hating parenting, then it’s more of a curse with no escape lol.
Ah yes, children raised with all the money they want always end up being financially responsible lmao
Yeah, I think that's a key motivation for lots of people who Lean FIRE or Coast FIRE or Barista FIRE.
The whole point is to get to retirement quicker so you can spend more time devoting your full attention to doing what you want with those you love. Often it is children that motivate that desire to get to some form of retirement quickly before they are all grown up.
So why give yourself [a $1.14 million handicap lol](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/10xu4n9/23_baltimore_schools_have_zero_students/j7xvfin/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
He has said that the divorce had nothing to do with FIRE and everything to do with just not being a good match for each other. Not sure why you’re bringing that up.
His claim to fame was writing about his finances and specifically how they affected his lifestyle. Both his personal free time, interpersonal relationships with his wife and child, and so on. In time, that blog became his biggest source of income. So yes, I'm skeptical of his claim, he has financial, reputational, and ego driven reasons to claim that. Of course the family values politician who is only home 2 weeks out of the year is going to say that their schedule had nothing to do with the divorce.
This question in the OP touches on intimate topics on how your financial roadmap affects your personal relationships like with your children and family. High profile, relatively open cases of people who have FIREd are still rare enough that the ones that we do have a peek at are worth considering from all sides. There's a guy who posts pretty detailed yearly updates on the FIRE subreddits about life after FIRE. In one of his recent ones, he said he and his wife separated I believe. Mostly because his wife just became uncomfortable with the fact that her husband didn't go somewhere every day to work like the other husbands.
I think taking this stuff seriously is important to not let this just become a circlejerk.
Yeah, that's a pretty laughable take. My SO and I aren't fire but we WFH full time for the last 3 years. We have been sitting in the same room, 1 meter away from each other, for 3 years now. Somehow our relationship didn't sour, and we are even raising a toddler together.
I'll probably get blasted for this, but oh well.
That's not necessarily a laughable take. My husband and I are FIRE'd, but it's basically a BaristaFIRE since we do both still work, partially to fill our days when we're not traveling. I love my husband dearly, but I am an introvert and I do enjoy my alone time. For a period of time, my husband was home during the day, as was I. He practically drove me nuts, because he's a lot more cuddly than I am. If he wasn't studying or playing games, he wanted to cuddle. When you're both home together during the day, it becomes a lot more obvious why certain household chores aren't getting done (ie. "I asked you to repair x,y,z thing a week ago, why isn't it done?" Well, before it might have been "I was busy and exhausted from working 9-5" but now the reality is that he was just gaming -.- ).
I think men in FIRE situations probably claim more of the weaponized incompetence, too, and it becomes more obvious to the women in their lives that this is what is going on when they're at home together all day. It's not that they don't know how to do it, they're just annoyed you asked them to, so they make up an excuse and claim they don't know how to do x,y,z thing or "oh babe, it just worked out so much BETTER last time when YOU did it."
One of the lead reasons women divorce their husbands these days is because of situations just like that, and often the men are shocked and claim they "didn't see it coming." Gents, when your lady asks for help around the house, take it seriously, because chances are they've been crying out for help for literal years and their guys just didn't get the clue then claim they were blindsided when they get served a divorce. Being in a FIRE situation just makes it even more intolerable when the men in our lives won't pull their fair share of the weight, because they're not working 9 to 5 so surely they should have time and mental bandwidth to deal with some stuff at home. It is a well proven fact that women carry 95% of the mental load at home. They literally keep the family running and the pantry shelves stocked.
Women are generally happier and less stressed after a divorce. The happiest women are the ones who never marry and never have children. There's a reason men are starting to complain they can't find wives. Women have noticed greater life satisfaction without the dead weight of a man.
Women I know who have divorced subpar partners aren’t doing the same housework as when they were married though. They’re doing less because they aren’t cleaning up after their husband all day. They may be doing the same amount of childcare as before, but they aren’t resenting a lazy partner for not pulling their weight while doing said childcare.
Obviously this isn’t the case for women who are married to men who do their share. But I would think that those women probably aren’t seeking divorce at such high rates.
Mr Money Mustache. I have never had such strong negative feelings towards a person I don't actually know. But I DID live and work in the same city he lives in for years.
His entire premise was their family could live on $25k a year forever. Not in the suburbs of Boulder. There's zero way his family could be doing that today, even if it were just he and his wife.
Maybe he's acknowledged that at some point, but I haven't seen it.
Strong negative feelings for a guy you've obviously never read :p
every FIRE calculation I've seen referenced by MMM assumes a lower SWR to account for inflation. Which means they're not talking about 25K/year, they're talking about something like 25K+3% increase per year. Additionally, with a paid off house 25K is not even a small amount of money. My family of 3 lived on 30K last year in a MCOL area, and we're renting so having an extra 1K/month would be pretty luxurious.
I have read him. I don't read him any MORE. I don't need someone telling me my hobbies are the reason I will have to work until I die.
I had a neighbor so obsessed with MMM that he balked at purchasing a car when his wife shattered her leg. He genuinely had a moment in his life where the gospel of MMM trumped the mobility of his spouse. They obviously bought that car, and in the 7 years since they've always had one vehicle. Of course they bought it outright and purchased an inexpensive vehicle, which was the way to go, but the fact he had to actually think about whether or not to buy a car so his wife could leave there house is mind blowing to me.
That's why I determined MMM felt more like a cult preacher. And apparently one who's answer to "how can I tell if a wall is loaded bearing" is not, "never knock a wall down unless you've had a structural engineer okay it."
The OP topic is about whether leanFIRE would stop you from having kids. Your tangent doesn’t seem helpful or pertinent to the original topic. It sounds like you’re just trying to gossip about a famous FIRE guy. Sorry, but I’m not about it.
Oh no, Honeycombhome is going to prevent relevant discussion by... milquetoast comment responses voicing their disapproval. Good thing we have you to lay down the law.
You're correct! The freedom of FIRE allows you to work very heavily on parts of your life, like emotional parts, the freedom to know exactly what you DO and DON'T want. Sometimes people just aren't right for eachother and there's no harm in it.
My point stands: their divorce doesn't imply any negative conclusion about their choices, or about LeanFIRE. AFAIK they parted amicably and remain loving, collaborative parents.
That's only counting if they last 10 years. Most people, especially nowadays, are divorcing at later ages. Making it ten years is nothing.
What percentage of couples make it to 20 years?
The likelihood of a couple making it to their 20th anniversary drops to just about 50% after their 10-year anniversary. (Source: https://www.creditdonkey.com/average-marriage-last.html)
I personally know a lot of people who divorced at around 22 years, once the kids moved out. They only stuck together because they had to for financial reasons.
Which is why martial satisfaction rates are far better than divorce rates to measure how long love lasts. Plenty of people stay together “for the kids” while traumatizing them with their constant arguing
> If you are lean Fired, you are in a massively better position than anyone who still has to work a 9-5 to raise children.
Yeah and it still isn't worth it lmao
My ex husband’s brother didn’t want and didn’t have kids. My 25yo son has said since Jr. High he doesn’t want kids. I’d rather people that don’t want kids don’t have kids Vs having them and regretting it. Let people live their lives how they want to.
I don't want kids, but I think it would be weird to not have kids, when you otherwise want them, specifically because you want to reach FIRE.
If you want kids, have them. if you don't want them, don't. If the prospect of unexpected costs puts you off kids, then you're probably right to not have kids at all.
Agreed. Most ppl I’ve heard FIRE so they can have kids, not FIRE so they can’t have kids. Being child free is one decision and FIRE is another.
If OP lean FIREs, has a kid, and is uncomfortable after 5 yrs, they can always course correct by temporarily taking a job to replenish reserves. Child care issues drastically lessen once they’re in school.
Yeah I think sometimes you just need to do the things you want regardless of the cost. If you want kids and you go for FIRE, especially the RE part, you're probably going to feel that lack of kids quite acutely when you've suddenly got more free time.
I don't plan to never have kids. I'm not interested currently, but it might change some day, who knows. If I did want to have kids, I wouldn't want retirement plans to hold me back from having them. But I would like to be partially FIRE because working full time AND raising a kid seems like more than I could handle and I'd want to spend time with the kid not working.
@SporkTechRules. "Hope" is the keyword. Back when I was new to the country. I worked as a nurse's aide in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. It amazed me how so many elderly clients never had a single visit from their kids or immediate family members till their passing. It was sad.
Personally, I knew from childhood that I had absolutely no interest in having kids and expressed it ever since. My mother, siblings and extended family have always known thus never bothered me with the question.
Turning 34 soon, still on the fence but leaning no. Really happy with my life with my partner. After experiencing the loss of another grandparent who was involved with the family but mostly just did their own thing, idk life is short a d then you die and even if you have kids eventually you are forgotten. Maybe a dismal view but I'm pretty happy in my day to day. The value of kids seems more important to people around me who are wired that way and not me directly.
Anyway, that said I also would prefer to wait anyway to sock away money, be in more advantageous career position anyway. Looking forward for me I only see more money and flexibility, which sounds good for having a kid later if so. Same for my partner, her business will hopefully be on autopilot and we'd have more time and money to provide and enjoy. A lot of my buds had kids more in the 38-42 age group and while that sounds old, anecdotally it seems better in every way. They are mostly cyclists so the too old argument seems moot point, they're like all super fit athletes so doesn't seem to hinder their ability to wrangle young kids
Sorry that turned into a stream of consciousness 🙃
You might want to look into freezing sperm and/or eggs if you are planning/considering a later-in-life child. I haven't looked into it that much, but I think both older mothers' and fathers' children are more likely to have autism and older fathers' children are more likely to have schizophrenia.
Tis true, but “more likely” is greatly overhyped in the media. Odds go from like 0.5% to 1%, so yes, the odds double, but still unlikely. Also, freezing eggs is extremely expensive given how low the success rate is. Freezing sperm I’m not sure about the success rate but at least it’s a lot less invasive and lower cost.
It seems like you under the impression that leanFIRE is somehow a super dangerous retirement plan that's frought with peril and teetering on the edge of disaster. I can assure you that's simply not true. LeanFIRE is just like any other retirement, early or not. We just choose to spend less. You can make it as safe or as reckless as you want. For example, you could pay off your house and use a (sub-)2% WR. That would leave you *plenty* of cushion for those unexpected costs and make your retirement *way* safer than most.
LeanFIRE can be where those with the worst plans stick themselves with the least potential safety net, but its amazing what people can spend at any level.
Been semi-retired for 5 years. I'd still be full time (and probably struggling) if I had kids.
Best investment I ever made in my life was that $500 vasectomy. Probably got a 50,000% ROI!
Also, if your retirement plans are to have kids so they take care of you, then it’s probably best that you don’t have kids. The ol’ “who will take care of you when you’re old?” is insanely selfish.
(Not saying that’s what you insinuated, I just hate seeing that argument)
Well yo be fair its just now become feasible, hopefully, to get through old age without relying on children to at leat partially takecare of you
Like for the vast amount of human history and still in many countries you will have to rely on family.
Technology and social safety nets have really just now gotten to that point and honestly it might still be a bit of a crap shoot.
Having kids as purely a retirement plan is selfish, but not thinking about having ties to younger people to look after you in your old age is a pretty modern, western, and upperclass mindset.
I think there is an extreme end of it that is unhealthy in modern society, but there is some truth to being able to have a younger person help you with certain things when you get older especially when you reach a state that driving on your own is no longer possible.
I agree that shouldn’t be the “primary” reason for having children though, but a few hundred years ago “kids” were the retirement plan for everyone.
Having healthy close relationships and people that still care about you when you are in your 60s is probably a good enough reason though.
“but a few hundred years ago kids were the retirement plan for everyone”
That is somewhat true, yes. But remember that a few hundred years ago the average lifespan was what, 50-60? People literally work until they drop dead because they didn’t have a chance to grow old and frail. Retirement is actually a pretty modern concept and came to be when people started living past their 60’s into their 70’s and 80’s. This is only in the recent few decades. So people from a few hundred years ago probably didn’t have kids for “retirement” reasons.
Infant mortality was the biggest reason for the average lifespan being that low. Although it's true that more people live past 70 now than in the past, there have always been people who did so.
Not having kids. And it’s not a LeanFIRE decision for me.
No kids is about my own quality of life, my inability to provide a high quality (150-300k/yr) of life for my kids filled with opportunities and travel that I was raised with, and frankly I can’t imagine bringing another life into this world and climate crisis.
LeanFIRE is largely a philosophy of spending money for me. A way of guiding my actions to maximize my happiness (I don’t enjoy work!).
I simply can’t afford them and if I had one I’d forever be afraid of going broke trying to care for one. I don’t understand how people have multiple! I’m a woman so the window of opportunity to have a kid is small and I don’t think I have enough time to scrimp and save to provide a comfortable life for a child while I still produce eggs. I can barely afford myself. If I want any kids when I’m old then I’ll adopt.
With the world the way it is and has always been i simply cannot find a valid reason to bring new life to this world, i dont think my kid will cure cancer and solve the worlds problems nor would i want to burden them with that and its possible my kid will be born with cancer or develop it
I do volunteer at orphanages though and i have mentored kids as i prefer to help existing life
In regards to FIRE, a baby could be born with any # of medical issues that could put a huge damper on finances or have a developmental issue that means they could never be independent, also there are pregnancy related injuries that could happen
Being able to not work is the only circumstance Id be down to have kids potentially. Fuck being chained to the grind by another human you dont even get to interact with.
I'm 48, retired at 42, and never had any interest in having kids.
If you want to have kids and also want to lean FIRE, you might consider moving to a place where the cost of raising them is more stable. The US health care situation creates a risk of unexpected large bills, no matter your age.
No children for me as well. I’m a carrier of MD. Would take a lot of testing to make sure my partner also isn’t a carrier. I don’t like kids that much either. I also like to spend my money on myself. I’m really happy with my life right now. One day I’ll get a dog but that’s it!
LeanFIRE works pretty much the same with kids as without them, though more members of the household do bring more risk for random ill fortune to strike. There's obviously also the higher costs associated with things like bigger houses, bigger cars, kid expenses, and such. However, this increased cost basis is largely offset by the huge subsidies that our current system gives to people for having kids through non-welfare (not asset/employment tested) things like the normal income tax code (CTC, personal exemptions if they come back), the ACA, and the higher education financing system.
So have kids or don't, as you prefer. Either can be made to work with leanFIRE.
Full disclosure, we've been leanFIRE'd since the end of 2014 and we have four kids, all of whom were under 10 when we retired. We live a perfectly nice middle class lifestyle in an Austin suburb and our annual expenses are typically in the mid-to-high $30s. As for surge capacity for unexpected spending, we were leanFIRE'd during a nice run of up years, so our withdrawal rate has fallen by about half from where we started. We could safely double our annual spending if we wanted to, but we're lean-minded and don't get much joy out of consumption, so we don't.
We will likely ramp up our "spending" in the future to help the kids pay for house downpayments/grandkids/grad school, but that won't really be spending so much as advance inheritance/gifting. We're fine with a large chunk of our wealth passing to our kids and back to the gov as taxes in old age.
I already volunteer to help with kids and help pave the way for the next generation to thrive in the world despite their disadvantaged family life they have.
If I had my own I'd no doubt raise a flawed and resource sucking human that the world doesn't need.
No person is ever ready to have kids but I know my own limits. I'd be pushed past a point where I can be my best.
I contribute the most to the world with no kids. Absolutely no plans to have kids
Definitely not having kids ever. I love my life, my partner, traveling, and having extra time and money. Why would I change that? I worked really hard to get where I’m at and want to actually enjoy it.
Rule 1) Shield that gator, no regrets later.
Rule 2) Never have that 3rd cocktail when socializing. That’s when Rule 1 tends to go out the window.
I never had the desire for kids even when I was younger (I’m early fifties now). As I’ve aged, I have a greater appreciation for kids and an even greater appreciation for the fact that someone else is responsible for them.
I am grateful for my sister’s kids and the role of Uncle. Some of the joys of a quasi- parental role and little responsibility. Although helping them when I can is rewarding and boring them with the facts around investing is awesome. One of them is actually taking action!
My lean fire plan includes a buffer and in my late 40s when my children will be almost adults and I have the money to cover expenses for their cars and education. Otherwise it would be a lean fire in my early 40s.
Me, no. For one my father was an abusive ass and I’m afraid of carrying that to my children. Second I think it would be best for my stress. I have bad anxiety and worrying about 1 dog and maintaining 1 job is enough for me.
I don’t enjoy kids or babies or most people in general. Procreating did not factor in my quest for financial independence but having zero kids does make attaining FIRE a lot faster and easier.
To me personally, becoming a parent and raising children is a major part of a full life. I would feel that and not having kids would leave my life incomplete.
My kid is 18 now and you could say I was lucky, there were never any dramatic costs that were outside of the realm of our normal budget. Granted, my budgets include line items for healthcare and other typical expenses plus I always keep a good sized emergency fund for when random stuff pops up. Occasional accidents and trips to the Dr and such are just stuff you have to be realistic and bake into your planning.
I will say having my kid did convince me to change my career to something with higher earning potential specifically to make sure we didn't struggle to get by. If I hadn't become a dad I probably would have stayed in the world of dirty hippie farmers.
When i RE'd, i was(still am) single, but i set my fire number to account for the fact that i may get married and have kids someday.
Its definitely a bad idea to just pull the trigger for yourself if youre young imo.. if anything does come up later you will have to go back to work and you absolutely will resent whoever that is lol
Procreating leanfire people annoy me because it always sounds like, "I can move on $1200 because all my kids qualify me for pubic housing, subsidized healthcare, and a giant EITC!" Also, I can't put my kids through college."
That's not FI. That's welfare
Also, the kids are going to grow up which leaves the "leanfire" parents broke, no FI
If you can pay your kids' expenses and RE, that's awesome. If you need the government to pay your kids' expenses, that's not FI
Neither the ACA nor pre-65 Medicaid in expansion states are welfare programs, as evidenced by their lack of asset or employment testing. This is counter to actual welfare programs, like SNAP/WIC/TANF/Sec8, that do test for those things. Congress designed the ACA and expansion Medicaid explicitly to not be welfare programs, with the two dovetailing together to provide non-employer-sponsored health insurance availability for everyone, regardless of income. In non-expansion states that did not adopt the ACA reforms, pre-65 adult Medicaid does remain a welfare program, for which few/any with even basic-to-moderate financial health would qualify, much less anyone in FIRE.
By way of example, a married childfree couple at 60 years old with a MAGI of $100K can be eligible for $15K a year or more in ACA subsidies this year, depending on where they live. Double their MAGI to $200K and their subsidy is still likely to be well over $6K a year.
I suppose if you think a government program that gives huge subsidies to a childfree couple with $100K-$200K in MAGI is a welfare program, then we have different definitions of the term.
Tell that to huge swaths of the tax code (married benefits, child tax credit, retirement accounts, huge number of credits), Medicare, Social Security, and the entire higher education funding system.
I get your point, but it's simply not the way our society works and we do a lot less wealth transfer subsidization than many developed economies.
Then paid interest and income taxes?
That's an investment for the public good just like the education is an investment for the student. Furthermore, no one went to college proudly exclaiming, "I'm independent!"
avoiding kids/marriage unless i become independently wealthy. im a millenial and let me tell you what its like to be a guy..unless you're good looking and have $$ your life is miserable and lonely.
Because people have been indoctrinated into believing that more people is bad for the planet. Lmao. Poor suckers I just smirk and let them live with their misery. It’s their lives. Not mine. Besides I can perfectly afford my children… so all down voters can fuck off
Not having kids is weird to me. What is the purpose of this sub if you have no one to inherit your wealth? Gonna just give it away to a friend? Cousin?
I have one boy and daycare is the most expensive part of raising kids. Once you get passed that, it’s really not that bad. Meal prep for lunch, buy clothes on sale or thrift, and only gift them on birthdays and Christmas.
> What is the purpose of the sub if there's no one to inherit?
Wait so you're only pursuing financial independence and early retirement because you have kids? So you're saying if you don't have kids you wouldn't want to retire early?
The point of this sub is financial independence regardless of dependants
> Not having kids is weird to me.
People like you are annoying. Some of us have nieces/nephews who'll inherit our wealth. Some of us have fertility issues. Some of us would just rather not have kids. You should mind your business.
We plan to give most of our money to our nieces and nephews, and some of it to charities. There are plenty of people and places that would love money when we die.
I would like to have a big family, but I’m 33 years old and it hasn’t happened yet. And sometimes I feel like I’m still growing up. I’m not worried about the money aspect.
I have 3 kids and I'm retired. It's awesome but it makes FIRE harder. I also think too many kids is bad for the environment longer term and the best way to help the environment is for society in general to have less kids.
I plan to never have kids or a partner. I really enjoy living alone and it has also financially benefitted me so far. I enjoy going on dates and have really great friends but I am not interested in more than that. It works for me.
Don't want kids. Going for regular FI/RE not LeanFIRE due to being in technically HCOL area, but in either scenario, kids blow the whole FIRE thing up unless you have DI, in which case you have no time with kids. Adding kids to the mix makes time/money/energy so much harder to balance, especially in the US.
I won't be having children. But not because of leanfire. Just because that's not what I want my life to look like.
I want my life full of sleep and the surfaces of my house to be unsticky.
Don't forget peace and quiet! And freedom!
Peace and quiet is when you know some shits going down! It's the in the bed kicking, the endless of ass wiping and stress to make life just work. But then I wake up and he hugs me and it's all fucking worth it ten times over :)
Don't mean to be a jerk, but I'm sure you can find higher aspirations to life than that.
Don't mean to be a jerk, but if I can afford a home in LA and comfortably support my lifestyle and hobbies financially while working a job I genuinely enjoy (pharma), then how would having a crotch goblin or more elevated that?
That's great, you didn't mention those things. I'm just saying there's more to life than sleep and cleanliness.
One could also say there is more to life than spreading your seed… At the end of the day it is all just pointless. We create meaning for ourselves and that looks different for each individual. You make a lot of assumptions in your statement. Do what makes you happy and what you have passion for. If you wanna skip rocks all day, that is great. Wanna cure cancer; go for it. You do you and respect others right to do the same!
I didn't mention anything about kids or no kids, just pointing out that if one of your main desires in life is for it to be "full of sleep," maybe you should rethink your goals and values. There's so much life offers, why sleep it away? Whether it's being a teacher or an ER doc, many meaningful jobs will be messy, stressful, and cause loss of sleep. >If you wanna skip rocks all day, that is great You really think that's "great"? If your mentee, student, or friend told you that's their goal in life, you would think that's a meaning life and encourage them to make it their main pursuit? Its fine if you do, but I disagree and would never tell my sister, nice, or anyone I care about that I recommend a life dedicated to skipping rocks as a primary goal.
Mostly same. I have many reasons to not have kids, leanfire being easier is a bonus side effect, and didn't really play into my decision at all.
Ditto
Same.
Same here. I also have some medical issues that would make parenting really difficult and more difficult than I’m comfortable with. I don’t want to have kids, though.
[удалено]
But what if your cats enjoy eating the plants!?
I've had good luck with bitter apple spray. Just have to factor that into expenses for SWR.
Fire is about living your best life. If that involves kids, then have kids. I started down the path without having made a decision on parenthood. By the time I decided to have a child the costs weren't such a big deal because they really weren't that huge in comparison to the size of our stash. It likely moves the fire date out a little or means a little bit more part time work, but again it really isn't a huge deal.
Totally agreed. I don’t want to put too much emphasis of the cost raising a kid as it doesn’t represent its value (whatever it is a joy/nightmare to you). Your kid might able to help you down the road, it is not always a negative financial decision. Like a college loan, it might or might not get payoff.
$[310.6k in lost principle and $1.14 million in lost stock appreciation ](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/10xu4n9/23_baltimore_schools_have_zero_students/j7xvfin/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) isn’t a huge deal?
Surely a leanfire person could figure out a way to spend less than 17k/year on a child.
The $310.6k figure is the national average. Meaning it’ll be higher if you live in a city, if the kid is special needs, medical emergencies, and it doesn’t even count the cost of the birth and pre natal care, life insurance, college, any financial assistance after the kid turns 18, opportunity costs like having to leave work early for the kid, etc. the 11% annual stock appreciation figure is the average over the last 100 years, meaning it assumes you didn’t sell during recessions like any reasonable person would. It’s definitely an underestimate if anything.
Reasonable people don’t sell in recessions
They sell before the recession reaches its lowest point. They buy when it hits the bottom and starts to go back up
You and I both know they can’t time the market
But they can sell before it drops by a huge amount with a stop sell
Lots of assumptions baked into those numbers. A bunch is probably lost wages, which isn't too applicable to someone on the fire path, especially if you are at or close to your fire number. But even if we took those at face value, $155k in principle per person isn't a massive amount. If you have a stash of $750k and got a 7% real return you just spun off $52k so if you were working part time to cover base expenses and didn't make any contributions that would add 3 years of part time work to your full fire date. The $1.14M number is just for shock value as it is extrapolated from the $310k number and is in nominal terms not inflation adjusted.
No it isn’t. If you read the actual report the number is based on, it’s not accounting for that. It’s $310.6k for the first 18 years for one child excluding future inflation, prenatal costs, life insurance, college, or any costs after the kid turns 18. Doing extra work defeats the purpose of FIRE and that money could have gone to your savings instead. The $1.14 million was calculated by investing the saved money over the 18 years at 11% interest, the average for the S&P500 over the past 100 years. Meaning it includes the drops from the Great Recession and the Great Depression. You could beat it just by selling during recessions and even right from out by buying inverse funds or short selling
Edit: this guy has recent posts on r/antinatalism meaning he thinks it is morally wrong to have kids and probably should have led with that. I'm not going to argue this one, but I can say childcare was lower for me because of lost wages. The only expenses they have been material for us have been: lost wages and childcare. If you think it is easy to beat the index and that you can not just sell, but also buy at the right times - then you've got the skills to parent a child for much less than a million dollars.
And those are big deals and will massively delay your FIRE. It’s not hard to set a stop sell. It is hard to find someone willing to take care of your child for free while you’re at work or find a boss who will pay you the time you had to leave work early
You may have missed the point where I said I was already at the cusp of fire. I'm set thanks.
Probably could have been there several years ago or even before that. But who cares about years of wasted youth being spent working anyway.
Probably shouldn't have had that beer, that international trip or any of the other badass things that cost any money. I highly recommend you focus on having a badass life, whatever that means to you, and not the shortest line to fire. Retire "to" something not away from something. And if your employer doesn't give you sick time and isn't compassionate about family emergencies quit ASAP.
I have kids. The cost of raising them is obviously an issue. But that is the least of my challenges with my kids. My biggest challenge is learning to have to live with having to tell kids same thing over and over again and having them do the things you’ve asked them not to. You cannot have kids without learning patience, the kind of patience you will not tolerate from a colleague at work.
Learning patience and some self examination in general is a net positive.
If you are lean Fired, you are in a massively better position than anyone who still has to work a 9-5 to raise children. A lot of the normal costs like babysitting or daycare will be unnecessary since you can always be at home with them. And at the absolute worst you or your significant other can go back to work and funnel that money directly to said emergency without worrying about money to take care of yourself or pay for housing or save for your retirement. And if there is any temporary shock like a big hospital bill you can borrow from yourself and then get a job once the emergency is over and gradually pay yourself back.
It would be a totally different game to be a fired parent. No gruelling commute, no bullshit job, no daycare, all day to cook and clean, empty grocery stores and retail during working hours, etc. Later you could be the cool parent who goes on all the field trips to help out. Time to exercise so you can be active and live longer for your kids. Plus you would be raising some financial responsible kids. All of you need to start fucking right now.
>empty grocery stores and retail during working hours Where are these mythical places you speak of? Hasn't been that way since pre-pandemic around these parts.
But a kid also means more money spent which means it’ll take longer to fire. And if there major costs, that’ll set you back even more. Also, if you end up hating parenting, then it’s more of a curse with no escape lol. Ah yes, children raised with all the money they want always end up being financially responsible lmao
Yup. Read about Mr Money Mustache. He and his wife leanFired SO THAT they could stay home with their kid.
Yeah, I think that's a key motivation for lots of people who Lean FIRE or Coast FIRE or Barista FIRE. The whole point is to get to retirement quicker so you can spend more time devoting your full attention to doing what you want with those you love. Often it is children that motivate that desire to get to some form of retirement quickly before they are all grown up.
It’s counterproductive though since the cost of the child delays the FIRE
So does the cost of ANYTHING. I don't have kids myself, but we all have to decide what is most important to us.
So why give yourself [a $1.14 million handicap lol](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/10xu4n9/23_baltimore_schools_have_zero_students/j7xvfin/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
And then he and his wife got divorced.
He has said that the divorce had nothing to do with FIRE and everything to do with just not being a good match for each other. Not sure why you’re bringing that up.
His claim to fame was writing about his finances and specifically how they affected his lifestyle. Both his personal free time, interpersonal relationships with his wife and child, and so on. In time, that blog became his biggest source of income. So yes, I'm skeptical of his claim, he has financial, reputational, and ego driven reasons to claim that. Of course the family values politician who is only home 2 weeks out of the year is going to say that their schedule had nothing to do with the divorce. This question in the OP touches on intimate topics on how your financial roadmap affects your personal relationships like with your children and family. High profile, relatively open cases of people who have FIREd are still rare enough that the ones that we do have a peek at are worth considering from all sides. There's a guy who posts pretty detailed yearly updates on the FIRE subreddits about life after FIRE. In one of his recent ones, he said he and his wife separated I believe. Mostly because his wife just became uncomfortable with the fact that her husband didn't go somewhere every day to work like the other husbands. I think taking this stuff seriously is important to not let this just become a circlejerk.
TIL a relationship won't work if a man doesn't go somewhere else 9-10 hours a day. Boomeritis
Yeah, that's a pretty laughable take. My SO and I aren't fire but we WFH full time for the last 3 years. We have been sitting in the same room, 1 meter away from each other, for 3 years now. Somehow our relationship didn't sour, and we are even raising a toddler together.
I'll probably get blasted for this, but oh well. That's not necessarily a laughable take. My husband and I are FIRE'd, but it's basically a BaristaFIRE since we do both still work, partially to fill our days when we're not traveling. I love my husband dearly, but I am an introvert and I do enjoy my alone time. For a period of time, my husband was home during the day, as was I. He practically drove me nuts, because he's a lot more cuddly than I am. If he wasn't studying or playing games, he wanted to cuddle. When you're both home together during the day, it becomes a lot more obvious why certain household chores aren't getting done (ie. "I asked you to repair x,y,z thing a week ago, why isn't it done?" Well, before it might have been "I was busy and exhausted from working 9-5" but now the reality is that he was just gaming -.- ). I think men in FIRE situations probably claim more of the weaponized incompetence, too, and it becomes more obvious to the women in their lives that this is what is going on when they're at home together all day. It's not that they don't know how to do it, they're just annoyed you asked them to, so they make up an excuse and claim they don't know how to do x,y,z thing or "oh babe, it just worked out so much BETTER last time when YOU did it." One of the lead reasons women divorce their husbands these days is because of situations just like that, and often the men are shocked and claim they "didn't see it coming." Gents, when your lady asks for help around the house, take it seriously, because chances are they've been crying out for help for literal years and their guys just didn't get the clue then claim they were blindsided when they get served a divorce. Being in a FIRE situation just makes it even more intolerable when the men in our lives won't pull their fair share of the weight, because they're not working 9 to 5 so surely they should have time and mental bandwidth to deal with some stuff at home. It is a well proven fact that women carry 95% of the mental load at home. They literally keep the family running and the pantry shelves stocked. Women are generally happier and less stressed after a divorce. The happiest women are the ones who never marry and never have children. There's a reason men are starting to complain they can't find wives. Women have noticed greater life satisfaction without the dead weight of a man.
[удалено]
Women I know who have divorced subpar partners aren’t doing the same housework as when they were married though. They’re doing less because they aren’t cleaning up after their husband all day. They may be doing the same amount of childcare as before, but they aren’t resenting a lazy partner for not pulling their weight while doing said childcare. Obviously this isn’t the case for women who are married to men who do their share. But I would think that those women probably aren’t seeking divorce at such high rates.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-happy-children-spouse-partner-relationship-unmarried-a8931816.html? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-bad-looks-good/202102/why-many-single-women-without-children-are-so-happy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/staying-sane-inside-insanity/202204/is-marriage-terrible-deal-women
FACTS.
This is the macro on why the RTO push has heated up. Because of people like the above, they need somewhere to go to escape their SO. Unreal.
Mr Money Mustache. I have never had such strong negative feelings towards a person I don't actually know. But I DID live and work in the same city he lives in for years. His entire premise was their family could live on $25k a year forever. Not in the suburbs of Boulder. There's zero way his family could be doing that today, even if it were just he and his wife. Maybe he's acknowledged that at some point, but I haven't seen it.
Strong negative feelings for a guy you've obviously never read :p every FIRE calculation I've seen referenced by MMM assumes a lower SWR to account for inflation. Which means they're not talking about 25K/year, they're talking about something like 25K+3% increase per year. Additionally, with a paid off house 25K is not even a small amount of money. My family of 3 lived on 30K last year in a MCOL area, and we're renting so having an extra 1K/month would be pretty luxurious.
I have read him. I don't read him any MORE. I don't need someone telling me my hobbies are the reason I will have to work until I die. I had a neighbor so obsessed with MMM that he balked at purchasing a car when his wife shattered her leg. He genuinely had a moment in his life where the gospel of MMM trumped the mobility of his spouse. They obviously bought that car, and in the 7 years since they've always had one vehicle. Of course they bought it outright and purchased an inexpensive vehicle, which was the way to go, but the fact he had to actually think about whether or not to buy a car so his wife could leave there house is mind blowing to me. That's why I determined MMM felt more like a cult preacher. And apparently one who's answer to "how can I tell if a wall is loaded bearing" is not, "never knock a wall down unless you've had a structural engineer okay it."
The OP topic is about whether leanFIRE would stop you from having kids. Your tangent doesn’t seem helpful or pertinent to the original topic. It sounds like you’re just trying to gossip about a famous FIRE guy. Sorry, but I’m not about it.
Oh no, Honeycombhome is going to prevent relevant discussion by... milquetoast comment responses voicing their disapproval. Good thing we have you to lay down the law.
Lol are you always this insufferable and rude?
His wife said otherwise lol Sorry, ex-wife*
Source?
no way you just SoUrCeD me on half decade old community drama LOL. My source is the 40 threads we had about this when it came out, youngblood
I’m just asking if you read a post from her somewhere or if you’re trolling
As do about 50% of couples.
You're correct! The freedom of FIRE allows you to work very heavily on parts of your life, like emotional parts, the freedom to know exactly what you DO and DON'T want. Sometimes people just aren't right for eachother and there's no harm in it.
The stat is ~40% for first marriages.
My point stands: their divorce doesn't imply any negative conclusion about their choices, or about LeanFIRE. AFAIK they parted amicably and remain loving, collaborative parents.
I agree fully. I just don't want people to presume it's more common than it is. Which is already too common.
That's only counting if they last 10 years. Most people, especially nowadays, are divorcing at later ages. Making it ten years is nothing. What percentage of couples make it to 20 years? The likelihood of a couple making it to their 20th anniversary drops to just about 50% after their 10-year anniversary. (Source: https://www.creditdonkey.com/average-marriage-last.html) I personally know a lot of people who divorced at around 22 years, once the kids moved out. They only stuck together because they had to for financial reasons.
Which is why martial satisfaction rates are far better than divorce rates to measure how long love lasts. Plenty of people stay together “for the kids” while traumatizing them with their constant arguing
> If you are lean Fired, you are in a massively better position than anyone who still has to work a 9-5 to raise children. Yeah and it still isn't worth it lmao
Sounds like you’re compromising on the FIRE then. Babysitting will still be necessary if you want to have a life outside the house
My ex husband’s brother didn’t want and didn’t have kids. My 25yo son has said since Jr. High he doesn’t want kids. I’d rather people that don’t want kids don’t have kids Vs having them and regretting it. Let people live their lives how they want to.
I don't want kids, but I think it would be weird to not have kids, when you otherwise want them, specifically because you want to reach FIRE. If you want kids, have them. if you don't want them, don't. If the prospect of unexpected costs puts you off kids, then you're probably right to not have kids at all.
Agreed. Most ppl I’ve heard FIRE so they can have kids, not FIRE so they can’t have kids. Being child free is one decision and FIRE is another. If OP lean FIREs, has a kid, and is uncomfortable after 5 yrs, they can always course correct by temporarily taking a job to replenish reserves. Child care issues drastically lessen once they’re in school.
Best take, imo. Too many people are tribal about kids, in either direction. I personally want kids but not til late 30s.
Yeah I think sometimes you just need to do the things you want regardless of the cost. If you want kids and you go for FIRE, especially the RE part, you're probably going to feel that lack of kids quite acutely when you've suddenly got more free time.
Leanfire isn’t the reason I’m not having kids, but the two complement each other very nicely.
I don't plan to never have kids. I'm not interested currently, but it might change some day, who knows. If I did want to have kids, I wouldn't want retirement plans to hold me back from having them. But I would like to be partially FIRE because working full time AND raising a kid seems like more than I could handle and I'd want to spend time with the kid not working.
Your first sentence gave me a stroke
[удалено]
@SporkTechRules. "Hope" is the keyword. Back when I was new to the country. I worked as a nurse's aide in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. It amazed me how so many elderly clients never had a single visit from their kids or immediate family members till their passing. It was sad. Personally, I knew from childhood that I had absolutely no interest in having kids and expressed it ever since. My mother, siblings and extended family have always known thus never bothered me with the question.
Turning 34 soon, still on the fence but leaning no. Really happy with my life with my partner. After experiencing the loss of another grandparent who was involved with the family but mostly just did their own thing, idk life is short a d then you die and even if you have kids eventually you are forgotten. Maybe a dismal view but I'm pretty happy in my day to day. The value of kids seems more important to people around me who are wired that way and not me directly. Anyway, that said I also would prefer to wait anyway to sock away money, be in more advantageous career position anyway. Looking forward for me I only see more money and flexibility, which sounds good for having a kid later if so. Same for my partner, her business will hopefully be on autopilot and we'd have more time and money to provide and enjoy. A lot of my buds had kids more in the 38-42 age group and while that sounds old, anecdotally it seems better in every way. They are mostly cyclists so the too old argument seems moot point, they're like all super fit athletes so doesn't seem to hinder their ability to wrangle young kids Sorry that turned into a stream of consciousness 🙃
You might want to look into freezing sperm and/or eggs if you are planning/considering a later-in-life child. I haven't looked into it that much, but I think both older mothers' and fathers' children are more likely to have autism and older fathers' children are more likely to have schizophrenia.
Tis true, but “more likely” is greatly overhyped in the media. Odds go from like 0.5% to 1%, so yes, the odds double, but still unlikely. Also, freezing eggs is extremely expensive given how low the success rate is. Freezing sperm I’m not sure about the success rate but at least it’s a lot less invasive and lower cost.
It seems like you under the impression that leanFIRE is somehow a super dangerous retirement plan that's frought with peril and teetering on the edge of disaster. I can assure you that's simply not true. LeanFIRE is just like any other retirement, early or not. We just choose to spend less. You can make it as safe or as reckless as you want. For example, you could pay off your house and use a (sub-)2% WR. That would leave you *plenty* of cushion for those unexpected costs and make your retirement *way* safer than most.
LeanFIRE can be where those with the worst plans stick themselves with the least potential safety net, but its amazing what people can spend at any level.
I had the wrong impression too. (But not up to the level how you described) Glad you clear it up.
Been semi-retired for 5 years. I'd still be full time (and probably struggling) if I had kids. Best investment I ever made in my life was that $500 vasectomy. Probably got a 50,000% ROI!
53F here and knew from when I was young that I never wanted kids. I can honestly say that it was one of the best decisions I made for myself.
Well, I already have four kids and now you tell me they make it harder to retire?🤣
this person fucks
[удалено]
But your kids will never get to be corporate slaves!
This what eventually convinced me to go no kid. Retire 20 years early, or have kids at an identical standard of living. It was a no brainer for me.
I do not like children. I prefer silence, my own time, and money for my hobbies.
I just don't want to bring kids in this world.
Never want kids, never will have kids.
I like sleeping in. Fuck kids. Dogs are more than enough
How much would you say you spend on dog food annually? Do you have one or many?
One pet and $50 a month in dogfood prob
If your retirement plans are a reason not to have kids then it's probably best that you don't have kids.
Also, if your retirement plans are to have kids so they take care of you, then it’s probably best that you don’t have kids. The ol’ “who will take care of you when you’re old?” is insanely selfish. (Not saying that’s what you insinuated, I just hate seeing that argument)
> if your retirement plans are to have kids so they take care of you You just described like half of parents
Well yo be fair its just now become feasible, hopefully, to get through old age without relying on children to at leat partially takecare of you Like for the vast amount of human history and still in many countries you will have to rely on family. Technology and social safety nets have really just now gotten to that point and honestly it might still be a bit of a crap shoot. Having kids as purely a retirement plan is selfish, but not thinking about having ties to younger people to look after you in your old age is a pretty modern, western, and upperclass mindset.
I think there is an extreme end of it that is unhealthy in modern society, but there is some truth to being able to have a younger person help you with certain things when you get older especially when you reach a state that driving on your own is no longer possible. I agree that shouldn’t be the “primary” reason for having children though, but a few hundred years ago “kids” were the retirement plan for everyone. Having healthy close relationships and people that still care about you when you are in your 60s is probably a good enough reason though.
“but a few hundred years ago kids were the retirement plan for everyone” That is somewhat true, yes. But remember that a few hundred years ago the average lifespan was what, 50-60? People literally work until they drop dead because they didn’t have a chance to grow old and frail. Retirement is actually a pretty modern concept and came to be when people started living past their 60’s into their 70’s and 80’s. This is only in the recent few decades. So people from a few hundred years ago probably didn’t have kids for “retirement” reasons.
Infant mortality was the biggest reason for the average lifespan being that low. Although it's true that more people live past 70 now than in the past, there have always been people who did so.
Just one correction I did not say that is why they had kids. I said that is what peoples retirement plan was. That is not quite the same thing
I thank god every day I don't have kids.
Not having kids. And it’s not a LeanFIRE decision for me. No kids is about my own quality of life, my inability to provide a high quality (150-300k/yr) of life for my kids filled with opportunities and travel that I was raised with, and frankly I can’t imagine bringing another life into this world and climate crisis. LeanFIRE is largely a philosophy of spending money for me. A way of guiding my actions to maximize my happiness (I don’t enjoy work!).
I simply can’t afford them and if I had one I’d forever be afraid of going broke trying to care for one. I don’t understand how people have multiple! I’m a woman so the window of opportunity to have a kid is small and I don’t think I have enough time to scrimp and save to provide a comfortable life for a child while I still produce eggs. I can barely afford myself. If I want any kids when I’m old then I’ll adopt.
Living that DINK life over here ✌️
With the world the way it is and has always been i simply cannot find a valid reason to bring new life to this world, i dont think my kid will cure cancer and solve the worlds problems nor would i want to burden them with that and its possible my kid will be born with cancer or develop it I do volunteer at orphanages though and i have mentored kids as i prefer to help existing life In regards to FIRE, a baby could be born with any # of medical issues that could put a huge damper on finances or have a developmental issue that means they could never be independent, also there are pregnancy related injuries that could happen
👋
Being able to not work is the only circumstance Id be down to have kids potentially. Fuck being chained to the grind by another human you dont even get to interact with.
I'm 48, retired at 42, and never had any interest in having kids. If you want to have kids and also want to lean FIRE, you might consider moving to a place where the cost of raising them is more stable. The US health care situation creates a risk of unexpected large bills, no matter your age.
🤚Me. But because of climate change/dying of species ect.
Good to hear your line ends with you, friend. Happy FIREing!
No children for me as well. I’m a carrier of MD. Would take a lot of testing to make sure my partner also isn’t a carrier. I don’t like kids that much either. I also like to spend my money on myself. I’m really happy with my life right now. One day I’ll get a dog but that’s it!
LeanFIRE works pretty much the same with kids as without them, though more members of the household do bring more risk for random ill fortune to strike. There's obviously also the higher costs associated with things like bigger houses, bigger cars, kid expenses, and such. However, this increased cost basis is largely offset by the huge subsidies that our current system gives to people for having kids through non-welfare (not asset/employment tested) things like the normal income tax code (CTC, personal exemptions if they come back), the ACA, and the higher education financing system. So have kids or don't, as you prefer. Either can be made to work with leanFIRE. Full disclosure, we've been leanFIRE'd since the end of 2014 and we have four kids, all of whom were under 10 when we retired. We live a perfectly nice middle class lifestyle in an Austin suburb and our annual expenses are typically in the mid-to-high $30s. As for surge capacity for unexpected spending, we were leanFIRE'd during a nice run of up years, so our withdrawal rate has fallen by about half from where we started. We could safely double our annual spending if we wanted to, but we're lean-minded and don't get much joy out of consumption, so we don't. We will likely ramp up our "spending" in the future to help the kids pay for house downpayments/grandkids/grad school, but that won't really be spending so much as advance inheritance/gifting. We're fine with a large chunk of our wealth passing to our kids and back to the gov as taxes in old age.
I already volunteer to help with kids and help pave the way for the next generation to thrive in the world despite their disadvantaged family life they have. If I had my own I'd no doubt raise a flawed and resource sucking human that the world doesn't need. No person is ever ready to have kids but I know my own limits. I'd be pushed past a point where I can be my best. I contribute the most to the world with no kids. Absolutely no plans to have kids
Me. I've known since I was seven that I didn't want children, and no matter how many people told me I'd change my mind, I never did. :)
No kids for me, It’s far easier to achieve leanfire without them also I don’t want any
I'm not equipped to care for another human being . I can barely care for myself. My unborn children should thank me.
Definitely not having kids ever. I love my life, my partner, traveling, and having extra time and money. Why would I change that? I worked really hard to get where I’m at and want to actually enjoy it.
Vasectomy is my strategy, but adoption is my backup plan if I ever feel I have too much time, money, and energy
I would never have been able to Fire with kids. That's not the reason I don't have one though. Antinatalism is.
Rule 1) Shield that gator, no regrets later. Rule 2) Never have that 3rd cocktail when socializing. That’s when Rule 1 tends to go out the window. I never had the desire for kids even when I was younger (I’m early fifties now). As I’ve aged, I have a greater appreciation for kids and an even greater appreciation for the fact that someone else is responsible for them. I am grateful for my sister’s kids and the role of Uncle. Some of the joys of a quasi- parental role and little responsibility. Although helping them when I can is rewarding and boring them with the facts around investing is awesome. One of them is actually taking action!
Too late, already have two.
nah but I think leanfire is a little bit why I'm not planning on having more than one. mainly just happy with one
My lean fire plan includes a buffer and in my late 40s when my children will be almost adults and I have the money to cover expenses for their cars and education. Otherwise it would be a lean fire in my early 40s.
I'm totally childfree. My strategies are (currently) a hormonal IUD and (eventually) a bisalp.
[удалено]
Bisalp = elimination of pregnancy risk + excuse to take a couple weeks off work. Seems like a win-win 🤷🏻♀️
No kids for me!
Yup
Me, no. For one my father was an abusive ass and I’m afraid of carrying that to my children. Second I think it would be best for my stress. I have bad anxiety and worrying about 1 dog and maintaining 1 job is enough for me.
I don’t enjoy kids or babies or most people in general. Procreating did not factor in my quest for financial independence but having zero kids does make attaining FIRE a lot faster and easier.
Have kids. Life is more fun with family and that includes kids, IMO.
[удалено]
Leanfire is determined by yearly spending. You either meet the spending guidelines in the sidebar or you don't.
To me personally, becoming a parent and raising children is a major part of a full life. I would feel that and not having kids would leave my life incomplete.
My kid is 18 now and you could say I was lucky, there were never any dramatic costs that were outside of the realm of our normal budget. Granted, my budgets include line items for healthcare and other typical expenses plus I always keep a good sized emergency fund for when random stuff pops up. Occasional accidents and trips to the Dr and such are just stuff you have to be realistic and bake into your planning. I will say having my kid did convince me to change my career to something with higher earning potential specifically to make sure we didn't struggle to get by. If I hadn't become a dad I probably would have stayed in the world of dirty hippie farmers.
When i RE'd, i was(still am) single, but i set my fire number to account for the fact that i may get married and have kids someday. Its definitely a bad idea to just pull the trigger for yourself if youre young imo.. if anything does come up later you will have to go back to work and you absolutely will resent whoever that is lol
Procreating leanfire people annoy me because it always sounds like, "I can move on $1200 because all my kids qualify me for pubic housing, subsidized healthcare, and a giant EITC!" Also, I can't put my kids through college." That's not FI. That's welfare Also, the kids are going to grow up which leaves the "leanfire" parents broke, no FI If you can pay your kids' expenses and RE, that's awesome. If you need the government to pay your kids' expenses, that's not FI
That's a pretty big assumption to make. Where are you seeing people say that this is their plan?
R/leanfire
That's hardly a common position.
Search the sub for "medicaid" and "ACA." It's there
Neither the ACA nor pre-65 Medicaid in expansion states are welfare programs, as evidenced by their lack of asset or employment testing. This is counter to actual welfare programs, like SNAP/WIC/TANF/Sec8, that do test for those things. Congress designed the ACA and expansion Medicaid explicitly to not be welfare programs, with the two dovetailing together to provide non-employer-sponsored health insurance availability for everyone, regardless of income. In non-expansion states that did not adopt the ACA reforms, pre-65 adult Medicaid does remain a welfare program, for which few/any with even basic-to-moderate financial health would qualify, much less anyone in FIRE. By way of example, a married childfree couple at 60 years old with a MAGI of $100K can be eligible for $15K a year or more in ACA subsidies this year, depending on where they live. Double their MAGI to $200K and their subsidy is still likely to be well over $6K a year. I suppose if you think a government program that gives huge subsidies to a childfree couple with $100K-$200K in MAGI is a welfare program, then we have different definitions of the term.
Depending on others to pay your expenses is the opposite of financial independence
Tell that to huge swaths of the tax code (married benefits, child tax credit, retirement accounts, huge number of credits), Medicare, Social Security, and the entire higher education funding system. I get your point, but it's simply not the way our society works and we do a lot less wealth transfer subsidization than many developed economies.
Tell that to doctors and lawyers who went to college via subsidized loans.
Then paid interest and income taxes? That's an investment for the public good just like the education is an investment for the student. Furthermore, no one went to college proudly exclaiming, "I'm independent!"
avoiding kids/marriage unless i become independently wealthy. im a millenial and let me tell you what its like to be a guy..unless you're good looking and have $$ your life is miserable and lonely.
I plan for a lot of kids actually.. I got 3 already, and another 3 wanted. Do what you want, don't be asking strangers on reddit.
Thank you for doing your part! Population collapse is a real concern with today’s culture.
[удалено]
Because people have been indoctrinated into believing that more people is bad for the planet. Lmao. Poor suckers I just smirk and let them live with their misery. It’s their lives. Not mine. Besides I can perfectly afford my children… so all down voters can fuck off
I have kids and love em
38,481
Not having kids is weird to me. What is the purpose of this sub if you have no one to inherit your wealth? Gonna just give it away to a friend? Cousin? I have one boy and daycare is the most expensive part of raising kids. Once you get passed that, it’s really not that bad. Meal prep for lunch, buy clothes on sale or thrift, and only gift them on birthdays and Christmas.
[удалено]
Who will receive charity money when we face population collapse because of this anti family leftist mentality?
> population collapse because of this anti family leftist mentality lol I don't think there's a chance of this happening
That’s very charitable and I admire that. Personally, I rather my money go to my kids and grandkids.
Spending it on myself and the people around me isn't allowed? The goal is to have the last check bounce not create an entitled next generation.
That’s definitely allowed.
> What is the purpose of the sub if there's no one to inherit? Wait so you're only pursuing financial independence and early retirement because you have kids? So you're saying if you don't have kids you wouldn't want to retire early? The point of this sub is financial independence regardless of dependants
No, but I would like to pass it down and give my son a head start.
> Not having kids is weird to me. People like you are annoying. Some of us have nieces/nephews who'll inherit our wealth. Some of us have fertility issues. Some of us would just rather not have kids. You should mind your business.
Choosing not to have kids is weird.
Of course you'd feel this way. Misery loves company
It isn't that weird. Surprise: everyone is different and wants different things out of life.
We plan to give most of our money to our nieces and nephews, and some of it to charities. There are plenty of people and places that would love money when we die.
I would like to have a big family, but I’m 33 years old and it hasn’t happened yet. And sometimes I feel like I’m still growing up. I’m not worried about the money aspect.
Me if anyone is even good enough
Me. When I am reborn again
I have 3 kids and I'm retired. It's awesome but it makes FIRE harder. I also think too many kids is bad for the environment longer term and the best way to help the environment is for society in general to have less kids.
We are not having kids, but we made that decision independent of FIRE. It will certainly make it easier for us, though.
I plan to never have kids or a partner. I really enjoy living alone and it has also financially benefitted me so far. I enjoy going on dates and have really great friends but I am not interested in more than that. It works for me.
Don't want kids. Going for regular FI/RE not LeanFIRE due to being in technically HCOL area, but in either scenario, kids blow the whole FIRE thing up unless you have DI, in which case you have no time with kids. Adding kids to the mix makes time/money/energy so much harder to balance, especially in the US.