[pac0]

> My Dad lost his Dad at the age of 34, which is no age at all in the grand scheme of things. By contrast I still have my Dad at the age of 60, which has meant an extra quarter century of guidance, support, advice, love and always being there. How lucky am I?

I lost my father when I was 30. I thought I’d been lucky because I’d had him through my “adult” life. Now I’m 40 and have a 2-year-old son, and over these past ten years I think it’s when I would have most liked to have him — when more questions came up about what he was really like as a person, beyond his role as a father. He died at 72 from lung cancer; he had been smoking since he was 13 and never went to the doctor. I guess I was lucky after all…

[tendencydriven]

Oof, this one hits home.

I lost my Dad when I was 27, he had just turned 60. Also lung cancer, also smoking since a child, also had never visited the doctor.

In the 5 years since then, I've met the love of my life, gotten engaged, and planning a family. All of this without my Dad, without his advice, without his support. It hurts, a lot. Whenever big moments in my life happen, my first instinct is always to give him a call.

[zeristor]

Dad lost to smoking too at 60, but heart disease. As I grew through life I could relate to my memories of him at those ages, but as I come up to 60 myself I’m daunted not to have my memories of him at later ages as a guide.

[OptionOfT]

My dad decided to go scorched earth when I had the opportunity to move to the USA. He was always bitter, but he turned poisonous. He made it about himself.

I miss what could've been.

[noduerme]

You gotta do what you can do - take the best of what you remember from your parents and grandparents, and pass it on. I don't feel like they're really dead as long as I'm alive. I hear their voices and their jokes and I see their smiles. Sometimes when I laugh I hear how my grandpa laughed, and I think, shit, I must sound old now. Kids make you realize how temporary we all are.

[iamacyborg]

I was 6 when my dad died, next year I’ll be the same age he was when he died (38). Life’s weird.

[supportengineer]

Lost my dad when I was 45. That’s still too young. Over the last 5 years I have missed out on so many conversations with him.

[irjustin]

Overall we're having kids later and later myself included. This is one of the natural consequences I will face. Sometimes I wish it had kids in my twenties but for now I'm glad I didn't. We'll see.

[p0w3n3d]

The best age for having kids biologically, in terms of health is... Close to 18. I had my first child when I was 27 and I was already very tired in the nights, we agreed with wife that it would have been better to start earlier. Some people have kids when 35-40 and I cannot imagine it at all. I'm too tired right now. Much wiser, but my health would not allow me to stay up nights

[Aurornis]

> Close to 18. I had my first child when I was 27 and I was already very tired in the nights, we agreed with wife that it would have been better to start earlier

I have some extended family who had some unexpected kids around that 18 age and I firmly disagree that it’s better. We had so many more advantages by having kids when older, from better emotional regulation to better time management practices.

I had kids when older than you. Although some of the early years being up late weren’t easy, it also wasn’t devastatingly tiresome. My wife and I split duties and staggered our schedules.

The low sleep years were also over very quickly. It’s not like you’re up all night with kids until they’re 10 years old. Optimizing the entirety of raising kids based on being as young as possible to stay up late during the first year of life isn’t a good idea, IMO. You have to look at the big picture.

I’m sorry you’re struggling and I don’t mean to downplay your personal struggles, but at the same time I have to agree with other comments that are puzzled at someone in their 20s being so crushingly tired when parents in their 30s routinely handle child raising. If you have some unmentioned condition then I don’t mean to belittle that, but I don’t want others reading these comments to assume your description is typical.

[worik]

I think this depends on social conditions

For some families the women start having children at eighten, and it is the business of the extended family to provide the "better emotional regulation to better time management practices"

Other families have different arrangements and the women and men are far more on their own

There are advantages and disadvantages to both ways of doing things

[simonsquiff]

I had my first at 42, second at 45, and about to have my third at 48. Honestly it’s been fine - thinking that people might find this unimaginable is so far from my reality. It really feels like I’ve had the same experience as those in their 30s.

Part of this might be that 40s life is a bit more chill anyhow - I no longer go and get smashed every weekend, or even have the FOMO that I’m not doing that. And work life, whilst more junior, was ultimately more extreme in my 20s and 30s. So any physical drop is probably balanced by a slight drop in general burning the candle at both ends. But yeah, don’t think 40s parenting is a no go. Go for it!

[nightshift1]

My parents had me at 40. I wish they had me sooner. They were old and tired for all my life and at 40 my last parent is already near the end. I have only known one of my grandparents. My parents were the equivalent of other kids grandparents. You do you but i think it's selfish.

[prawn]

I think consider that simonsquiff may not have been in a position (stable relationship, reliable personal situation, partner's career, etc) until their 40s. If not now, they may not have had children at all, leaving no one to know any grandparents.

I think there are advantages either way. I have three kids, born when I was 35-41; when my wife was 31-37. The children met great-grandparents, get lots of experience with their grandparents, and I think time for us to get more established has made for a stronger and more interesting parenting environment. I might've regretted giving up chances to travel/etc before having kids. That said, I am conscious that I would be 80+ before my youngest hit 40.

It might be that consecutive generations of late-parenting are where the impact is felt. My parents had their three children at 24-29.

[somenameforme]

Fully agreed on this, the generational stuff is where having children late is just brutal. When I was young, I actually often hung out my grand grandmother's place, drinking real buttermilk and eating the tasty goodies it can produce. I took it all for granted, but it was a wonderful upbringing and undoubtedly took a major load of my parent. I'm not actually entirely sure why she decided to move to the city at which point that entire network disappeared and things became much more difficult for both of us. And I don't think I really want to ask why either.

On the other hand here I am today living half way around the world from where I was born, so maybe this urge to expand outward is some sort of genetic thing. Could explain a lot about humanity - Africa was pretty much a utopia especially relative to the damnable freezing wastelands the 'Northern Lands.' Gotta be something a bit wrong with some of us! Hey who's up for going to Mars? I am!

[somenameforme]

Like I'm sure you can see yourself already, a lot depends on the individuals in question. I'm approaching my mid 40s and am still a gym rat - and at my peak lifetime strength + endurance levels. On the other hand I also have peers that have already muddled their minds and broken their bodies, often through years of indulgence, sometimes well before their 40s.

This [1] is RFK Jr at friggin 71 years old, amongst other athletic feats you can find videos of. He's on testosterone replacement therapy, but on the other hand I don't think that's really some big asterisk. Testosterone is absolutely critical for men and it declines as we age. When I reach the point where my testosterone has meaningfully diminished, I'll also likely do the same. And TRT alone doesn't give you results like that - that's the result of endless dedication to maintaining your health and fitness.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpeGjCBF_z4

[paulryanrogers]

Having heard stories of his fatherhood journey, I would not hold up RFKJ as a model of anything except selfishness.

[njarboe]

If your parents did not have you at 40 you would not exist. Hope you are enjoying life.

[cjonas]

At 18, I had no business even being responsible for a kid for a day. I hope the stability (both mentally and financially) that I'm able to offer my kid in their development years far outweighs the fact I won't be around as long.

[somenameforme]

Might this not be a consequence of how "we" were raised? In the past there were 18 year olds who were successful and responsible leaders of nations. Marcus Aurelius became emperor at 16! My parent just wanted me to go to college and earn money so I grew up with a rather 1-dimensional and hedonistic perspective on life.

I'll be encouraging my children to have children as early as reasonably possible. In part it's because of greed - I want to see those grandkids, and maybe even remotely possibly great grandkids before I die, but it's also because it's what I wish I had done in hindsight. Having children has not only been the joy and pride of my life, but it also gave my life much more meaning and direction. In any case, I also think it's completely appropriate for grandparents to play a significant role in the raising of children.

[irjustin]

Biologically yes... Probably but maturity, stability wise closer to 30-35 seems to be pretty good. At least the going rate amongst my friends

[TeMPOraL]

That's an environmental factor, though, specifically a function of our modern life style.

We had our first child at ~30, so we track this trend, too. However, I sometimes think, what if we gave in to the biological trend and[0] had kids at 18-20? If that were the common trend, then... by the time i got 36, my kids would be on their way to starting their own families. I.e. my child-rearing day would've been over, right here, today. As it is, I'm about to turn 37, and am looking forward to some 15 more years of parenting.

No, I really am looking forward to this. But the point is, the life after parenting doesn't sound so appealing anymore, not when it starts at 50 instead of 36.

--

[0] - Subject to the typical rules about age of adulthood, to not overcomplicate this.

[close04]

> the life after parenting doesn't sound so appealing anymore, not when it starts at 50 instead of 36.

Even if you have kids at 18 you won’t be done with parenting at 36. Maybe they leave the home, maybe not, you will still have to do a lot of parenting for a while more. You’ll be well in your 40s before you can even think “I’m finally mostly done”.

At that age it depends on each person what they want to do with the life. A lot of my friends who had kids really early started focusing on career later in life. Exactly what they “missed”. Those who focused on career and travel when young, focused on kids later in life. I haven’t heard anyone really regretting the choice beyond “my back can’t really take it anymore”[0] because you can never know what you’re missing. You’ll never know how your life would have been otherwise and what you would have liked more or less.

[0] Me, after starting parenthood in my 40s and being lazy so my back isn’t what it could be.

[SoftTalker]

If you want to spend time with your kids as adults, and have any grandkids remember you, younger is better. I was 30 when I had my first child; my parents might have been a little older than that when they had me. My dad died 20 years ago, my oldest son barely remembers him. My younger children technically met him but hav no memories of him. My mother died over 10 years ago.

My wife's mother had her when she was 20. She's still around, got to see her grandchildren reach adulthood, and have a long relationship with her daughter as an adult.

[seper8]

Buddy if you're 27 and already describe your life as very tired, there's more going on than pure aging...

[p0w3n3d]

no I'm almost twice that. I'm saying that if I had children in 40s it would be impossible for me.

[dgacmu]

We had our first when I was 37 and our second when I was 43. It wasn't so bad - it's tiring but I'm also a lot more emotionally mature than I was in my 20s and early 30s. And I have an absolute ton more money and stability (which also helps pay for things like nannies and school).

The thing I'm a little sad about is that I'm unlikely to be there for too long when my kids have kids.

[bee_rider]

I dunno, medical science keeps advancing. Maybe you’ll live forever.

[siva7]

Have to agree on this one. That has nothing to do with aging at 27 but it's the easy explanation for some people to not dig deeper.

[MattRix]

I mean yeah, that’s literally what he’s saying: He’s saying he’s very tired because of his children, especially how they keep him up at night.

[hnlmorg]

I emphasise with your grief. I lost my dad when I was 30 too. He died when my wife was pregnant with our first child.

It still cuts me up to think about how my kids have never known my dad, and their grandad.

[ls612]

My dad’s dad died when he was 13, and this dropped his family from upper middle class to basically in poverty except for owning a fully paid off house. It radically colored his outlook on life and left him risk averse and frugal, even to the expense of his quality of life. What’s the point of saving up an 8 figure nest egg and working into your 70s if you spend less than 100k/year?

I’m lucky to have him still at the age of 30 but it’s clear how traumatic losing a parent young is.

[Fnoord]

100k USD per year for a family is poverty in the USA? I had to look that up [1].

> Real wages averaged $67,521 in 2022, and average household incomes averaged to $87,864.

Further down it says:

> In every country, there are levels of the middle class, with low middle-class earners and high middle-class earners. In America, the states all have their own middle-class medians as well. For example, in Alabama, low-middle-class families start at $38,582 while higher middle-class ranges can end at $161,524.

So without knowing where you're from, we don't know.

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/average-fam...

[lkuty]

I think the median is better than the average because high salaries (outliers) will skew the average upwards. So now I am wondering what is the median salary and how it compares to the average.

[ls612]

Good god reading is hard. He was in poverty or close to it as a teenager after his dad died, not today.

[Fnoord]

Back when your father was a teenager, 100k USD was a small fortune.

[ls612]

He spends 100k today not in 1970.

[SoftTalker]

> What’s the point of saving up an 8 figure nest egg and working into your 70s if you spend less than 100k/year?

Leaving your kids better off.

[prawn]

That's one point technically, but if it were advice that every generation followed, no one would spend much to actually live their lives!

[beachtaxidriver]

I know some people like that: the insane nest egg and that security _is_ their quality of life and the blanket they sleep well under. Their current consumption doesn't matter too much to them.

[moribvndvs]

32 for me, and I agree wholeheartedly. Life was relatively simple and uncomplicated for me at that age, and quickly became the opposite of that as the years wore on. His wisdom, experience, and humor while navigating a world that has gone mad is sorely missed, but practical things, too. I’m fixing up my money pit of a house (aren’t they all, though?) and the whole time I am wishing he was here so we could just work on projects together.

[littlestymaar]

Cigarettes are not too unlike Asbestos: they've been known to be deadly for ages, but a powerful industrial lobby fought ferociously to defend their financial interests, leading to millions of preventable death.