Hacker News Reader

Comment by lazyjones | Hacker News Reader

Seems obvious that geekier men start families and have children later.

Example: Bill Gates.

Why is it obvious? Doesn't seem obvious to me. Is it because of the stereotype that geekier men don't hook up as young as non-geek men? What is the difference between a geekier man and a less-geeky man? Can it be objectively defined?

I'd suggest that geeky dads are going to attempt to be very logical with their all their decisions. So they might take their time with their spouse, want to get a house, get finances in a great place, etc, before making the jump to have kids.

At some point the geekier types either alleviate all their concerns and/or realize that a lot of great things can't be framed into a logical decision, and they make the jump. :)

>Repeated studies have shown that older sperm is more prone to genetic errors and children are more likely to develop autism and schizophrenia //

How is it logical then to wait until you're older (define older!)?

Part of my decision - first child c. 30 - was not to wait any longer lest I be unable to keep up with them physically.

It's logical from a financial perspective for many people. When I think of older first time parents I think 30+. In the past upper 20s might be considered older because people would get married in young 20s and have children shortly after.

You want to be able to afford the increasingly higher costs of having children. You want your marriage to not be stressed from added financial responsibility. People tend to make more as they get older so many wait. That played a role in my decision to wait for sure.

The physical component you suggested is certainly a logical argument for having them younger. That pressure is higher for women too because they consider the risks of pregnancy (as you noted) and the possibility they may not be able to conceive if they wait too long.

I understand your decision but to me - having a kid at 30 over the physical concern is not logical. Sure I'd be 48 when they're 18 but even at that point, I don't have physical concerns. In fact, that would provide additional motivation to remain healthy. If I was considering physical capability for grandkids then that might enter my decision. My wife just talks about how we'd be the older parents in our kid's class which doesn't concern me.

Everyone's situation is different though. I just think finances is a big driver for those that wait and honestly I think it's a good one. If you're married and don't have your finances in order, there's a good chance your marriage won't last and you'll rack up more stress which isn't good for you or your kids.

> How is it logical then to wait until you're older (define older!)?

There is more than one variable at work. My parents had me at 19. I remember the family always struggling so I decided never to have kids until I was 30 (and later just turned into never).

I think it's "obvious" when you consider that education-level and the age at which parents have their first child are (very) positively correlated.

This finding strikes me as epiphenomenal.

Geekiness implies social outsider status almost by definition. Plus the rational argument for contraception and family planning seems more likely to be internalized by people who have a reputation for rationalism.

"Geeky" is the wrong word to use here. Educated people with ""good"" jobs have children later - geeks that work in software/STEM/medicine are included.

Plenty of my non-geek friends with good income careers are just now trying to settle down at 30.

In some countries it's really correlated to family cultural level (more than socioeconomic status).

In parts of Italy it's very uncommon to have children before 40!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com