Not having children to save money

[FallenApple]

What I find odd about this is how do women have any idea how much money you make early in a relationship or looking at your profile on a dating site? Do you have your income posted in your profile? Do you really want to be with a woman for whom that matters s lot?

Of course money doesn't matter very much in online dating. This is because first impressions are based off of our caveman instincts, hence the importance of looks.

But money does matter after the first impression was made. There has been studies shown that money does matter a lot for a male and that females care quite a bit.

 

[StatGuy2000]

@DaveC426913 For the record, I am 43 years old and single (although in a relationship). Hypothetically, if I decide that I want to raise a family, are you suggesting that I need to rush to do this because my prospects of being able to have children are so low?

(For the record, I have no particular interest in having children, nor does my partner)

 

[ZeGato]

You've been dating the wrong women if being rich is that important. Either that, or you're putting much more importance in that factor than you should. Sure, if you're rich it's easier to attract women, but it's also way more likely that you'd end up staying with the wrong ones, who'd dump you in a heartbeat if you were to lose your money or status. It's just like a hot woman attracting lots of men, but then having to find one who's with her not just for the looks/sex.

 

[TeethWhitener]

My anecdote is merely the result of a human biology, making it not a mere anecdote but the result of something more fundamental.

No, an anecdote is still an anecdote even if it agrees with an accepted theory.

 

[FallenApple]

You've been dating the wrong women if being rich is that important. Either that, or you're putting much more importance in that factor than you should. Sure, if you're rich it's easier to attract women, but it's also way more likely that you'd end up staying with the wrong ones, who'd dump you in a heartbeat if you were to lose your money or status. It's just like a hot woman attracting lots of men, but then having to find one who's with her not just for the looks/sex.

Being rich is important. Evolutionary speaking, luxury items afforded by the wealthy is a example of fitness like how the male peacock shows his fitness by having a heavy ostentatious plume.

Here's a excerpt from wiki

An example in humans was suggested by Geoffrey Miller who expressed that Veblen goods such as luxury cars and other forms of conspicuous consumption are manifestations of the handicap principle, being used to advertise "fitness", in the form of wealth and status, to potential mates.

More on the handicap principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principleIt's important to have maximal statistical advantage. Not every woman will require a man to be rich. However, it is still in my best interest to become rich. Its all about maximizing the probability.

 

[Evo]

What I find odd about this is how do women have any idea how much money you make early in a relationship or looking at your profile on a dating site? Do you have your income posted in your profile? Do you really want to be with a woman for whom that matters s lot?

One of my friends was a gold digger (I ended up dumping her, she once told me that she could make herself love any man if he had enough money), she would look at a man's shoes if we were at a club and he asked her to dance, she would accept based on how expensive his shoes were. I don't even have any idea what shoes cost, what the brands are, men's or women's. So clothing, car, house or apartment, watch, etc... These usually tip a woman off to a man's wealth up front if that's what she's looking for. On a dating site, I guess if you're looking for money, you go to sites with wealthy men, I knew some gold diggers that went to special dating services that catered to the wealthy. The men were verified. The men mostly just wanted hot women.

 

[gmax137]

she would look at a man's shoes if we were at a club and he asked her to dance

back when I was at clubs asking women to dance, I was looking at my shoes, too... classic nerd

 

[DaveC426913]

@DaveC426913 For the record, I am 43 years old and single (although in a relationship). Hypothetically, if I decide that I want to raise a family, are you suggesting that I need to rush to do this because my prospects of being able to have children are so low?

That depends on your partner. (I will assume you are male and your partner is female.)

If your partner does not want to have children, then yes, if you want to children, you will be starting from scratch - looking for a new partner - in your 40s - with a woman who wants to start a family.

If your partner is open to having children, then you have already beaten the odds of finding a woman who wants to start a family with a man in his 40;s.

The OP has yet to dive into that ever-shrinking pool of women who
- are not partnered up already, and
- do not have a family yet, and
- wish to start a family, and
- are willing to do so with a much older** man as husband and father.**point of clarity here. In your case, being only 43, you won't be much older than a fertile woman, if at all. In the OP's case, he was talking about 10 to 20 years difference.

 

[TeethWhitener]

These usually tip a woman off to a man's wealth up front if that's what she's looking for.

On the other hand, there's this:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CLT31D6/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Edit: from the blurb

Most of the truly wealthy in the United States don’t live in Beverly Hills or on Park Avenue. They live next door.

America’s wealthy seldom get that way through an inheritance or an advanced degree. They bargain-shop for used cars, raise children who don’t realize how rich their families are, and reject a lifestyle of flashy exhibitionism and competitive spending. In fact, the glamorous people many of us think of as “rich” are actually a tiny minority of America’s truly wealthy citizens—and behave quite differently than the majority.

 

[ZeGato]

Being rich is important. Evolutionary speaking, luxury items afforded by the wealthy is a example of fitness like how the male peacock shows his fitness by having a heavy ostentatious plume.

Here's a excerpt from wiki
More on the handicap principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principleIt's important to have maximal statistical advantage. Not every woman will require a man to be rich. However, it is still in my best interest to become rich. Its all about maximizing the probability.

But you said you can get into relationships pretty easily, so what's the point of putting so much effort to do something that you're already able to? And yes, having money is important of course, but I think there is a lower limit from which it doesn't matter much. A good job in STEM for example, should be enough to provide you and your family a comfortable life.

 

[FallenApple]

But you said you can get into relationships pretty easily, so what's the point of putting so much effort to do something that you're already able to? And yes, having money is important of course, but I think there is a lower limit from which it doesn't matter much. A good job in STEM for example, should be enough to provide you and your family a comfortable life.

I can only because I have good physical traits. But that doesn't mean I will be able to sustain the relationship for a significant amount of time. 70% of breakups are initiated by women statistically speaking. If biological compatibility was all that mattered, then humans wouldn't have evolved to have a pattern of serial monogamy.

Resources are important since during early humanity, having resources basically meant life or death, especially when the cavewoman became incapacitated by pregnancy. Now clearly modern day humans are beyond that point of not having basic necessities. So why the obsession over wealth and status? Well, my guess is that while the selection for cavemen with resources was initially for survival and fitness purposes, it eventually became a Fisherian runaway where wealth and status is sought after in and of itself.

 

[gmax137]

the cavewoman became incapacitated by pregnancy

Is there a source for this idea? I know plenty of women who have given birth without being "incapacitated." There are many more statements in this thread I disagree with but I'd like to see this one explained.

 

[FallenApple]

Is there a source for this idea? I know plenty of women who have given birth without being "incapacitated." There are many more statements in this thread I disagree with but I'd like to see this one explained.

Human pregnancies are long. There needs to be extra nutritional resources. Women are less mobile than when they are not pregnant, decreasing their probability of fleeing or fighting off wild animals and attackers from other tribes. Not having this ability during those harsh times basically amounts to being incapacitated. I'm not talking about modern society where things are much safer. In the harsh conditions of early human history where there is no guarantee of food and shelter, and constant threats from the environment, yes, some resources along with a strong mate would have been nice. It makes logical sense that females that didn't have a preference for strong males with resources would have been weeded out over time.

I didn't even mention the extremely long timeframe for human adolescents to reach physical maturity compared to other primates. It's not exactly safe to be a child without resources and a strong protector in harsh conditions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/14/health/silent-struggle-a-new-theory-of-pregnancy.html

There is a tug of war between the placenta and the mother for nutrients.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160912151647.htm

Thus the mother would logically need a consistent supply of nutrients to preserve her safety and the fetus at the same time. Which makes sense. An infant would not survive motherless during the stone age. Its not like these cave babies can just drive to Safeway to buy a gallon of milk.https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/60/1/69/322764

"The growth of a baby is constrained by the nutrients and oxygen it receives from the mother. A mother's ability to nourish her baby is established during her own fetal life and by her nutritional experiences in childhood and adolescence, which determine her body size, composition and metabolism. Mother's diet in pregnancy has little effect on the baby's size at birth, but nevertheless programmes the baby. The fetus adapts to undernutrition by changing its metabolism, altering its production of hormones and the sensitivity of tissues to them, redistributing its blood flow, and slowing its growth rate. In some circumstances, the placenta may enlarge. Adaptations to undernutrition that occur during development permanently alter the structure and function of the body."

 

[FallenApple]

To end the argument, I provide some basic results of basic economics applied to biology. Science direct is a reputable source of information.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748701630277X

 

[FallenApple]

Is there a source for this idea? I know plenty of women who have given birth without being "incapacitated." There are many more statements in this thread I disagree with but I'd like to see this one explained.

Why this particular statement out of the many statement that I have made? If I said 1+1=3, 2+2=5, 3+3=7 they would all be equally false so there is no reason to single out anyone of them.

For this discussion, let us think of people as akin to particles with no inherent value. If we can do that, then personal biases would be eliminated. It only fair for an honest discussion.

Science is supposed to be objective and cold. Let's be 100% objective. I want to get to the bottom of this. Hard socratic questioning is good for learning.

 

[FallenApple]

You've been dating the wrong women if being rich is that important. Either that, or you're putting much more importance in that factor than you should. Sure, if you're rich it's easier to attract women, but it's also way more likely that you'd end up staying with the wrong ones, who'd dump you in a heartbeat if you were to lose your money or status. It's just like a hot woman attracting lots of men, but then having to find one who's with her not just for the looks/sex.

Being better in a positive trait is better than not having said trait. An anology: being smart increases one's chances of being a good problem solver. It's not a guarantee, but it's better than nothing. One would have more jobs to choose from. An over simplification to be sure, but it gets the point across: people without education would have no choice but to work at a low paying job. People with education can choose to work at a low paying job or a high paying job. If said educated person doesn't want the hard job, he/she can choose the simpler job. Or not. Either way, more options, more freedom.

I don't see how it can disadvantage me to become rich. By having a wider pool, I would have more options. More options means more choices I can eliminate. I can simply choose to not select the ones that are blatantly gold diggers. It's better than having a smaller pool to choose from.

The more options the better.

 

[FallenApple]

No, an anecdote is still an anecdote even if it agrees with an accepted theory.

And accepted theory is accepted theory.

 

[gmax137]

Why this particular statement ...

Many of your arguments stem from the notion that human behaviors are inherited and follow patterns laid down in the far distant past. Maybe they do, who knows? But the vision you have of the past (cavemen trading resources and security for sex) is something pulled from the air. Maybe your cavewomen were much stronger than you think. Maybe they banded together in groups; aunts uncles and friends providing mutual support. Maybe a hundred other scenarios. I object to the idea that you can suss out the form of human society tens of thousands of years ago using logic and reasoning. Before you can say today's patterns were set (in an evolutionary sense) in the past, I think you need an evidence-based understanding of how that past society actually worked. Evidence, not conjecture, about human lifestyles tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago.

For this discussion, let us think of people as akin to particles with no inherent value. If we can do that, then personal biases would be eliminated. It only fair for an honest discussion.

"Particles" are by definition indistinguishable (e.g., all electrons are the same). This is not true with humans. For example:

people without education would have no choice but to work at a low paying job.

I know several very successful people who made lots of money, with no formal education at all: they are high school dropouts and stopped paying attention in sixth grade. The point is, seemingly absolute ideas can fail when you consider the diversity of human experience.

 

[StatGuy2000]

70% of breakups are initiated by women statistically speaking.

@FallenApple, do you have a source to back up your statistic above?

 

[TeethWhitener]

And accepted theory is accepted theory.

I think you missed the point of my original post. My point was that you can't reasonably infer anything from a single data point, regardless if it's in line with something you (or others) already believe.

At this point you seem to be arguing for the sake of argument. Witness:

I don't see how it can disadvantage me to become rich. By having a wider pool, I would have more options. More options means more choices I can eliminate. I can simply choose to not select the ones that are blatantly gold diggers. It's better than having a smaller pool to choose from.

The more options the better.

Let's grant that getting richer expands your dating pool. As multiple people have already pointed out, getting older contracts your dating pool. Which process goes faster? Which one happens whether you want it to or not? Which one is to some degree contingent on good fortune?

I imagine you understand this; none of it is particularly surprising. If you're looking for a simple answer to "Is it possible to postpone having a family till later in my career (age ~40-50)?" then the answer is "It's possible; people have done it before." If you're trying to devise a to plan for that to happen, there are a lot of big contingencies to plan around. I'll wager if you're flexible enough with your definitions of career and family, you could come up with a pretty solid plan.

 

[Rive]

...getting older contracts your dating pool.

I'm not sure that this statement is true without any constraints or should be limited to successful offspring production (or something along that line), but I'm pretty sure one better to be filthy rich to have realistic hope for (new) kids at age of 80

 

[FallenApple]

@FallenApple, do you have a source to back up your statistic above?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...omen-initiate-divorce-much-more-men-heres-why

Actually the statistic is for divorce rates. I remembered incorrectly.

 

[Rive]

It matches the theory of evolutionary psychology.

Evolution requires variations being present, while you are hooked on the single aspect of wealth - in an environment where it is really hard to say that significant percent of offspring originates from this kind of relationships.
I think you got carried away with this. Human psychology is not this simple.
And evolutionary psychology is a science which is just started to bloom, even its foundations are still fuzzy.

 

[FallenApple]

I think you missed the point of my original post. My point was that you can't reasonably infer anything from a single data point, regardless if it's in line with something you (or others) already believe.

At this point you seem to be arguing for the sake of argument. Witness:

Let's grant that getting richer expands your dating pool. As multiple people have already pointed out, getting older contracts your dating pool. Which process goes faster? Which one happens whether you want it to or not? Which one is to some degree contingent on good fortune?

I imagine you understand this; none of it is particularly surprising. If you're looking for a simple answer to "Is it possible to postpone having a family till later in my career (age ~40-50)?" then the answer is "It's possible; people have done it before." If you're trying to devise a to plan for that to happen, there are a lot of big contingencies to plan around. I'll wager if you're flexible enough with your definitions of career and family, you could come up with a pretty solid plan.

I'm not trying to infer from a single data point. I'm just saying that the theory says what it says it if I don't fit the theory, then my probability of success is drastically diminished. I'm not trying to prove or validate the theory. The theory is already established.

The thing is, yes I could date seriously now. Yes, I could try to start a family. And this would in turn put a huge financial burden on me. The way I see it, if I don't already have the $200,000 it takes to raise a kid, cash on hand, then its probably not a good idea to have the kid. It's similar to taking on debt. The moment you agree to the contract, you are obligated to pay back.

I have to balance being financially risk adverse with what I want. If it reduces the probability if me finding a future mate, then so be it.

Well, if I get a job that makes around 150K to 200K per year, then I would consider having a child. Otherwise, I would just date around to pass the time.

 

[FallenApple]

Evolution requires variations being present, while you are hooked on the single aspect of wealth - in an environment where it is really hard to say that significant percent of offspring originates from this kind of relationships.
I think you got carried away with this. Human psychology is not this simple.
And evolutionary psychology is a science which is just started to bloom, even its foundations are still fuzzy.

I just find evolutionary psychology to be a very interesting topic. And its best theory we have for how the human behavior we observe today originated. I agree, there would be variations present. Probabilistically speaking, survival for our female ancestors is more certain with well resourced males. This should shift the mode of the distribution of resource preferences to the right slowly over time.

 

[Rive]

survival for our female ancestors is more certain with well resourced males.

But in the same time, the rare resource of wealthy males were always very limited, what implies the existence of a pool of alternative selection criteria present - and actually those are the ones which would be responsible for the majority (!) of the choices...

 

[FallenApple]

But in the same time, the rare resource of wealthy males were always very limited, what implies the existence of a pool of alternative selection criteria present - and actually those are the ones which would be responsible for the majority (!) of the choices...

The highly attractive females can get those limited wealthy males

 

[gmax137]

The highly attractive females can get those limited wealthy males

attractive as defined by whom? do you really think "attractive" is a universal objective trait? or do you mean attractive is as defined by the wealthy males?

 

[FallenApple]

attractive as defined by whom? do you really think "attractive" is a universal objective trait? or do you mean attractive is as defined by the wealthy males?

Not completely universal but many traits are universal enough. Which is why there are some people that consistently are able to find many dates and why some people are not so lucky

Some traits simply have a higher market demand.

It's like Coca Cola. Even though there are some people that prefer Pepsi, the market is dominated by Coca Cola.

Same idea can be applied to traits in the dating market

This is reflected by the fact that the number of matches on dating websites for men follows the Pareto distribution.

Look at height for example. If there are equal preferences for men every height level, ( equal number of women have a fetish for 5'0 men as much as a 6'0 man or a 5'5 man etc, then the preference distribution would easily follow a uniform distribution. But it doesn't.

The same goes for wealth.

Simply put, attraction isn't uniformly distributed.

Famous psychologist, Jordon Peterson, has mentioned that women would rather share a high quality man than to have a male of low quality all to herself.

 

[Rive]

The highly attractive females can get those limited wealthy males

... kind of like having a hammer makes people see nails everywhere...

Wealth is really just the first 'measured' charm, nothing more: nothing less. Using it to explain everything is something similar to what in the past those Freud-maniac bearded dudes did around sexuality...
A more detailed look would show you many more of these (male) traits, from excessive muscles to grey hair and further. It is up to you if you want to see them or not.

 

[FallenApple]

... kind of like having a hammer makes people see nails everywhere...

Wealth is really just the first 'measured' charm, nothing more: nothing less. Using it to explain everything is something similar to what in the past those Freud-maniac bearded dudes did around sexuality...
A more detailed look would show you many more of these (male) traits, from excessive muscles to grey hair and further. It is up to you if you want to see them or not.

No its not just wealth. It is one part of a combination of factors. Height, Looks, Wealth, Personality.

 

[EngWiPy]

Whatever makes you happy. People can live without children, and you can find a partner that doesn't want them.

 

[DaveC426913]

I finally found the data I was looking for. I believe it was so hard to find because it's so fundamental that it just isn't of interest, and therefore does not show up in Google searches (even a search of journals like PubMed probably wouldn't turn it up).

This article contains the following graph, showing how births dramatically decrease as a function of paternal age:

If we take anyone vertical slice (such as the rightmost points) - it shows how births drop off dramatically with paternal age:

note: this data includes all births in a family, so the start of families is probably even more pronounced, since it will very strongly bias the data toward the left/younger.

So, I don't think anyone doubted this outcome.
Now we'll add some "advantage factor" - wealth or good looks. These could be anything, but I've made it a constant across the board - independent of age:

The question now becomes just how big an advantage must it be in order to more than offset the huge drop in changes due to increasing age?

 

[DaveC426913]

Roughly, the incidence of birth more than halves every five years the father ages.

 

[FallenApple]

I finally found the data I was looking for. I believe it was so hard to find because it's so fundamental that it just isn't of interest, and therefore does not show up in Google searches (even a search of journals like PubMed probably wouldn't turn it up).

This article contains the following graph, showing how births dramatically decrease as a function of paternal age:
View attachment 234459

If we take anyone vertical slice (such as the rightmost points) - it shows how births drop off dramatically with paternal age:
View attachment 234461

note: this data includes all births in a family, so the start of families is probably even more pronounced, since it will very strongly bias the data toward the left/younger.

So, I don't think anyone doubted this outcome.
Now we'll add some "advantage factor" - wealth or good looks. These could be anything, but I've made it a constant across the board - independent of age:

View attachment 234457The question now becomes just how big an advantage must it be in order to more than offset the huge drop in changes due to increasing age?

View attachment 234458

Fascinating. But its all births though. Not first births.

And also, we need to control for the person's attractiveness level and wealth to be absolutely certain that the association between low first births increasing age isn't due to unattractiveness or poverty.