Jump to content

Menu

Age of adulthood - 25?


Katy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I certainly couldn't afford my own apartment back in the day. Ack

 

I don't understand the idea that kids "now days" have everything. My children certainly don't. My 12 year old asked how restaurants stay in business. I had to explain that the majority of Americans eat out more than once or twice a year and that we can't extrapolate our own budgets and actions onto other families. It is possible that in your specific neighborhood or family that is the case but that doesn't mean it applies to all teens.

 

Weren't we just discussing an article complaining how kids now days were less likely to drink, get pregnant, have a car, or a job. The job thing notwithstanding I think the "kids these days" can't win. Nobody likes you for being responsible, nobody likes you for being irresponsible. Lol

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.

 

I grew up in San Jose - Silicon Valley. I just looked up my old house. My parents bought it in 1972 for $40,000. It's estimated worth now is $1.2 million. It's not a particularly great house - a tiny galley kitchen and only two bathrooms, one on each floor, and the one on the main floor is accessed by walking all the way through the master bedroom. Poor back yard for kids because it's on a hillside so much of the yard is vertical. And, bonus, it's in a very bad school district!

Well, really it's a matter of location. I mean the house I grew up in (according to Zillow which always seems high in this area) is only 200,000. That may seem like a lot but it comes with almost 3 and a half acres so I don't know. On the other hand the little 2 bedroom condo I bought in the early 2000's has tripled in value since then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've often thought there needed to be a range of time when kids left high school (And it was acceptable).  Starting at age 15 or 16. We have ample evidence now there are quite a few kids that are ready academically to move on at that point.

 

 

The school-leaving age in many countries (not here) is 16. 

 

There are many students in this country who are ready to move on but are stuck spinning their wheels in high school, until they reach age 18 or graduate, whichever comes first. It is obvious they'd be much happier (& more productive) out in the "real world."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did it work? Lowering the drinking age hasn't exactly been a success.

 

Overall, there is correlation between this law change and declines in DUI fatalities...but it was only one factor, also included were making it easier to get DUI convictions and more aggressive policing.

 

Research example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20497803

 

It hasn't solved the binge drinking youth culture problem in the U.S., or the other problems that come with excessive alcohol consumption: https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

Edited by Ravin
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to buy the house that a single full time wage earner at my husband's professional level could buy in 1963. I can rent that house (with minimal upgrades) for +/-$36K a year. Or I could buy it, if I only had a budget of a half million dollars for a non-fancy suburb where they are just now paving some of the roads. But without me able to work FT, we seriously can not afford that house. And that's with me bringing in $45-55/hr for side gigs as I am able.

 

All of the home-buyers I know under 40 are buying very modest homes. My friends who make well into the six figures are buying 65 year old concrete block houses where that 1 car garage has been turned into a 3rd or 4th bedroom and the kitchen is one where 1 person can barely turn around in.

 

This story shows the house that an assistant math professor bought in the 1960s along side the house that a math professor could buy now. My husband is in a different field but earns about what the math professor does/did. Note that the house that the math professor could buy now is a working class suburb that was built for factory workers. We'd happily by that house too, but we actually do need 4-5 bedrooms as we are now a family of 7 (3 adults, 2 girls, 2 boys) so those little 2-3 bedroom houses aren't feasible for us at this juncture. The factory workers (there are still some) can't buy houses here at all. I know one manufacturing worker who lives in her sister's garage. That's what she can afford.

 

http://kuow.org/post/can-middle-class-lifestyle-my-seattle-grandparents-had-ever-be-achievable-again

Pffft, at our company the average household earnings are probably around $180k in their 20s. A fourth bedroom in a garage? What a joke. They are looking at one or two bedroom starter homes, selling their cars. If they are single income, "just" $90k, they are just planning no kids.

 

But still... While life is not feasible on an up and coming salary, I think Independence is a good thing. Maybe those young people could join us for change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMFG

 

That's mind boggling.

Welcome to our world.

 

Blue Tarp City.

 

No teachers, nurses, foresters, mechanics, drivers needed. No janitors needed. No landscapers, no masons. Just engineers in the ghettos and sales executives in obscenely ugly ticky tacky boxes on the hills.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pffft, at our company the average household earnings are probably around $180k in their 20s. A fourth bedroom in a garage? What a joke. They are looking at one or two bedroom starter homes, selling their cars. If they are single income, "just" $90k, they are just planning no kids.

 

But still... While life is not feasible on an up and coming salary, I think Independence is a good thing. Maybe those young people could join us for change.

Yes, by well into 6 figures I was thinking people who are often well over the 200k mark. Unless they have a source of a large downpayment, they are generally buying homes that were built for single income working class households with one wage earner, one homemaker and 2.5 small fry in the suburbs. Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I wouldn't give for a 5 bedroom split level in Skyway right now.  There's one I would love to rent available.  The rent is 2x what we can realistically afford and we aren't especially poor.  My husband has a income level that would have been "good money" adjusted for inflation.  This is not a fancy or large house (yes, it's 5 bedrooms but it's less than 1800sf and we are looking for 7 people, not 4) and it's not like Skyway is a posh area, even now.  

 

And yes, Seattle is hardly alone in this phenomena.  Many other metro areas are in more or less the same boat, maybe not quite a stark as it is here (I think Seattle has had year over year the fastest increase of housing costs for several years) but in general, yes things have changed.  

 

Well, if you ever feel like moving out East, we bought a 6 bedroom split level for 280,000. Good schools, too! The flyover states are the best. 

 

For myself (and actually my DD too) by the time I reached the end of my Junior year of high school, I had all the credits required to graduate that they would allow me to take in those three years, plus more.  I was not allowed to take Government or Econ before my senior year at all, and not allowed to take more than 2 English credits per year (my school calculated credits based on semesters, not years)  Had I been allowed to take those earlier in high school, I could have been finished in 3 yrs instead of 4.  I don't understand the philosophy that sets those sorts of requirements.  If a student can get all the requirements to graduate finished in 3 yrs, why not let them?

 

 

So back to the original conversation ... I don't understand this idea of holding kids back and keeping them children, either. We attended a meeting about PSEO (our state's program for high school students to take college credits during high school and get dual credit - and it's paid for.) The administration of the high school was basically like, "Yeah, it saves money and all that, but why make kids grow up faster than they need to? Let them be kids and enjoy high school! Why would you want them to be around adults all day, anyway?" I don't understand that attitude. Like prom and spirit week are more important than getting a jump on a successful life. IDK. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't either.  It's already "kinda" like this.  Our kids will be covered on the insurance until 26 (or they get married or their own insurance).  Financial aid looks at our income until then I believe. 

 

Not quite sure what the hubbub is about TBH.

 

Even when I was in college, back in the 1980s, college students could stay on their parents' insurance into their early 20s.  I don't recall the exact age, maybe 24?  Anyhoo, nobody was saying this meant that college students were still dependent children.

 

Oh and isn't the age 25 to be able to file as an "independent" student for financial aid?  (That's kind of a crock though.)

Edited by SKL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see making changes to the justice system to reflect the fact that brains are not mature at age 18.

 

More focus on rehabilitation and providing opportunities, support, and job training.

 

Maybe less record permanence.

 

I think 18 is plenty old enough for record permanence.

 

I'd rather address the trend of trying elementary school kids as adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, by well into 6 figures I was thinking people who are often well over the 200k mark. Unless they have a source of a large downpayment, they are generally buying homes that were built for single income working class households with one wage earner, one homemaker and 2.5 small fry in the suburbs.

 

Yep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you ever feel like moving out East, we bought a 6 bedroom split level for 280,000. Good schools, too! The flyover states are the best.

 

 

That is more or less our plan once our older son is done with high school, assuming we can realistically extricate ourselves from various factors that have made us more or less place bound. Family responsibilities extend past the nuclear family for us and honestly, I don’t think that is a bad thing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So back to the original conversation ... I don't understand this idea of holding kids back and keeping them children, either. We attended a meeting about PSEO (our state's program for high school students to take college credits during high school and get dual credit - and it's paid for.) The administration of the high school was basically like, "Yeah, it saves money and all that, but why make kids grow up faster than they need to? Let them be kids and enjoy high school! Why would you want them to be around adults all day, anyway?" I don't understand that attitude. Like prom and spirit week are more important than getting a jump on a successful life. IDK. 

 

I graduated at 16 and it was pretty easy to do.  I don't think they would let my kids do it though.  People are so afraid of teens doing grown-up things.  I think it's weird.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is more or less our plan once our older son is done with high school, assuming we can realistically extricate ourselves from various factors that have made us more or less place bound. Family responsibilities extend past the nuclear family for us and honestly, I don’t think that is a bad thing.

 

 

We've tried to move BACK to Seattle to be near family for years, so I absolutely get that. It's tough to be away. 

 

OTOH, we got a job offer in San Fran for $200,000/year (more than 100% more than what we make now) and it still didn't make sense to move because we'd end up in some crappy condo and with 6 kids that's not happening. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economics is part of it, but mostly I started this thread because I was thinking the Parkland shooting (and many others) wouldn't happen if young men (under 25) had access restricted to guns the same way their access is restricted from car rentals.  But that seemed like too political a topic, and there are so many other ways that it is being recognized that today's 22 year olds are not as independent as previous generations thought.  Also, unless the age was adjusted there would be constitutional issues with moving that age.

 

FTR, I moved away early too, and so did both of my parents.  I'm not saying this interim period would have to look anything like a 16 year old at home does now, but full legal responsibility for anything when your brain is hampered by normal development is increasingly feeling suspicious to me.

 

Another area that would be an issue is in fertility - if you're not an adult until 25, and you can't find a partner until 35, it's going to be difficult to maintain population levels.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economics is part of it, but mostly I started this thread because I was thinking the Parkland shooting (and many others) wouldn't happen if young men (under 25) had access restricted to guns the same way their access is restricted from car rentals. But that seemed like too political a topic, and there are so many other ways that it is being recognized that today's 22 year olds are not as independent as previous generations thought. Also, unless the age was adjusted there would be constitutional issues with moving that age.

 

FTR, I moved away early too, and so did both of my parents. I'm not saying this interim period would have to look anything like a 16 year old at home does now, but full legal responsibility for anything when your brain is hampered by normal development is increasingly feeling suspicious to me.

 

Another area that would be an issue is in fertility - if you're not an adult until 25, and you can't find a partner until 35, it's going to be difficult to maintain population levels.

One thing people seem to forget is that fertility in women actually peaks at just 27. I didn’t know that and I initially planned to delay pregnancy until *much* later. Many women can delay until 35 or later with minimal issues. As it turns out, I personally happen to have fertility issues. If we hadn’t have had a surprise baby the year after we married young we might not have had kids. Which, eyeing the “kids†category od my budget sheet, would put us in an infinitely better financial situation :P but it wouldn’t be the life we want. Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you have all sorts of ties and reasons. But it was definitely chagrinning to come to the Midwest and buy a bigger home AND top shelf land with better schools and a better commute and more amenities and pay almost the same as our house in Anchorage sold for.

 

The only small downsides were moving away from some family and no ocean.

 

If I ever wanted to go back to the southern OR northern west coast, I’m not sure I could stomach it for what I’d trade in basic day to day quality of life. That realization was an ouch :o

I hear you but I do think it’s important to remember that quality of life means a lot of things to a lot of people. I have so many friends who have moved away to cheaper areas but most of them were college transplants to this area in the first place so they aren’t leaving extended family networks or parents in need of care.

 

Every so often I get very sure we will pack up and move away and then I remember that on the whole, my quality of life is pretty remarkable. We have our needs and a reasonable dose of wants. The biggest opportunity cost to staying here is getting back into the real estate market. On the balance for now, family trumps real estate. I’ve had to let go of the idea that success = property and that’s not a bad thing for me to have let go of.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economics is part of it, but mostly I started this thread because I was thinking the Parkland shooting (and many others) wouldn't happen if young men (under 25) had access restricted to guns the same way their access is restricted from car rentals. But that seemed like too political a topic, and there are so many other ways that it is being recognized that today's 22 year olds are not as independent as previous generations thought. Also, unless the age was adjusted there would be constitutional issues with moving that age.

 

FTR, I moved away early too, and so did both of my parents. I'm not saying this interim period would have to look anything like a 16 year old at home does now, but full legal responsibility for anything when your brain is hampered by normal development is increasingly feeling suspicious to me.

 

Another area that would be an issue is in fertility - if you're not an adult until 25, and you can't find a partner until 35, it's going to be difficult to maintain population levels.

Require gun owners to insure their guns, carrying responsibility if those guns are used in a crime or recklessly stored or used or too easy to steal. Let the market sort out the ages after which gun insurance rates become affordable. Make gun sellers check the insurability of their buyers. When we bought a car, we had to show them we had insurance. Don’t know why I can’t drive without accepting liability and proving my ability to meet a minimum liability amount but I can buy a gun without any regards for if I can, legally speaking anyways “make whole†someone who is harmed by my gun when I don’t secure it properly or make sure my kid doesn’t take it somewhere. Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing people seem to forget is that fertility in women actually peaks at just 27. I didn’t know that and I initially planned to delay pregnancy until *much* later. Many women can delay until 35 or later with minimal issues. As it turns out, I personally happen to have fertility issues. If we hadn’t have had a surprise baby the year after we married young we might not have had kids. Which, eyeing the “kids†category od my budget sheet, would put us in an infinitely better financial situation :P but it wouldn’t be the life we want.

This is changing with egg freezing. I made some tough life decisions that my daughters will not have to because they can freeze their 22 year old eggs and use them when they are ready to have a baby. If I had had the same opportunity, I probably would have stuck with my original goal of medical school.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is changing with egg freezing. I made some tough life decisions that my daughters will not have to because they can freeze their 22 year old eggs and use them when they are ready to have a baby. If I had had the same opportunity, I probably would have stuck with my original goal of medical school.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not all religions are supportive of advanced reproductive technology and from a financial perspective, many women do not have the means to freeze their eggs. It’s certainly not something, at this juncture, that is covered by insurance. I have heard it discussed as an employee benefit, to help companies retain talented women longer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Require gun owners to insure their guns, carrying responsibility if those guns are used in a crime or recklessly stored or used or too easy to steal. Let the market sort out the ages after which gun insurance rates become affordable. Make gun sellers check the insurability of their buyers. When we bought a car, we had to show them we had insurance. Don’t know why I can’t drive without accepting liability and proving my ability to meet a minimum liability amount but I can buy a gun without any regards for if I can, legally speaking anyways “make whole†someone who is harmed by my gun when I don’t secure it properly or make sure my kid doesn’t take it somewhere.

 

I've seen this insurance thing as a meme on facebook, but I think it's a red herring.  Despite media scares, the actual statistics on gun violence are so low that insurance costs very little.  As in, we have a 2 million dollar umbrella liability policy that specifically mentions including guns, and it costs something like $24 per year.

 

I actually think it would be more effective to ban AR brand rifles, despite the fact that they are not very different from any other semi-automatic rifle, solely because so many mass shooters seem to be fixated on them. Not to mention specific brands of guns have constitutional issues.

 

Maybe we could simply tax AR's out of the price bracket of young men.  In theory.  Not that it would pass the current legislature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is too old. I went to college at sixteen and had my degree at twenty.

 

I do think that more opportunities to learn life skills through the community might help. We have a plethora of parents here that are so busy working multiple job, extra hours, double shifts that they don't have the time to teach some of the basics. These young adults do not how to navigate the complexities of life adult life and often feel lost and then flounder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen this insurance thing as a meme on facebook, but I think it's a red herring. Despite media scares, the actual statistics on gun violence are so low that insurance costs very little. As in, we have a 2 million dollar umbrella liability policy that specifically mentions including guns, and it costs something like $24 per year.

 

I actually think it would be more effective to ban AR brand rifles, despite the fact that they are not very different from any other semi-automatic rifle, solely because so many mass shooters seem to be fixated on them. Not to mention specific brands of guns have constitutional issues.

 

Maybe we could simply tax AR's out of the price bracket of young men. In theory. Not that it would pass the current legislature.

Most umbrella policies don’t cover liability for another’s actions with your property. Most insurance policies exclude coverage for overt criminal acts on the part of their insured.

 

It’s cheap for well off responsible adults to buy umbrella policies. I’m betting it’s not cheap for 20 year olds with various risk factors and issues.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all religions are supportive of advanced reproductive technology and from a financial perspective, many women do not have the means to freeze their eggs. It’s certainly not something, at this juncture, that is covered by insurance. I have heard it discussed as an employee benefit, to help companies retain talented women longer.

Compared to the cost of graduate school, egg freezing is cheap. At the time I was considering med school it was $25k per year and now it’s more than double that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you vastly underestimate the tech available today.

 

I have mentioned that I have a 22 yr old. I also have a 9 yr old. That’s not by choice. Oh and DD 22, she had just turned 6 when DH and I got married.

 

 

Clomid. IUI. IVF. Laparoscopy. Freezing. Injectables. Etc etc

 

 

Just up and freezing eggs so that a person can go to mes school......

 

 

No

That’s your opinion. I mourn the fact that I had to give up my dream of becoming a doctor because it conflicted with my desire to have many children and the biological reality that fertility starts to decline at 27. Today’s young women have the ability to push “pause†on their biological clock in a way that I very much envy. What’s a few months of taking medication compared to the ability to pursue career dreams without the worry that doing so will cost you your chance at motherhood?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s your opinion. I mourn the fact that I had to give up my dream of becoming a doctor because it conflicted with my desire to have many children and the biological reality that fertility starts to decline at 27. Today’s young women have the ability to push “pause†on their biological clock in a way that I very much envy. What’s a few months of taking medication compared to the ability to pursue career dreams without the worry that doing so will cost you your chance at motherhood?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t have any objections to egg freezing for those who can but it’s hardly a sure thing.

 

Re: cost. Relatively few people are paying for their graduate and professional school cash on the barrel the way optional egg freezing requires. People are getting scholarships and student loans. So it doesn’t follow that if I am going to a $40k a year professional school that I am in a spot money wise to freeze my eggs to the tune of $10k.

 

I know more than a few older women unable to get pregnant even with donor eggs (so egg quality is not the issue). A stock of frozen eggs doesn’t mean people can just have children at their leisure.

 

I would prefer to see efforts put into making education and career goals more compatible with parenthood than, dare I say it, seeing us put all our eggs in the freezer basket.

 

I passed on law school for parenthood. It was a choice in that I could have gone to law school with a baby. People do it. I don’t regret not going. Nor would I have opted to freeze my eggs. I don’t think I am alone in this. It remains a fairly rare choice.

 

I do think it’s good when people start thinking about this earlier though.

Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s your opinion. I mourn the fact that I had to give up my dream of becoming a doctor because it conflicted with my desire to have many children and the biological reality that fertility starts to decline at 27. Today’s young women have the ability to push “pause†on their biological clock in a way that I very much envy. What’s a few months of taking medication compared to the ability to pursue career dreams without the worry that doing so will cost you your chance at motherhood?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of my college classmates married her high school sweetheart at 19, graduated pregnant a year early, followed her dh while he attended law school, had another child and finished a master's in math, then the little family relocated to her med school. She had another child during med school and one during residency and I think two more after.

 

So some people don't give up kids for med school.

 

Also egg freezing sounds great and all, but I've been seeing a lot in recent news that it's not turning out all that successful. People who did it to put off babies are often not successful in the end. Some eggs don't make it through the whole process and implantation is not successful on others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious, although it's not my business how old you were when you would have started medical school :). But are you saying that any woman who doesnt have babies by 27 is in danger of not having them? I don't have any statistics in front of me but pretty much all the women I know have had babies, and even started having them, after 27. The ones who had them young wanted to be done young. Many of them, including myself, had them at forty plus. I know waiting until late thirties is risky, but if you start med school at 22 or even 24 you should be done by your early thirties. Or sooner, depending on your track. Could be 28 if you do med school and a basic residency. I never even considered having kids till 30. I do come from a family of late childbearing women though so maybe that made me less worried about it. Mother, Maternal and paternal grandmothers had babies in their late 30s. My sister is a doctor and I'm sorry you had to give up your dream.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious, although it's not my business how old you were when you would have started medical school :). But are you saying that any woman who doesnt have babies by 27 is in danger of not having them? I don't have any statistics in front of me but pretty much all the women I know have had babies, and even started having them, after 27. The ones who had them young wanted to be done young. Many of them, including myself, had them at forty plus. I know waiting until late thirties is risky, but if you start med school at 22 or even 24 you should be done by your early thirties. Or sooner, depending on your track. Could be 28 if you do med school and a basic residency. I never even considered having kids till 30. I do come from a family of late childbearing women though so maybe that made me less worried about it. Mother, Maternal and paternal grandmothers had babies in their late 30s. My sister is a doctor and I'm sorry you had to give up your dream.

 

If I had gotten in straight after graduation I would've been almost 23 when I started. I would've finished residency at 29.5. Given that I wanted 4 kids and several of my aunts dealt with secondary infertility in their early 30's, spending my entire 20's in grad school and residency seemed far too risky.

 

As it turns out, I can get pregnant naturally in my 40's. However, it remains TBD whether I can actually carry a baby to term at this age. It was depressing enough hearing from the reproductive endocrinologist that the miscarriage rate is 50% when I already had 3 kids. That would have been completely devastating to me to hear if I were trying for baby #1.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There just aren't any guarantees. Really. I know people who have had children from frozen eggs and some who never had a pregnancy take.

 

I put off career for babies and ended up homeschooling which had entirely tanked my music career. Concert pianist is not something one just "picks up on" at forty nine when homeschool retirement looms. I am living with my decision, and do not regret what I did for the sake of the kids. On the other hand, it is VERY hard on me.

 

Some careers simply do not have a pause button. You either do it when you are young or not at all because you can't break back in at middle age.

 

Given the sheer cost of grad school today as well as undergraduate loans, I think it is pretty important that young people put off their baby having for quite a while, get those scholarships and assistantships to grad school, and pay those student loans because the reality for our kid's generation is that they will be four to an apartment eating ramen noodles for a time or worse, didn't do enough post high school to get a decent job, and are practically homeless living on friend's couches or at mom and dad's. While we all most likely had the choice of when to start a family, when to build a career, if we could afford to be a single income family, etc. these are luxury decisions for them. The economy and staggering cost of post high school education and training, stagnating wages in the face of rising housing costs, and medical insurance premiums and deductibles will dictate life choices to this generation of young adults.

 

That said, raising the legal adult age is not the answer. I do agree that in the age of scientific warfare, there is not need for eighteen year old foot troops. So I would be for no buying alcohol, cigarettes, recreational marijuana, or guns until twenty one. Call it a version of attaining full adult status like driver's licensing programs in some states. Yes, you get your license at a certain age, but you have to drive clean for so long, to get the full benefits. A test drive of adulthood if you will.

 

I am also all for reforming middle school and high school so students can leave at fourteen or fifteen and go to tech school full time, drop out if determined to be school disruptors and behavior problems, with night school options available for those that want to finish after dropping out, dual enrollment full time for the last two years of high school if the student is ready, and opportunities for tracks so students can specialize in high school which would make it more exciting and personal, allowing a passion to develop instead of a one size fits all situation. I think we would see frontal lobes develop more quickly if middle schoolers are challenged and have more options, and if high schoolers have a lot more choice. Mostly they are spinning their wheels while also nearing adulthood and being treated very child like by the system. Then bam...you turned eighteen be an adult. None of that is good for the maturing brain.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There just aren't any guarantees. Really. I know people who have had children from frozen eggs and some who never had a pregnancy take.

 

I put off career for babies and ended up homeschooling which had entirely tanked my music career. Concert pianist is not something one just "picks up on" at forty nine when homeschool retirement looms. I am living with my decision, and do not regret what I did for the sake of the kids. On the other hand, it is VERY hard on me.

 

Some careers simply do not have a pause button. You either do it when you are young or not at all because you can't break back in at middle age.

 

Given the sheer cost of grad school today as well as undergraduate loans, I think it is pretty important that young people put off their baby having for quite a while, get those scholarships and assistantships to grad school, and pay those student loans because the reality for our kid's generation is that they will be four to an apartment eating ramen noodles for a time or worse, didn't do enough post high school to get a decent job, and are practically homeless living on friend's couches or at mom and dad's. While we all most likely had the choice of when to start a family, when to build a career, if we could afford to be a single income family, etc. these are luxury decisions for them. The economy and staggering cost of post high school education and training, stagnating wages in the face of rising housing costs, and medical insurance premiums and deductibles will dictate life choices to this generation of young adults.

 

That said, raising the legal adult age is not the answer. I do agree that in the age of scientific warfare, there is not need for eighteen year old foot troops. So I would be for no buying alcohol, cigarettes, recreational marijuana, or guns until twenty one. Call it a version of attaining full adult status like driver's licensing programs in some states. Yes, you get your license at a certain age, but you have to drive clean for so long, to get the full benefits. A test drive of adulthood if you will.

 

I am also all for reforming middle school and high school so students can leave at fourteen or fifteen and go to tech school full time, drop out if determined to be school disruptors and behavior problems, with night school options available for those that want to finish after dropping out, dual enrollment full time for the last two years of high school if the student is ready, and opportunities for tracks so students can specialize in high school which would make it more exciting and personal, allowing a passion to develop instead of a one size fits all situation. I think we would see frontal lobes develop more quickly if middle schoolers are challenged and have more options, and if high schoolers have a lot more choice. Mostly they are spinning their wheels while also nearing adulthood and being treated very child like by the system. Then bam...you turned eighteen be an adult. None of that is good for the maturing brain.

 

I agree with most of this, but I'm pretty sure the brain science doesn't suggest that challenges make the frontal lobe mature faster...  instead it's a matter of hormones. Most 9 year olds have better decision making ability than most 16 year olds...  and it takes years to regain the rationality. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s your opinion. I mourn the fact that I had to give up my dream of becoming a doctor because it conflicted with my desire to have many children and the biological reality that fertility starts to decline at 27. Today’s young women have the ability to push “pause†on their biological clock in a way that I very much envy. What’s a few months of taking medication compared to the ability to pursue career dreams without the worry that doing so will cost you your chance at motherhood?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You're overly optimistic about that.  I'm all for more options for women, but living in the adoptive community I spend time around women (some who've recently adopted) who know full well how low the success rates of various fertility treatments are, and they're lower than you seem to think.  Women need cold, hard objective, realistic expectations about their biological clocks and fertility treatments. As stated upthread, egg quality is one of many issues that factor into fertility.

 

The same with adoption.  I roll my eyes internally at women who say ignorant but well intentioned things like, "Well, if I can't have a biological child, I'll just adopt a baby." It's not nearly as likely as they think it is.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah. 

 

I grew up in San Jose - Silicon Valley.  I just looked up my old house.  My parents bought it in 1972 for $40,000.  It's estimated worth now is $1.2 million.  It's not a particularly great house - a tiny galley kitchen and only two bathrooms, one on each floor, and the one on the main floor is accessed by walking all the way through the master bedroom.  Poor back yard for kids because it's on a hillside so much of the yard is vertical.  And, bonus, it's in a very bad school district!   

 

 

My folks got a new four-bed, two bath ranch in Orange, CA in 1962 for about $26,000. They moved into a larger new two-story four bed, three bath with room for a pool in 1974 that cost $54,000. Both houses hit the million mark in the last decade - location. Note folks separated and "only" made $200,000 profit on that 1974 house. If only they had stayed in it longer....

 

Point is, none of us could afford to buy or even rent where I grew up, should we want to return to S. Ca. My kid sister is hoping to not lose $ selling their house in Moreno Valley - she is excited to be able to get more house for less, with a lower COL, outside Raleigh NC (where her job moves this spring).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my college classmates married her high school sweetheart at 19, graduated pregnant a year early, followed her dh while he attended law school, had another child and finished a master's in math, then the little family relocated to her med school. She had another child during med school and one during residency and I think two more after.

 

Ruth Bader Ginsberg had her first child right before she and her husband started law school. They had their second child while in law school. Apparently they paid a nanny when they were in class in the mornings and early afternoons, came home and spent time with their kids and then hit the books after the kids were asleep. Didn't work out so badly for them in the end. I learned this from the book about RBG my son just picked out to read, lol. I know a number of women who have a baby before or during their residency. It usually required a nanny but they made it work. My point is not that because they did it every one can or should. There are all sorts of reasons people do not. But I don't see much point in regretting things that I voluntarily passed on when I made the choice, in my case, to stay pregnant with a very much unplanned and unexpected baby (I was on the pill when we were first married). Edited by LucyStoner
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruth Bader Ginsberg has her first child right before she and her husband started law school. They had their second child while in law school. Apparently they paid a nanny when they were in class in the mornings and early afternoons, came home and spent time with their kids and then hit the books after the kids were asleep. Didn't work out so badly for them in the end. I learned this from the book about RBG my son just picked out to read, lol. I know a number of women who have a baby before or during their residency. It usually required a nanny but they made it work. My point is not that because they did it every one can or should. There are all sorts of reasons people do not. But I don't see much point in regretting things that I voluntarily passed on when I made the choice, in my case, to stay pregnant with a very much unplanned and unexpected baby (I was on the pill when we were first married).

Absolutely. We all make choices. But there was a post that inaccurately said becoming a doctor and becoming a mother were incompatible. You have to choose the path. If you don't want to mix being a new parent and attending school then don't, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. You do have to accept yourself and your path in the end.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. We all make choices. But there was a post that inaccurately said becoming a doctor and becoming a mother were incompatible. You have to choose the path. If you don't want to mix being a new parent and attending school then don't, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. You do have to accept yourself and your path in the end.

True although it comes with a cost. My mother's husband died in a car wreck and she graduated both college and med school as a single mom with 4 kids. I was born on Friday and she was in class on Monday. But it comes with a cost and it is very hard.

And how we make the decision is very personal after all we are the only ones who will deal with every cost and benefit. Also, other circumstances such as health of child or if they have special needs or your own health or financial issues also must be weighed. It is harder for some than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying this is a good idea, but when people say they did XYZ by the time they were blah blah doesn't mean this is the reality now.  My mother ran away at 16 and got a good paying full time job.  This isn't even possible today.  So we can't entirely compare our own situation with what will be for our kids.  I have no clue how an 18 year old would make it on their own these days (without a lot of help). 

 

The environment might have changed, but I think what it suggests is that maybe people actually have the potential to be much more independent than we might think.  

 

And if they do, maybe we should think about whether our creating an environment that doesn't easily allow that is a good idea, or one we should look to extend.

 

I think what nitpick said above about kids being parented a certain way having more activity in the frontal cortex.  I wonder, if a lot of kids are developing later because of an artificial environment we created, or just because we have certain expectations, could there be long term effects of that?

 

It certainly doesn't want to make me avoid giving my kids real decision making ability and responsibility - it makes me think I need to find ways to make that happen, even when the environment tends to disempower them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think a lot of those jobs are being done by adults because employers aren’t comfortable hiring young people. They hire adults to drive paper rounds because they can get more papers delivered with fewer employees. Parents get VERY uncomfortable with the idea of having a 12, 13, or 14 yr old babysit their 2 or 3 yr old. Fast food places want to hire adults because they don’t have to deal with hour restrictions and responsibility restrictions like they don’t with 15 and 16 ur olds. And the mention earlier of the young people who don’t want to work, spend all their time on their phone...it’s a stereotype, but one many employers buy into and don’t want to deal with.

 

I wonder though if there isn't a bit of a relationship between this and later first jobs.

 

I know at my first job I was a little flakey.  I was also 12.  Boys my dad's age used to work holding signs for road construction, and they could be annoying employees too.

 

But - like everyone, you soon learned that you had to shape up t work.  By 18, most people knew something about being responsible to someone besides those in a guardianship role like parents or teachers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen this insurance thing as a meme on facebook, but I think it's a red herring.  Despite media scares, the actual statistics on gun violence are so low that insurance costs very little.  As in, we have a 2 million dollar umbrella liability policy that specifically mentions including guns, and it costs something like $24 per year.

 

I actually think it would be more effective to ban AR brand rifles, despite the fact that they are not very different from any other semi-automatic rifle, solely because so many mass shooters seem to be fixated on them. Not to mention specific brands of guns have constitutional issues.

 

Maybe we could simply tax AR's out of the price bracket of young men.  In theory.  Not that it would pass the current legislature.

 

I disagree with the gun insurance idea for other reasons, but going out on a limb I am guessing your umbrella policy only covers acts of negligence and not criminal acts. 

I have to say $24 sounds really, really low.  Most policies I have seen have run between $300-500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the gun insurance idea for other reasons, but going out on a limb I am guessing your umbrella policy only covers acts of negligence and not criminal acts. 

I have to say $24 sounds really, really low.  Most policies I have seen have run between $300-500.

 

I think we get a huge discount because we get all our other insurance through the same agent.  Plus, we chose pretty high liability coverage for home and car insurance already, so chances of needing that policy are low.

 

No insurance that I know of covers criminal acts, and creating a law requiring specific "gun insurance" still wouldn't make an insurer cover a criminal act.  Insurance isn't written that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we get a huge discount because we get all our other insurance through the same agent.  Plus, we chose pretty high liability coverage for home and car insurance already, so chances of needing that policy are low.

 

No insurance that I know of covers criminal acts, and creating a law requiring specific "gun insurance" still wouldn't make an insurer cover a criminal act.  Insurance isn't written that way.

 

Most umbrella policies require insurance through the same company.  $24 sounds insanely low - are you sure that isn't per month?

 

The bolded is my point.  The proposed gun insurance would also cover criminal acts, which if that was the case, would raise the cost of those policies immensely (assuming anyone would even underwrite them).  Which is one of the many reasons I don't support those proposals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're overly optimistic about that.  I'm all for more options for women, but living in the adoptive community I spend time around women (some who've recently adopted) who know full well how low the success rates of various fertility treatments are, and they're lower than you seem to think.  Women need cold, hard objective, realistic expectations about their biological clocks and fertility treatments. As stated upthread, egg quality is one of many issues that factor into fertility.

 

The same with adoption.  I roll my eyes internally at women who say ignorant but well intentioned things like, "Well, if I can't have a biological child, I'll just adopt a baby." It's not nearly as likely as they think it is.

 

 

They're low because they're generally done only on women who have already failed at getting pregnant naturally AND most of those women at in their late 30's to 40's.

 

When I had the consult with the reproductive endocrinologist last fall, she told me that because I had proven fertility and my antral follicle count looked ok, she estimated that if I were to do IVF (we're not), the success rate per cycle would be 60%. There's no reason to think that the odds would've been LOWER had she been looking at my 21 year old ovaries. Probably quite a bit higher, though obviously not 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...