Restitution wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:46 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:04 pm

Where are you getting these numbers from? I provided a link - can you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility had a lot of them. Some others came from first page google results.

It is unclear where a lot of the data sets come from. This article in the Atlantic argues that a lot of the numbers quoted come from multiple papers analyzing a data set on French births from 1670 to 1830. More current papers argue that the difference in chance to have a baby between the 20s and late 30s is only a few percentage points. And the drop in fertility for older women may be overstated because those women who are trying to have babies later may be trying later may not be doing this by choice but because they are less fertile (i.e. more fertile women complete their families at an earlier age):

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... ry/313960/

Restitution wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:55 pm

I'm pretty sure Senlac is coming at this from a weird ideological position...

“Brilliant” (as we Brits say). I’ll leave this thread on that note. It became a tad polluted, when it had been doing so well.

I'm pretty sure Senlac is coming at this from a weird ideological position...

Senlac wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:40 pm

I never said it was “just because” anything. Just that living in an expensive place is an important criteria when considering load upon an expected income.
I also never criticise the priorities of others (a totally pointless exercise).
My comments on this thread are limited to helping good decision making as I was blessed with such help as a young man, by a very smart father.
The only folks I wouldn’t have much time for on this subject are those that screw up by denying obvious realities & want society to bail their arse out of a sling, for problems purely of their own making. My father also taught me about responsibility for one’s own actions...

If it was all about money you would see people getting married earlier rather than later. It is definitely cheaper to live as DINKs then living as singles.

Who is asking for a bailout? Where are you getting this from?

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:45 pm

The important part that we forget about the women's equality movement was that it actually gave women a choice (e.g. Margaret Sanger was one of ten children, her mother died in her eighteenth pregnancy). Some women make the wrong decisions...but they are entitled to make as many bad decisions as we do...

Absolutely. And always take the consequences of course:-)

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:04 pm

Where are you getting these numbers from? I provided a link - can you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility had a lot of them. Some others came from first page google results.

The important part that we forget about the women's equality movement was that it actually gave women a choice (e.g. Margaret Sanger was one of ten children, her mother died in her eighteenth pregnancy). Some women make the wrong decisions...but they are entitled to make as many bad decisions as we do...

I never said it was “just because” anything. Just that living in an expensive place is an important criteria when considering load upon an expected income.
I also never criticise the priorities of others (a totally pointless exercise).
My comments on this thread are limited to helping good decision making as I was blessed with such help as a young man, by a very smart father.
The only folks I wouldn’t have much time for on this subject are those that screw up by denying obvious realities & want society to bail their arse out of a sling, for problems purely of their own making. My father also taught me about responsibility for one’s own actions...

@Seniac, I think it is a bit simple to say "oh, it is just because it is more expensive in NY/SF". People also get married a lot later here too. It isn't about cost. It is about priorities more than anything else. Some people may not like these priorities but they are just as valid as those who choose differently.

And just as people may regret having children late or missing out, there are also many people who regret the opportunities they missed by having children too early. In Flum's case it looks like his career is going well. He should run with it while he has the chance...because he definitely will regret that later.

Wow, this thread took a turn for the worse while I wasn’t looking. Usual adversarial BS. It’s kind of interesting because it touches on the whole new ball game that is “family life” in places mentioned such as SF & NY.

My father’s comments to me (& mine to Flum) were based on the audience being male. For women, the earning aspect of life is no different to a man’s & blossoms at 30+, which is unfortunate.
Just when they don’t want to quit work, nature’s timebomb starts ticking louder. They already live in the expensive places quoted above, the cost of a larger home (needed for kids) threatens their debt situation & the cost of not working gets ever higher.
Thus the decision gets put off a bit longer & sometimes the trap closes & sometimes not. I think society will end up with many resulting problems.

Although the women’s equality movement is to be complimented on it’s many achievements, this one of child bearing will be trickier because it can’t be blamed on male selfishness & society cannot be expected to make huge accommodations for those simply wishing to deny nature’s reality.

Add to that the more recent trend of 30+ year old women having difficulty finding partners that want to have a family with them. Just when they change their mind about that “all important career”, they find there are yet more challenges brought about by that horrible reality called time.
There are plenty of women in the 20+ category that want children, so those men looking in this direction have the buyer’s market, to put it bluntly.

I suspect for women the choice is always going to be far harder to prioritise family or career, whatever society does to soften the dilemma. This is just a reality & thankfully this time it’s hard to pin it on the usual scapegoat of men:-)

Restitution wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:44 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:40 pm

Do you have any real numbers to back that up...or are you pulling that millions of women number out of your posterior? You can't complain about me not giving statistics...then not give real stats to backup your own argument. And you can't just ignore facts you don't like because they don't align with your opinion.

Given that 15% of women are infertile by 35, yes, there are many millions of women who have discovered that they are infertile by this age. I don't know how many there are in absolute terms, but it's certainly increasing since people are waiting longer and longer to have children.

This means that out of ~4 billion women on Earth, 600 million were or will be infertile by the age of 35. I don't know how many of those women wanted children, how many had them before 35, or what. But that's definitely 600 million women at risk for a pretty unfortunate event.

One third of couples are infertile and that number has been going up.

Where are you getting these numbers from? I provided a link - can you?

I don't know why every thread has to become political. Flum is obviously male so the comment about the "but it is different for women thing" is irrelevant. And he doesn't seem to be prioritizing a large family...so it seems reasonable advice to say he has plenty of time to make a decision here.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:40 pm

Do you have any real numbers to back that up...or are you pulling that millions of women number out of your posterior? You can't complain about me not giving statistics...then not give real stats to backup your own argument. And you can't just ignore facts you don't like because they don't align with your opinion.

Given that 15% of women are infertile by 35, yes, there are many millions of women who have discovered that they are infertile by this age. I don't know how many there are in absolute terms, but it's certainly increasing since people are waiting longer and longer to have children.

This means that out of ~4 billion women on Earth, 600 million were or will be infertile by the age of 35. I don't know how many of those women wanted children, how many had them before 35, or what. But that's definitely 600 million women at risk for a pretty unfortunate event.

One third of couples are infertile and that number has been going up.

Restitution wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:32 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:22 pm

It isn't luck. The average age of women having their first child in places like NY and San Francisco is 31 and 32 meaning there are lots of women that have babies older than that (I live in NY):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... e-gap.html

Those stats don't include women who don't have any children, lol. Yeah, obviously the average age women are having their first child is increasing a lot. This stat says nothing about the millions of women who waited until they were 35 and then discovered they were infertile.

I also seriously doubt that the first child age distribution is a bell curve.

Do you have any real numbers to back that up...or are you pulling that millions of women number out of your posterior? You can't complain about me not giving statistics...then not give real stats to backup your own argument. And you can't just ignore facts you don't like because they don't align with your opinion.

Not to mention the increased risk of many genetic diseases. For 45 year old mothers, *1 in 32 babies* have a birth defect.

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:22 pm

It isn't luck. The average age of women having their first child in places like NY and San Francisco is 31 and 32 meaning there are lots of women that have babies older than that (I live in NY):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... e-gap.html

Those stats don't include women who don't have any children, lol. Yeah, obviously the average age women are having their first child is increasing a lot. This stat says nothing about the millions of women who waited until they were 35 and then discovered they were infertile.

I also seriously doubt that the first child age distribution is a bell curve.

If you look at the stats for the surviving birth rate of couples over age (the relevant statistic), there is a drastic reduction over the course of the 30's from 91% to 64%.

So yeah, you'll probably be fine if you wait through your 40's... but there's a 30% increased risk. That is a risk worth worrying about.

Restitution wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:15 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:11 pm

I don't know. I know women's fertility is highest in their 20s...but I know plenty of women who have had their first child in their late 30s/early 40s. I don't think 30 is a hard cutoff for women either.

Almost women are infertile by 40 and fertility drops off rapidly after 30. Plus, health outcomes for children of older parents, especially older mothers, are pretty significantly worse.

You might know some lucky women, but those are anecdotes and not statistics.

It isn't luck. The average age of women having their first child in places like NY and San Francisco is 31 and 32 meaning there are lots of women that have babies older than that (I live in NY):

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... e-gap.html

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:11 pm

I don't know. I know women's fertility is highest in their 20s...but I know plenty of women who have had their first child in their late 30s/early 40s. I don't think 30 is a hard cutoff for women either.

Almost women are infertile by 40 and fertility drops off rapidly after 30. Plus, health outcomes for children of older parents, especially older mothers, are pretty significantly worse.

You might know some lucky women, but those are anecdotes and not statistics.

Restitution wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:24 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:06 pm

How old are you? If you are in your 20s don't worry about what other people say. You have plenty of time to make a decision.

Unless you're a woman, in which case you might actually not have plenty of time.

I don't know. I know women's fertility is highest in their 20s...but I know plenty of women who have had their first child in their late 30s/early 40s. I don't think 30 is a hard cutoff for women either.

I would add that there are two things that limit your flexibility: a mortgage and kids. The former you can escape from, the latter you should not.