'Why one child is enough for me - and might be for you, too'

I'm with Bob. A new family buying a house is a good thing. I don't know why some people get on this kick that we must deny ourselves the benefits of life even if we can afford them.

New families buying houses is what makes communities stronger.

 

True, but they don't have to... "Spoiled" is a relative term. I was at a first grade end of the year party at my son's school last week and they had a buffet of snacks out and this girl was "Mommy get me this, and Mommy get me that..." and the poor mother was scrambling around like her life depended on getting her daughter ritz crackers with the right kind of cheese... Granted, the poor mother raised that kid to be like that, so don't feel too sorry for her... There's "spoiled" and there's "a spoiled brat"

 

If you include entitlements oh, the Boomers are the bigger consumers. And the financial production of young Americans is often augmented by their parents.

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/young-people-in-the-recession-0412?page=all

 

So?

That's a pretty broad brush, Alma. I am thinking that when you narrow the group to "people who just bought a house," the financial picture brightens considerably.

Just because everybody isn't doing well, that doesn't mean NOBODY is doing well. There are millions of people going through these stages of life the same as if it's 1975.

 

This sentence was merely the sales pitch for what eventually became the most significant economic collapse in America since The Great Depression.

The point is, a lot of them couldn't really afford it. That's why the mass foreclosures happened. That's why Wall Street fell apart: On the false assumption that young Americans would do anything -- anything -- to pay for their house once the rate on the mortgage kicked them in the ass. Wall Street and Main Street were wrong.

 

Thanks for the link, DW ... a good read.

Most interesting part to me was the bit about American parents in their 30s and 40s losing themselves in their careers/kids and being politically apathetic.

There's some truth to that ... I recall when all the "Si se puede" immigration rallies started happening, about 10 years ago now, and being stunned by the number of parents in their 20s and 30s who were there, with or without kids.

At all the other political rallies/marches/etc. I've attended or covered over the past 20 years, the crowd is exclusively college students and empty nesters.

 

I feel kind of the opposite of Alma here: If you are able, willing, and don't buy a house at 3.5 percent right now while the gettin' is good, you are being financially irresponsible.

 

LTL,

I paint with a broad brush because it is recent, quite memorable history.

 

Our daughter is 4.5. I'm 44, and my wife is nine years younger. We tried to have another kid last year and it didn't work out. We've talked about trying again, but, really, we're good either way.

I'm a freelance writer, which means I'm also a stay-at-home dad. Other than feeding her, our daughter is pretty self-sufficient, but, man, when she's awake she's always *on,* as in there ain't no off switch. I love her to death, but when the weekend comes, I need some get-out-of-the-house me time.

Spoiled? Yeah, a little bit, but mostly by my in-laws. I'm definitely the taskmaster in the house. But our daughter has a loving, empathetic heart, so we're doing something right.

 

I wouldn't say my wife - I'm always going to be obsessed with current events, so I'm a bad example - is politically apathetic because of kids. But I definitely think that it has altered what she views as news, and even where she stands on some issues. For example, a few years ago, she'd have been all over the IRS and AP stories. Now, she barely knows they're happening, except at some level of vague generality. But she was all over the GMO wheat story last week - because, to her, GMO food getting into her supermarket is something that has the potential to affect her children. Also, five years ago, she'd have been railing against the NSA program. Now, she admits that she tends to lean the other way, because the weighing of the threat of terrorism against what she sees as an incursion of privacy with very little practical effect in her life balances differently when her children are the ones at risk.

 

I live in one of the most foreclosure-heavy areas in the country. You don't have to tell me the history. And for 10-20 percent of the population, you are correct. It was a bad move and something they did not think through. For the other 80-90 percent, though, it's still a pretty good move -- some financial hiccups for a while, but lifestyle things like schools and neighbors and places where their kids can ride their bikes are good. And actually the financial part has snapped back almost entirely for people who stayed in their houses.

You are taking the true statement "buying a house isn't always the best idea" and turning it into a false statement "buying a house is a dumb idea."

 

We don't disagree. We just see the decision through a different lens. You're looking at it from three feet away. I'm looking at from 3 miles away.