#dink life

[starboipersona]

DINK LIFE feat/ @identimfied when @leagueraised, @cr0wbarred @batscain @worldsokayestdad @imperiouslex @heirofel @robin5tein ask for them 'baby' pics (even when they don't ask, getting them anyway!)

[mandsleanan]

‘Almost unmanageable’: Raising a child in the U.S. now costs more than $300,000

Costs are up 1.9% from a year ago, as rent prices have spiked across the country.

"Childcare is affordable if it consumes no more than 7% of household income, according to federal guidelines. With childcare costs averaging $28,190 a year, a household would have to earn $402,708 for it to be considered affordable, but the average two-child household has an average income of $145,656, just over one-third of that target."

Article text under cut.

The experience of being a parent may be priceless. But the reality is there’s a price tag on raising a child, and it’s up in the hundreds of thousands. The average cost of raising a child over the course of 18 years in the U.S. has reached $303,418, according to a new study from LendingTree. The total cost varies widely by state. Hawaii is the most expensive state to raise a child, with LendingTree projecting a price tag of $412,661. Alaska and Maryland follow behind with $365,047 and $326,360, respectively. Meanwhile, New Hampshire is the cheapest state to raise a child, costing $201,963, less than half the price of Hawaii. Washington, D.C.—which offers free preschool for three- and four-year-olds—and South Carolina come in second and third place for the least expensive places to raise a child.

The cost of raising a child is up 1.9% from a year ago due to significant increases to rent and clothing costs. LendingTree found that the average rent has spiked from $1,128 from their last survey in 2025 to $1,680 this year, a nearly 50% increase. Clothing costs were up by more than 25% from a year ago.

“Inflation is just taking a toll, clearly, on people, and it’s certainly one of the reasons why we saw such significant growth here,” Matt Schulz, chief consumer finance analyst at LendingTree, who authored the study, told Fortune.

In some states, the costs associated with raising a child are increasing much faster than the rate of inflation. The study found that Kansas and Alaska’s projected 18-year child-rearing costs jumped 23.5% between LendingTree’s 2025 and 2026 analyses, and Montana increased by 21.7%.

Childcare is the most expensive child-rearing cost

Childcare costs are by far the highest expense for families with children under 5, according to LendingTree’s analysis. Parents in Hawaii pay an average of $40,342 per year, whereas families in Maryland and Massachusetts pay $36,419 and $34,247, respectively.

Fourteen states saw the cost of raising a small child increase by at least 10%. Sparsely populated states such as Nebraska, Montana, and Wisconsin all saw early childrearing cost jump by at least 23% due to the lack of options and high demand.

“A few states and even areas within various states are what are called ‘childcare deserts,” where there’s just not nearly enough supply of daycare and child care centers to keep up with the demand for it,” Schulz explained. “So what happens is that the ones that are there—and especially the really good ones that are there—can charge basically whatever they want to charge, and it ends up driving up the rates quite a bit.”

Childcare is affordable if it consumes no more than 7% of household income, according to federal guidelines. With childcare costs averaging $28,190 a year, a household would have to earn $402,708 for it to be considered affordable, but the average two-child household has an average income of $145,656, just over one-third of that target.

A February survey from the National Association for the Education of Young Children found 65% of childcare centers and 51% of public-school-based programs reported tuition increases. Nearly a third of home-based childcare providers raised tuition.

“It’s a real challenge for people who really need the help,” Schulz said. “As much as we wish that people had a relative or a trusted friend that they could lean on for that sort of thing, a lot of people just don’t have that choice, so they have no other choice but to pay whatever they need to for daycare.”

The long-term consequences of childcare costs

High childcare costs are detrimental to long-term savings like building an emergency fund or putting money away for college or retirement, Schulz said.

“It just turns a really challenging situation into an almost unmanageable one for people, and that’s why we see so many people factoring in finances when it comes to deciding whether to start a family or how many kids they might have.”

For some families, it’s the choice between a parent working or paying for childcare.

“As much as we wish that we didn’t have to to think about the cost of being a parent, you’re doing yourself and your family a bit of a disservice if you don’t, because there are very, very few among us who, for for whom the cost of raising a child is not significant,” Schulz said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

[slutterhouse-5]

i’m soooo excited to not have children!

[mandsleanan]

Dual income, no kids: What we know about ‘DINKs’ in the U.S.

In the United States, 12% of married couples with at least one spouse in their 30s or 40s have two incomes and no kids.

In the United States, 12% of married couples with at least one spouse in their 30s or 40s have two incomes and no kids, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of federal data.

Text under cut, format's a bit wonky. (Links don't work)

In the United States, 12% of married couples with at least one spouse in their 30s or 40s have two incomes and no kids, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of federal data.

This group, often referred to as “DINKs,” has grown slightly over the past decade. In 2013, 8% of married couples in the same age range were DINKs.

The share of dual-income couples with kids has also inched up slightly since 2013, while the share of single-income couples with kids has decreased from 34% to 27%.

DINKs have gained attention in recent years as videos showcasing their lifestyle have gone viral on social media. But there’s no official definition of who’s included in this group. This analysis defines DINKs as married couples in which at least one spouse is 30 to 49 years old and:

Both spouses work and earn an income

Neither spouse has ever had any children

We chose this age range to capture couples who are older than the average age at first birth for women, which was 27.5 in 2023. We also chose to focus on married couples because they are more likely than cohabiting couples to pool their finances.

Other analyses of DINKs might use a different age range or focus on cohabiting couples in addition to married couples. It’s also important to note that some couples who are defined as DINKs in this analysis still may have children in the future.

The remainder of this analysis examines how DINKs compare with dual-income couples with kids, based on available federal data. It is part of our broader research into how the American family is changing.

How do DINKs compare with dual-income couples with kids?

DINKs tend to be younger than dual-income couples with kids:

The median age of the older spouse in DINK couples is 36 as of 2023. By comparison, among dual-income couples with kids, the median age of the older spouse is 43.

DINKs are also more likely than dual-income couples with kids to be college graduates and to work full time:

In 58% of DINK couples, both spouses have at least a bachelor’s degree. The corresponding figure among dual-income couples with kids is 43%.

In 81% of DINK couples, both spouses are employed full time. This is the case in 68% of dual-income couples with kids.

When it comes to financial outcomes, DINKs tend to have higher household incomes but less wealth than dual-income couples with kids:

Median household income among DINKs is $193,900 as of 2023, compared with $151,900 among dual-income couples with kids.

Median wealth for DINKs is $214,700, compared with $361,500 among dual-income couples with kids.

So why might DINKs have less wealth than dual-income couples with kids? One important reason is that DINKs are less likely to own a home – the primary source of wealth for many Americans. Some 71% of DINKs own a home, compared with 79% of dual-income couples with kids. And among homeowners, DINKs have less home equity than dual-income couples with kids ($165,000 vs. $222,000 as of 2023).

Age also plays a role when it comes to wealth: People tend to accumulate more wealth as they grow older. DINKs are younger than their counterparts in the same age group who do have children.

[mandsleanan]

Not having children 'breaks' traditional financial planning, says CFP—8 money rules for childfree people

If you don't have children and aren't planning on having any, many of the traditional rules around financial planning can be adjusted to you

That’s because people who meet that description, known as childfree people, don’t need to build generational wealth, says Jay Zigmont, a certified financial planner and author of “Portraits of Childfree Wealth.” That renders much of the standard advice you hear from financial experts like Dave Ramsey moot.

Text under cut.

If you don’t have children — and don’t plan on having any — the normal rules of personal finance don’t necessarily apply to you.

That’s because people who meet that description, known as childfree people, don’t need to build generational wealth, says Jay Zigmont, a certified financial planner and author of “Portraits of Childfree Wealth.” That renders much of the standard advice you hear from financial experts like Dave Ramsey moot.

“If my nephews get $1,000 or $10,000 [when I die] that’s fine. If they get $1 million, I made a mistake,” Zigmont said during a recent appearance at FinCon. “Because either they could have used it earlier in life, or I could have used it.”

Under the traditional models of financial planning, you’re told to keep “running it up” in order to pass along your wealth to your children, Zigmont says. Without that variable in play, childfree people are free to spend or donate every dime they make before they die in order to maximize their happiness.

“That breaks all the financial planning,” Zigmont said.

In a nod to Ramsey’s seven “baby steps” for money management, Zigmont suggest eight “no baby” steps (get it?) as a financial roadmap for childfree people.

1 - 3: Build a financial foundation

The first three steps, Zigmont says, are what he’d prescribe whether you had a child or not. He recommends starting with the following:

Create a starter emergency fund

Get out of debt

Build a 3- to 6-month emergency fund

For a starter emergency fund, Zigmont recommends socking away enough cash to cover about a month’s worth of expenses, which gives you a cushion as you move on to step two: getting yourself out of debt.

“When you’re deep in debt, you’ve deferred maintenance on you, your car, your house, everything,” Zigmont says. When those expenses continue to crop up, you’d rather pay out of your emergency fund than fall deeper into debt.

Once you have a savings cushion, treat your debt as priority No. 1, especially if it’s high-interest debt, such as the balance on a credit card.

“Your debt is an emergency, especially with credit card rates now over 20%,” Zigmont says.

Although Zigmont sees the mathematical wisdom in paying off debt via the so-called avalanche method — focusing on the highest-rate debt first — he generally favors the psychological wins afforded by paying off debts in order of the smallest balances, a strategy known as the snowball method.

“Getting into debt can be quick. Getting out is a slog. So having those quick wins keeps you moving.”

4. Save and invest toward your goals

This is where Zigmont says his advice “takes a hard right turn” from traditional advice. Even though people with children are also saving and investing, childfree people may have very different landmarks. After all, there’s no child care to pay for, no college to save for, no inheritance to leave.

“How can I spend some money, enjoy my life, but also save for the future?” Zigmont says. “It comes down to, what do you want your goals to be?”

Under a traditional model, you might stash away, say, 20% of your income, divvying the savings between the down payment on a house and investments for your retirement, which you hope begins around age 67.

For childfree people, the script can look radically different. A house is “a choice for childfree people, not a requirement,” says Zigmont — especially if you want the flexibility to move around.

What’s more, while you may want to invest for the long-term, you can divert some of the money to improve your life in the near future.

“If your goal is to open a business, maybe you want to invest in that business, where the better answer financially might be to invest in the stock market,” Zigmont says. “Maybe it’s investing in going back to school or changing careers or taking a sabbatical. Those are all investments. They’re just not ‘classic’ investments.”

5. Get your insurance right

Being childfree makes having some types of insurance more important than others. If you have children, for example, many financial pros recommend some form of term life insurance to cover your family in the event of your death.

Unless you have major financial obligations your spouse couldn’t bear if you died, “it’s very rare that childfree people will need life insurance,” says Zigmont. “Disability insurance is much bigger.”

This is especially true for people Zigmont calls “soloists” — childfree people who also don’t have a spouse.

“You need to have good disability insurance that’s going to cover you until you retire,” Zigmont says. “Many people skip it or don’t realize that their employer’s coverage won’t be enough.” In fact, less than half of private industry workers have access to short-term and long-term disability coverage, which kicks in if injury or illness prevents you from working.

Another major consideration: long-term care insurance.

End-of-life care is expensive. The median monthly cost for a private room in a nursing home, for instance, is more than $9,000 a month, according to a 2021 survey from insurance provider Genworth Financial.

“Childfree people often get asked who will take care of us. The answer is my money, with the help of professionals,” says Zigmont. ”[Considering long-term care insurance] something I want people to be doing by about their mid-forties. And the reason for that is that’s when long-term care insurance is the most reasonable. It’s not cheap. But it’s more reasonable.”

6. Be proactive about estate planning

Financial advisors will tell you that just about everyone needs an estate plan, which directs the people in your life how you want financial and medical decisions handled in the case of your death or incapacitation.

It’s an even more pressing issue for childfree people who may not have an obvious next-of-kin, says Zigmont.

“Health care and government systems all look for next-of-kin,” he says. If you get in an accident when you’re out of town, for example, there may be no one obvious to contact, he adds. “That means the government or health-care system will be making decisions for you.”

Without an estate plan in place, you undergo procedures that you wouldn’t have chosen for yourself, or your assets could be distributed according to government rules rather than your wishes.

“It’s so important that we’re designating decision-makers for us financially and medically so that our needs and wishes are fulfilled,” Zigmont says.

7. Plan for Mom and Dad

You’ve likely heard of the “sandwich generation” of people who are caring for both their children and their aging parents. But for many families, it’s more of an open-faced sandwich.

“It’s often, ‘Hey, you don’t have kids, so you can take care of Mom, right?’” says Zigmont. “There’s a different level of expectation.”

That may or may not be a role you’re comfortable taking. Your first step, says Zigmont, is to establish your boundaries. You and your spouse, for instance, may be happy to chip in more than your siblings financially, but unwilling to let a parent live in your home.

You’ll also need to communicate what your monetary role in your parents’ care is going to be. “You might decide, ‘Hey, I can’t afford this.’ You need to have that conversation.”

If, for instance, you and your siblings can’t afford long-term care for an aging parent, they may have to opt for a nursing facility provided by Medicaid. That awkward conversation should ideally happen as early as possible. “You need to do that before they’re sick,” Zigmont says.

8. Die with zero

Zigmont’s ‘die with zero’ mantra is a nod to the book of the same name by Bill Perkins. But both men would acknowledge that aiming to actually die with $0 in your bank account is a risky proposition. You don’t want to underestimate your life expectancy and run out of money.

That’s why Zigmont recommends buying a long-term care policy and setting yourself up with an ample cash cushion.

“Then it’s a matter of optimizing your life and getting the most out of your money while you’re living,” he says.

That will look different for everyone, but generally, “we can do two different things,” says Zigmont. “We can either save less or draw it down more.”

One example of the former is taking a lower-paying job, which could come with less stress and more time to focus on your passions. “Sure, you’re not gonna save as much, but you’re gonna be happier, right?”

Zigmont also meets clients who have banked a prodigious amount of money, and in a departure from many financial planners, he encourages them to spend more of it well before retirement age.

“Their minds are blown because they’ve spent years learning how to save. There’s a lot of guilt there. There’s a lot of baggage that comes with it,” he says.

To be clear, Zigmont is not saying that childfree people are free to embark on a spree of reckless spending. Rather, they can put a sharper focus on how their money can maximize their happiness.

“I’d be very careful with a YOLO approach. It’s a balance between, you’ve got enough money to keep yourself safe. But you’re also enjoying your life at the same time at a much earlier age.”

[mandsleanan]

The latest threat to China? The rise of the DINKs

China lifted its one-child policy nearly a decade ago. A growing number of couples aren't having any.

“Only by not having children can I live the way I do now,” said Zheng, who has visited more than 50 countries. “I only have to think about myself, which is the part I enjoy most.”

“Considering global political and economic trends, if you don’t have a strong maternal instinct, you shouldn’t have a child just for the sake of it,” she said.

(Text under cut.)

TAIPEI, Taiwan — 

Shorthand for gainfully employed U.S. couples whose only responsibilities were to themselves, the acronym DINK — dual income, no kids — was coined to capture the unabashed materialism of the 1980s.

Four decades later, the term has made a comeback, with millennials embracing it on social media to flaunt their free time, lavish spending habits and the other perks of choosing to be child-free.

It has taken off far beyond United States, including in one country where it would have been hard to imagine just a decade ago: China.

China’s population declined for the second year in a row last year; India overtook it as the world’s most populous nation.

Amid deep economic uncertainty, a growing number of Chinese are opting for another number: zero.

Many proudly refer to themselves as DINKs — using the acronym in English — or dingke, the phonetic translation in Mandarin.

Xu Kaikai, 29, said being DINKs gives her and her 36-year-old boyfriend a greater sense of control over their lives.

“It reduces some of the anxieties about age,” she said.

She works in advertising in Shanghai, where her boyfriend is a project manager for a construction company. “I used to talk about having a beautiful baby,” Xu said.

Now she calls herself a “drifting leaf” and gets so bored with people talking about children on social media that she follows only people without them.

A recent study from the Luoyang Institute of Science and Technology estimated that DINKs accounted for about 38% of Chinese households in 2020 — up from 28% a decade earlier — but those figures included large numbers of people living alone and the research did not look at whether couples were in fact dual-income.

Not that all Chinese adhere to a strict definition of the acronym. Some include anybody without children, while others don’t count people who still have a chance to change their minds — women of child-bearing age or men without vasectomies.

It’s also unclear how many DINKs there are in the United States. Some 44% of couples ages 18 to 49 surveyed by Pew Research in 2021 said it was unlikely they would have children — up from 37% in 2018.

After decades of enforcing a one-child policy to keep population growth in check, China’s government is now offering subsidies and financial support to encourage families to have more kids.

“It was just a high-class phenomenon,” said Yuying Tong, a professor of sociology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong who studies family life.

She said the number of DINKs is going up in large part because more people are delaying marriage.

The rejection of societal norms comes at an inopportune time for the Communist Party, which is struggling to stave off a demographic crisis in which there aren’t enough young people to support the elderly.

The country’s population declined for the second year in a row in 2023 — India surpassed it as the world’s most populous nation — and the birthrate fell 5.6% to a record low of 6.39 births per 1,000 people — a little more than half the U.S. rate, which has also declined in recent years.

Now the Chinese government is trying to motivate people to have kids, resorting to subsidies and even matchmaking services.

In March, Chinese officials announced plans to provide more support for child rearing and “work toward a birth-friendly society,” including improving parental leave policies and child-care options.

The government also appears to be trying to scare DINKs into changing their mindset.

Last month, China’s Twitter-like platform Weibo promoted an article about DINK couples in China who regretted not having kids because it had led to loneliness, marital strife or inheritance issues.

As economic growth has stalled, more Chinese couples are giving up on the idea of having kids. According to the Beijing-based Yuwa Population Research Institute, the average cost of raising a child in China was one of the highest in the world.

DINKs took issue with the characterization.

“Are all these examples being brought up to encourage people to have kids?” a popular entertainment blogger who goes by the moniker Jing Zhao Cha Mi responded on social media. “There are probably more people who regret their lifestyle with children.”

Hu Huiwen, a 38-year-old financial consultant who lives in the eastern city of Hangzhou, has heard all the warnings: Her husband will leave her. She will want children later and be too old to have them. Nobody will care for her in her old age.

But in the five years since she swore off having children, none of that has come to pass.

“It might become a minor sorrow, but not to the point of regret,” Hu said. “Even if I do regret it, then I can only bear it myself. What else can you do?”

She belongs to three different group chats for DINKs, where participants advise one another how to spend their leisure time. In video diaries, she shows herself reading or wandering through parks admiring the foliage.

In March, the Chinese government emphasized the need to support child rearing and “work toward a birth-friendly society.”

A recent study by the Beijing-based Yuwa Population Research Institute found that the average cost of raising a child in China was $74,600 — or 6.3 times the per capita GDP.

Of the 14 countries included in the study, the only place where it cost more relative to income was South Korea, which has the lowest birthrate in the world.

“At the end of the day, it’s still about the pressures and this very competitive environment that makes both marriage and childbearing untenable,” said Mu Zheng, an assistant professor of sociology at the National University of Singapore.

When Zheng Yu, a 47-year-old fashion consultant living in Shanghai, was in her 20s, her friends and family viewed her decision to not have children as a symptom of her rebellious nature.

Now with income inequality rising and seeing the pressure her niece is under to excel, she said she and her husband would make the same decision all over again.

“Only by not having children can I live the way I do now,” said Zheng, who has visited more than 50 countries. “I only have to think about myself, which is the part I enjoy most.”

“Considering global political and economic trends, if you don’t have a strong maternal instinct, you shouldn’t have a child just for the sake of it,” she said.

Vable Liu, a 29-year-old English teacher in Jinan, the capital of China’s Shandong province, said about a third of her friends are dinks.

Liu and her husband recently posted a short video defending their choice.

“Will DINKs miss out on the joy of children?” she asks him in the clip.

DINK couples account for about 38% of households in China as of 2020, according to one study, up from 28% in 2010.

They continued with their mock interview.

“What if your family pressures you?” “Stay away from them.”

“Who do you pass your wealth on to when you die?” “Squander it all before then.”

Special correspondent Xin-yun Wu in Taipei contributed to this report.

[mandsleanan]

Move over, American dream: The goal of many Gen Z and millennial women is now to be a DINK—with dual income and no kids

“The past few decades have shown that societal norms don’t look the same as they used to, and millennial women played a major role in that s

“The past few decades have shown that societal norms don’t look the same as they used to, and millennial women played a major role in that shift,” said Courtney Alev, consumer financial advocate at Intuit Credit Karma. 

“As a result, women today aren’t tethered to the timelines set by those before them, as many choose to prioritize their careers above being young mothers. In some cases, that means prolonging family planning until they become more established in their careers, while others don’t see children in their future at all. Regardless, both camps are highly influenced by money and the high costs associated with conceiving and raising children.”

(Text under cut.)

America’s vision of success is changing. Once upon a time, U.S. adults may have aspired to have a nuclear family, their name on a property, and maybe even a white picket fence.

Not anymore—at least, not for a growing number of millennial and Gen Z women who are prioritizing their careers and finances over having children.

New research from personal-finance experts Intuit Credit Karma found 45% of millennial women are not following the “traditional” societal timelines of getting married, buying a home, and having kids.

A further 41% of Gen Z women—those born from 1997 onwards—say they won’t follow this path, with 32% noting their goal is to have no children at all.

Instead, they want to be “DINKs”—having dual income with a partner but no children.

It’s part of a growing trend in the U.S. In 2022 there were 38.1 million married, childless households—an increase of 140% compared with 1960.

DINK couples Fortune spoke to previously said their choice was prompted by a range of reasons: pursuing passions, financial freedom, or a focus on their careers.

These factors were all the more pronounced in Credit Karma’s report. It found a quarter of American women are delaying having children in order to focus on their careers, a figure that correlates to the number of women who earn more than their partners.

While jobs and careers form one major reason why women aren’t having children right now, another is financial situation and savings.

For the 35% of millennial women who told Credit Karma they didn’t want children, money was often a significant factor: 40% of that group said they couldn’t afford children, compared with 35% of Gen Zers planning to be DINKs.

On top of that, getting a plan in place to potentially have children in the future comes with a hefty price tag. Nearly one-third of the millennial women surveyed said that the eye-watering sums which come with fertility treatment, egg freezing, adoption, and surrogacy are what has kept them from family planning.

“The past few decades have shown that societal norms don’t look the same as they used to, and millennial women played a major role in that shift,” said Courtney Alev, consumer financial advocate at Intuit Credit Karma. 

“As a result, women today aren’t tethered to the timelines set by those before them, as many choose to prioritize their careers above being young mothers. In some cases, that means prolonging family planning until they become more established in their careers, while others don’t see children in their future at all. Regardless, both camps are highly influenced by money and the high costs associated with conceiving and raising children.”

Economic power players

The importance of millennial women in the economy is only going to get more pronounced in the coming years, according to Ned Davis Research (NDR).

Last month, a study titled The Rising Influence of Millennial Women found prime-age female job participation rate hit record highs in a handful of developed economies in 2023.

Among the nations where women are now having an outsize impact on the economy are the U.S., Australia, Japan, Italy, South Korea, and Germany.

This increased participation comes with higher levels of education, NDR chief economist Alejandra Grindal and senior analyst Patrick Ayers found, with women therefore more likely to be employed in productive roles.

Grindal explained the correlation between education, employment, and productivity, writing: “The unemployment rate tends to be lower among people with higher education, which helps explain the greater take-up of women in the workforce. People with greater education are also more likely to have full-time jobs and to be employed productively.”

[minntyquinn]

Okay, I just need some place to vent my frustrations:

I just want to read a book or watch a show where a happily married couple has no babies and they don’t plan on having any. Nor do they really want them!! Or a single person isn’t desperately seeking out love to form a family and can just be happy with their life as it is!!

I want them to be the very best auntie and uncles possible!! They can love kids but they just have no desire to be parents themselves.

Give me the new single mother and her bestie shopping for groceries and when some weird ass dude comments about how good the mother looks the bestie holds her hand and is all, “I know, right! My babe is amazing!”

I want that uncle that no matter what he never misses a single sport event, recitals, or show!! He is beyond supportive and is always willing to drive to practice if parents aren’t able.

Lemme see a couple getting a call from their niece at 1AM because they’re underage and drunk at a party and need a ride and they’re too worried too call their parents so in the car the couple goes!!! Pick up the kiddo and take them home giving them a safe place to sleep it off and of course let the parents know their little one is safe.

People can live full lives without having their own kids. And just because they don’t want to be parents doesn’t mean they don’t love the children in their lives. I’d love to see more of these dynamics portrayed in modern media and if people have recs of where I can find some, please let me know!!