23
Saving for retirement? Don't have kids
Shadows of mother with children.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Tess Vigeland: The president's deficit commission released its report this week. Among the recommendations: raise the retirement age for Social Security benefits. Of course some lucky folks can retire even earlier. Maybe they saved more aggressively or have a pension that kicks in before they turn 65.
But commentator Sydney Lagier found a different path to early retirement.
Sydney Lagier: Like many little girls, I dreamed of growing up to be an actress. I grew up to be an accountant. Like many grown-ups, I dreamed of retiring early. I did do that, three years ago at the age of 44.
If you share the dream of early retirement, you're going to have to save more money more quickly than someone who retires at 65. Of course you'll need to max out on your 401(k) contributions, and make sure you get that employer match. There's a lot of other advice out there on how to save even more money: give up your cable TV, stop dining out, and forego that daily latte. Sure, that'll save a few bucks, and those few bucks will add up over the years. But if you really want to supercharge your retirement savings, think big. Don't have kids.
Not convinced? Think about this. The cost of raising and educating the requisite 2.3 kids here in the San Francisco Bay Area would have set me back nearly a million dollars. That's a lot of lattes. I would have had to forego more than 270,000 lattes to generate that Grande pile of cash. I know, the Bay Area is not the cheapest place to raise kids, but no matter where you live it's going to cost a small fortune.
And these figures only include the actual costs, like feeding and educating the kids. They don't include the hit to household income when one parent decides to give up a career to be home with the kids. Nor do they include what's known as "the motherhood premium," the drop in salary experienced by university-educated women after having a child. If, like a lot of my friends, you send your kids to private school, the price tag soars even higher.
Yes, if you decide to give up the joys of parenthood for a life of leisure, you won't have those kids to rely on when you're old and decrepit. But that's not even the worst part. If you choose this path, prepare yourself now. Because while you may be happy with this decision, most everyone else will try and convince that you shouldn't be.
Vigeland: Sydney Lagier writes a blog called Retirement: A Full-Time Job. Post your thoughts on our Facebook page.
Pages
i'm a little older now and i have so much free time because.. i've had no children.
although i have never participated in the most important job and function a human can do, rear a child, and i have never looked into a child's eyes and said, "i made that", i have:
never caught a cold from a child coming home from infected schoolers
never had to rake some guy over with a dull spoon for mistreating a daughter
never paid a school bill, doctor bill or other bill for a child
never had a bad night nor a trying day for a crying baby
never worried about protecting a child from all the crap in life
never forced thee choiceless decision upon someone else
never had to put up with childish behavior of squabbles, fighting, ungratefulness, complainting, etc
ok, have changed my niece's diaper once (ran a marathon once too)
practiced the most green living lifestyle possible in a 1st world country by not reproducing.
what am i going to do with my childless time?
oh yes, i retired when i was 33. and... IT IS GREAT!!
what was it that american express said? oh yes.... priceless.
It has been my experience as a 46 year old childfree person that those who protest the loudest against my choice and that of other childfrees is that they have just then realized that having children was a choice and not an inevitability- or something that just "happens" to you.
Kudos to you Ms.Lagier for sharing your story. I agree with your logic and am quite surprised with some of the comments that were negatively criticizing you. Everyone has a right to choose how they want to live their lives and should not be judged if it's not hurting anyone. As for the individual that left the comment stating that "the human race would be utterly doomed," he/she needs to visit some of the orphanges around the world or even in their own cities to see that it's not the "lack of children" but the "LACK OF CARING PARENTS NEEDED" to help the next generation become productive citizens that would contribute to the doom of the human race.
d jessop: i DO pay an "extra" tax when your son the garbage collector picks up my trash and recyclables. it's called city taxes. and i pay EXTRA-extra, if i want him to pick up more than my standard allotment. see how life really IS scaled according to use? also, i pay your daughter for her services. i pay your son, the doctor, and my taxes went to fund their schools if they ever went to public schools.
i have one daughter. i have no opinion about others' choices to have or not have, in general. i wish folks in direr financial situations would lay off a little, to avoid really taxing the system. i also wish that everyone would stop reading articles like this one as directives to which they either subscribe or against which they rail. this is just a single person's story.
I am a little disappointed by this article because I was expecting a little more practical advice and perhaps a savings timeline from the author. When I say savings timeline, I refer to something similar to a chart with ages and the amount of money the author had saved at various points in her life until retirement at age 44.
I am 34, female, and childless. I have a decent amount spread across a 401k, Roth IRA, regular IRA, and cash. Per google searches the general advice is to have 1.5 times your annual salary by age 35 and I am at that goal. I would like to understand how much the author had put away at various ages (perhaps 20, 25, 30, 35, etc) and if there was any large inheritance involved. I would also like to understand what kind of lifestyle is afforded by that early of a retirement and whether or not she does freelance or part-time work.
If I ever do decide I need children I will adopt someone's unwanted older kids as I am not into infants, and there are plenty of children on this planet with no permanent families. This to me is the ultimate form of conservation and something any environmentally minded person should think about before making new humans.
I can imagine it would be a bit cheaper than a brand new infant as well, so that could aid in the retirement goals while still having a family.
My significant other and I were ecstatic to hear this story. As a higher educated couple firmly in the middle class, we are ideal people to procreate. However, we have made the conscious decision not to. Although not strictly financial, we do look around us and wonder how people really afford kids. We aren't looking for an early retirement, but just to be able to retire and we wonder if we will be able to do that despite maxing our 401Ks and saving approx. 20% of our salaries.
Even if we don't have kids, we recognize a solid and competitive education system is a must for the future of our country, and quite frankly, we are very concerned. I would more than happy to pay my taxes towards educating YOUR children, if our system wasn't completely falling apart. It is our choice to not have children, but it's everyone's responsibility to help ensure there's a future.
I am astonished by the responses to this story. One person shared her experience/point of view and she was roundly rebuffed by people who were, apparently, offended by someone who made different choices than she did. They might have considered that she is subsidizing their children through taxes that go to public schools and tax exemptions for minor dependents. Last I heard, it was still a free country where people made their own choices, and also one where the government taxed us all for the common good.
Pages
