I think main question should be if you want kids or not. And only then questions if you can still reach FIRE with kids.
I would never put child and family in equation with 2 mil of assets, traveled world and free time.
If you have decided to have kids and still want FIRE, only then all this math debated here makes sense.
2 Likes
It is true that when you decide to have children you are taking a full time commitment for >20 years (to be shifted accordingly if >1 kid) and that you have to consider this carefully in advance. On the other hand, if/when you have done your personal/couple DD and are sure about your intentions you should not be too much concerned about all the “boundary conditions” - imo.
I’ve also seen quite often happening that ‘it is never the right moment’ because you need to finish school (uni, but why not phd ?) then find a stable job, then marry, then buy an apartment, then…
Finally when all the stars are aligned you are maybe > 40 years old, you decide to “take action” but children do not always immediately arrive when one decides, then you keep trying, later on maybe small medical issues… and if you finally get there you might end up playing more the grandparent role (I’m a bit exaggerating but I think you get the point).
So all in all it’s a matter of finding a proper balance. I see that everybody’s personal situation during childhood (regarding $$, relationship with parents and between the parents themselves etc.) is definitely going to have a huge impact on our approach.
3 Likes
Yeah, that was an “implied term” (you are switching from full to part time commitment)
You are mixing whole life problems into one.
OP stated that FIRE seems not to be possible when having 2 kids.
I deducted that OP could possibly reach FIRE, but he also wants kids. My irrational advice is $uck the FIRE if you want the kids. For the rational advice, what other members successfully argue with examples, you might still manage FIRE via different means if you really try, as kids raising don’t need to be as expensive at it seems.
But most importantly, there is much more happiness in family, kids, relationship than in material aspect of life or free time without loved ones or family to enjoy with.
Again, this is valid only if you know that you want kids. If you don’t want kids and you know this, this is whole another story.
You are right, that there are people having kids without putting (or being able to) a thought about it. And it’s just dreadful to think that here are parents who regret having kid, just because they can’t afford new BMW or a certain lavish travel.
11 Likes
Life is all about experiences we make and what we leave behind us.
From my POV, a family needs a house. It’s fun, kids need feeling of home, also room for DIY stuff etc. But later your children won’t going to live in this house most probably due to many reasons. Then, your house serves as a starting capital or a payment for your Altersheim which is also important.
On the other hand, if a child free couples / singles / threesomes (whatever)… own a house which anchors them to a geographic point. Why owning a house if you can’t take it with you to another place or… to your grave with you?
There is no direct causation between having children and/or a house as there are many other factors come into play.
I feel like this makes the entire thing too complicated.
Most parents mange somehow. My cleaning lady is divorced and has 3 children. My previous one was in a similar situation, with teenage-aged children. How do they manage? I have no idea, but they do. It’s human nature and especially the nature of parents to fight and somehow find a way.
1 Like
Might also be good for the environment? I decided not to have children for environmental reasons | Environment | The Guardian
I don’t want to poke some sensitive topic. Please forgive me if I do, but I think you didn’t have a money problem. You missed a significant adult when you most needed one. I was wondering from your first post, but now you said it.
The presence of a loving parent (or a replacement) it’s what children need the most.
I’m not a person that thinks that everyone must have kids. You can totally be happy and realized without kids. (Every parent knows this, but we don’t want to struggle alone 
) The first years of life are the most important to create a bond with a care taker and this bond is very important for when the peer pressure comes. Children need to have a strong relationship with an adult they can trust and talk. There are adults that are self confident and don’t buy the most expensive phone and awesome cars to show off. That’s what children need to be.
Sure, money helps a parent to be present.
5 Likes
There’s some research showing that in the first years they don’t benefit from professional childcare. I think there were some observations in Canada where they implemented mandatory childcare and it had a negative impact on those from middle class that would have a caretaker closer (parent, family member or nanny). The ones who benefit from it are those kids that wouldn’t have this care because both parents must work and they have no family around.
Until around the age of 3 kids don’t really play with each other, they have different needs, different development speeds, different habits (nap times) and they can struggle to fit in a room with 10 other kids with 2 adults (I have no ideia what’s the normal ratio).
Before having a child I also thought socialization from early on was very important. Now I see that having a parent or loving adult is way more important to develop emotional and social skills. And I see phycology, children specialists and neighbors in Switzerland validating my new beliefs. It seems that kindergarten like it is in Switzerland is just enough to start school.
You don’t need to be professional or specialist. You just need to be a loving parent (or someone that loves this kid unconditionally) and be patient. Children come with a small program inside that will do it’s thing to do and learn what they need to. We just need to feed, protect and love them. Because the first 3 years are fundamental, like you say, they need the best specialists (the parents) to thrive. Maybe at 3 years old you kid doesn’t know math or “book knowledge” like other kids. But it seems emotional intelligence and self confidence are more important to predict success later in school and life.
This is attachment theory. Unfortunately society is taking the other direction and parents often need to use external help in order to feed and protect and also to give all the superfluous things.
5 Likes
Very interesting. I just read a couple of articles about that. Makes me wonder: shouldn‘t a mother stay at home for the first 3-4 years?
Mandatory sounds problematic to me. Do you still have the link to the paper(s), anyway?
I partially agree. Kids below 3 indeed are often more interested in toys than other children. But that does not mean they don’t interact and learn from others, both children and adults. Different development speeds/levels are probably not an issue in a nursery environment, where there are no expectations that all children in the same room should have achieved a given level of development.
I do also believe that having one or more loving adults around the child is a necessary condition for development. But that does not mean a bit of (good quality) childcare is detrimental. OTOH, here is not uncommon for 4-5 months old babies to be left at the krippe for long days… that I believe can’t be good, I think a middle way is optimal.
No, but I also don’t that “once you’ll have children you’ll just know what to do”. There’s plenty one can learn to be a better care provider for children.
But the two must not coexist at the same time. Spending full days with small children is exhausting, no matter how much you love them, and patience is limited.
We also need to provide an environment that is safe and stimulating.
I believe there are lots of parents out there who are not specialists.
I hope no child is required to know math at 3yo. And I agree, emotional intelligence and social skills are super important in life.
I think that in the past, when a child was born, not only the parents were directly involved but also grandparents, other close relatives, and neighbours. How was the saying “it takes a village to raise a child”? In today’s society instead all the burden is on the immediate family, where most often both parents work, so the nursery has taken the role of the community.
2 Likes
That’s what many do here in Switzerland. Sacrificing their career and the dream to FIRE.
Not sure, may I need to read more about it
The important part is to spend as much quality time with your kids as much as possible. You can be there but doing another things or just with your cell instead of looking for your kid.
Also, I see that there are a lot of pros on professional caring, early ages. The learn from peers.
As a parent you do not know how to raise kids (if your are curious may you will read and support your kid development) but you cannot read everything on every stage.
1 Like
You cannot compare. The resources that we have today and my parents or grand parents had are totally different.
Not only that the things that they did are totally different as today’s one. Entertainment for example.
My grandparent no TV, my parents they had TV but not when they where children. We raise with TV (no selection of shows watch what they show). Our kids have “a la carte” almost everything.
So it is way harder to teach certain values today than in the past.
I would agree for first 2 years when you really need to satisfy most important needs. When “terrible two” starts up to 4 I would leave wife home alone (without any other support eg. occasional grandparents or nanny) with kid only if I would hate her 
Little ones become really agile, attention span or interest in single activity is less than 5 min, you can upset them just by giving wrong color cup/pencil/whatever, ie, you need nerves of steel and patience of sleeping bear. Also from 2 if they don’t play with each other, but they do next to each other. Few month after 2 they would announce that they have best friend in krippe, ie. becomes social.
3 Likes
In my opinion and experience, this is the worst thing for a young mother (even if it would be the best solution financially).
- A very long time where this woman’s life revolves around the child 24/7 (hardly any other thoughts in mind).
- A very long time where this woman is away from working life (loss of market value).
- This time of 3-4 years extends to 5-6+ years with 2+ children.
If it is better that the parents take care of the upbringing 100%, then why not split it 50:50 between mother and father?
12 Likes
What if your spouse doesn‘t have a high education/degree and earns 4-5k/month (100%)?
1 Like
All three points mentioned by me still apply. 
If you think longterm and want to avoid many personal issues in the future, it‘s essential that both parents remain part of the workforce.
Though I personally don‘t see a reason to avoid KiTa by all means. Our kid loved to go there and benefited a lot from the daily routine, the caregivers and the other children.
4 Likes
I mean if she’s ok with it and loves children why not. I’ve specifically looked for a wife that doesn’t mind a TradWife setup.
1 Like
what’s a TradWife setup ? are you referring to SAHM ? i’m sure one will probably save marginally, or break even. often we forget the 1st and 2nd pillar contributions that a stay at home parent misses out on. on th eother hand, i am highly confident (within certain bounds) that both the kids as well as the stay at home parent will develop a very rich emotional life.
in my family that’s also sort of the setup, one parent plays offense, the other defense.
2 Likes