Driven To The Poorhouse
Poverty is hereditary. You get it from your children.
So says an article in the Money section of a recent US News & World Report. It lists five ways people sabotage their own retirement. Number one on the list is:
Having children.
A survey by TD Ameritrade found that parents said having children made it more difficult to save money for retirement. Some 48 percent of female breadwinners and 39 percent of male breadwinners said they have scaled back their own retirement savings to put more money toward their children. Households with only one earner face a particularly high risk for falling behind…
The other traps are waiting too long to start saving, failing to calculate a goal, investing too conservatively or too aggressively, and failing to consider that you might live a long life.
In other words, it's the sort of lightweight piece that keeps the covers of a magazine from being too close together. The title is pure linkbait - it certainly caught me.
It's not that the author, Kimberly Palmer, a senior editor of US News and World Report, is a hack. She's written financial planners and a book for young people just starting out called Generation Earn. It's just that this piece is so superficial.
Of course having children is expensive. Just ask your parents. So what?
If you're a teen single mom, yes, it is unlikely that you'll be retiring either early or comfortably. If Jennifer/Jason drops out of art history college, chances are they'll be living with you into their thirties. It's not news that children are hostages to fortune.
The Unindicted Co-Conspirator and I decided long ago not to inflict any little henchmen on the world. If that decision means a little more silver to our golden age, all well and good, but that wasn't why we decided not to have kids. I would lay very long odds that our friends who do have mitotic miracles think their progeny a far greater reward than mere filthy lucre, and expect those kids to bring them grandchildren and soup to brighten their fading years. Very few sat down with spreadsheet projections before engaging in the baby-making process.
Here's some news you can use. If your goal is to retire well and you weren't smart enough in your own choice of parents, marry for money. Preferably in a Community Property state. If you must have children, put them to work as soon as possible. Sure, there are child labor laws, but that's just for millwork. The restrictions on child stars aren't terribly onerous. So get a job as a casting agent, like Daniel Radcliffe's mom. He went to work when he was only ten. Twelve years later, neither he nor his parents ever need work again.
I wonder if US News is hiring...
So says an article in the Money section of a recent US News & World Report. It lists five ways people sabotage their own retirement. Number one on the list is:
Having children.
A survey by TD Ameritrade found that parents said having children made it more difficult to save money for retirement. Some 48 percent of female breadwinners and 39 percent of male breadwinners said they have scaled back their own retirement savings to put more money toward their children. Households with only one earner face a particularly high risk for falling behind…
The other traps are waiting too long to start saving, failing to calculate a goal, investing too conservatively or too aggressively, and failing to consider that you might live a long life.
In other words, it's the sort of lightweight piece that keeps the covers of a magazine from being too close together. The title is pure linkbait - it certainly caught me.
It's not that the author, Kimberly Palmer, a senior editor of US News and World Report, is a hack. She's written financial planners and a book for young people just starting out called Generation Earn. It's just that this piece is so superficial.
Of course having children is expensive. Just ask your parents. So what?
If you're a teen single mom, yes, it is unlikely that you'll be retiring either early or comfortably. If Jennifer/Jason drops out of art history college, chances are they'll be living with you into their thirties. It's not news that children are hostages to fortune.
The Unindicted Co-Conspirator and I decided long ago not to inflict any little henchmen on the world. If that decision means a little more silver to our golden age, all well and good, but that wasn't why we decided not to have kids. I would lay very long odds that our friends who do have mitotic miracles think their progeny a far greater reward than mere filthy lucre, and expect those kids to bring them grandchildren and soup to brighten their fading years. Very few sat down with spreadsheet projections before engaging in the baby-making process.
Here's some news you can use. If your goal is to retire well and you weren't smart enough in your own choice of parents, marry for money. Preferably in a Community Property state. If you must have children, put them to work as soon as possible. Sure, there are child labor laws, but that's just for millwork. The restrictions on child stars aren't terribly onerous. So get a job as a casting agent, like Daniel Radcliffe's mom. He went to work when he was only ten. Twelve years later, neither he nor his parents ever need work again.
I wonder if US News is hiring...