[thesis]

Wow... you seem very jaded... or negative.

"many people who do have kids regret it entirely"

"can't live your dreams and raise your kids right"

"reality is you will probably get a divorce, the kids will go to the mother, and you will pay"

[Pkeod]

In many polls when as if people would not have kids if they could do their life again they said they would not have kids.

It's the truth. Raising children without being neglectful takes a serious amount of time and money. If you don't have the money you have to go and make the money and that means paying someone else to watch your kids to take the chance of them raising them for you.

Yes, that's the reality. Statistics of divorce say so. Not only are you likely to get divorced, as there is usually more incentive to wives to ask for one, but if you live in a state which has alimony lives you could be stuck paying money.

I'm not jaded or negative. I'm an an extremely realistic (data is emotional) person who is very excited to live life well and do a lot of great things - I live in the real world, but I'm also very optimistic with what I do choose to do.

[usaar333]

> Yes, that's the reality. Statistics of divorce say so. Not only are you likely to get divorced....

That's absolutely not true.

Here's the details: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf

Look at table 6. You'll see a 44% base rate of divorce over 20 years. Note that couples with children (specifically have children after marriage) have a way lower divorce rate (from 48% to 22% after 15 years).

And this is highly education dependent. Only a high school grad? 53% chance of divorce. College degree (the vast majority of the HN crowd)? 35% percent. (even lower for masters)

Another relevant detail is age at first marriage. Getting married < 20? 54% chance of divorce within 15 years. Married >= 25? 32% chance.

[Pkeod]

44% isn't a high divorce rate? It is higher than it has been ever in our history. 6% away from flipping a coin that your marriage will fail. No thanks.

The proportion of children born outside of marriage, and more likely to not have strong father figures, is growing every year. Most mothers get custody, and most children don't have a strong father figure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most...

The marriage rate in the US is dropping drastically as well. Marriage doesn't make sense. Guys have nothing to gain from marriage and only things to lose. No, you don't get loyalty when you get married, and you don't get any of the other things you want. Most guys say they get less of what they want from their spouse after marriage.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s...

No family units means kids lose out on the value of a strong family with strong parent figures worthy of being role models.

[john_b]

Look at table 6. You'll see a 44% base rate of divorce over 20 years. Note that couples with children (specifically have children after marriage) have a way lower divorce rate (from 48% to 22% after 15 years).

While a 44% divorce rate is nothing for any society to brag about, I imagine it's even worse than these statistics indicate. This study didn't include marriages longer than a 20 year period. The probability of a marriage surviving also decreases in a relatively linear fashion. It's speculation, but from the data a best case estimate for the divorce rate at 25 years would be about 54%, and considering that kids typically get out of the house and go off to college in the 20-30 year period, a further increase seems likely since "staying together for the kids" ceases to be an excuse then.

I'm sure the longer term data exists, I just don't have time to look it up at the moment. If anyone has a link, it would be great to see it though.

[usaar333]

> The probability of a marriage surviving also decreases in a relatively linear fashion.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Looking at the rates, it is definitely far greater than linear, indeed the 5 year survival point from point X is constantly increasing (81% survival first 5 years; 90% years 15-20). Also bear in mind that "survival" includes not dying, which might throw inferring divorce rates off by a few percent at 20+ years.

Extrapolating to 25 years, you'd get a 49.5% divorce rate.

Again, demographics must be accounted for. Almost the entire audience here is in the higher education demographic which has radically lower divorce rates; you're looking at sub-30% divorce rates.

[john_b]

I should have been more specific. I didn't mean that the probability of a marriage surviving some fixed time interval decreases linearly with the duration of the marriage. Everyone knows that marriages that have lasted longer are less likely to end than newer marriages. What I meant is that the cumulative probability of a marriage surviving decreases roughly linearly from the 5 year point onward, as Tables 5 & 6 show (and Fig. 4 shows graphically).

As an unmarried person, it's the latter that is of concern to me. If I had been married for 15-20 years already, the probability you cite would be more pertinent.

[joshuahedlund]

Sources? Two can play the polling/statistic/studies/arguments game about children: http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/0465...

[Pkeod]

Upbringing is much less important for development than genetics? No. Single mothers who raise kids in poverty with no father figure raise more daughters who have more kids without getting married or even involving a strong father figure (repeating the cycle), and more sons who become criminals or forever doing minimum wage jobs and going nowhere. Parenting > culture > genetics. Your genetic predisposition does not make you who you are. A person who is sheltered and not able to see the world is much worse off than a person who is given perspective about the world and able to expand their library of thoughts.

Which of my opinions do you want me to show are informed by data?

[Evbn]

Most people regret their lives regardless of their choices, because dissatisfaction and bitterness is a human genetic tendency. Most people rage against their mortality and blame everything for it.

[jgeorge]

Perhaps, but I can't say the original respondent's opinions are particularly rare. I know a decent percentage of parents who love their children but given a "do over" on that portion of their life, quite a few would choose differently.

Parenting isn't for everybody, and I think that's a Good Thing. If it works for you, then you have my respect and support. But conversely, if you know it /doesn't/ work for you and you choose to not be a parent, that is also a decision I can respect and support.