Good friends just bought a Suburban

[eyePod]

When I was looking for an SUV (pre-MMM), I was *shocked* at how little rear leg room there was in both the Volvo XC90 and the XC60.

I ended up replacing my Honda CR-V with a new Honda CR-V, which has acres of rear leg room compared to virtually everything else I test drove. The Volvos reminded me of the McMansions with their massive master bedrooms, with sitting rooms and spa baths with garden tubs, and then the other bedrooms in the house are all 10' x 10'. The front seat of the Volvo is an absolute delight - comfortable, spacious, luxurious - but the backseat is the pits!

If you want to be shocked about legroom, jump in the back seat of a Scion xB. it's crazy how much space you have, even if the drivers seat is all the way back. Headroom too! Now, it's definitely not a luxury car (noisy cabin and seats aren't leather or anything like that). Obviously not feasible for a family of 8 though!

At what point do you have kids who can drive and make them drive car # 2 of a caravan? I'm sure the duggers need 3 or 4 cars!

[dragoncar]

Ok. If kids are different than other silly luxuries please explain. Ready? go!
(not saying there's anything wrong with it, we all have luxuries. But let's just be honest here)

It takes some serious hubris think that your doing the world a favor by impose another one of you on it..

Hugs and wet kisses.  Giggles and races.  Wakeups at 1 am.

Future engineers and scientists. Doctors, nobel prize winners, farmers.  Someone to hold your hand when you lay dying on your hospital bed.

Ok. We agree. Those are all nice, but not necessities (like oxygen and nourishment). I.e they are luxuries.

Someone to empty your bedpan when you don't feel like walking to the bathroom?

[Simple Abundant Living]

Ok. If kids are different than other silly luxuries please explain. Ready? go!
(not saying there's anything wrong with it, we all have luxuries. But let's just be honest here)

It takes some serious hubris think that your doing the world a favor by impose another one of you on it..

It is an interesting time we live in that someone would propose that children are silly luxuries.  I assume it is because of our options for contraception, a move away from an agrarian society, and a changing morals in regards to family structure.  Having children used to mean help on the farm, someone to carry on the family name, someone to care for you when you were old; among other things.  Now, we have a choice.  We can engage in procreative acts without ever procreating, if we desire.  We feel little to no responsibility to care for aging parents, we can institutionalize them instead.  There is no worry about family name or honor any more.  We can give ourselves any name we choose.  Now we can look at children and think "luxuries"- like a Porsche 911 or a yacht.  I suppose that would mean that only the wealthy should have them.  We might ridicule anyone who struggles financially who acquired children before they had the 250K saved to raise them to adulthood, as well as another 250K for their university degree.  It's an interesting and disturbing view of the world.  And would make a decently scary dystopian novel.

[Scandium]

Ok. If kids are different than other silly luxuries please explain. Ready? go!
(not saying there's anything wrong with it, we all have luxuries. But let's just be honest here)

It takes some serious hubris think that your doing the world a favor by impose another one of you on it..

It is an interesting time we live in that someone would propose that children are silly luxuries.  I assume it is because of our options for contraception, a move away from an agrarian society, and a changing morals in regards to family structure.  Having children used to mean help on the farm, someone to carry on the family name, someone to care for you when you were old; among other things.  Now, we have a choice.  We can engage in procreative acts without ever procreating, if we desire.  We feel little to no responsibility to care for aging parents, we can institutionalize them instead.  There is no worry about family name or honor any more.  We can give ourselves any name we choose.  Now we can look at children and think "luxuries"- like a Porsche 911 or a yacht.  I suppose that would mean that only the wealthy should have them.  We might ridicule anyone who struggles financially who acquired children before they had the 250K saved to raise them to adulthood, as well as another 250K for their university degree.  It's an interesting and disturbing view of the world.  And would make a decently scary dystopian novel.

oo-kay? It's a" scary time" now because women aren't forced to be constantly pregnant pumping out children, half of whom will die before 10 years old, to endlessly toil on a sustenance farm from age 5, and then care for their parent's with pneumonia at age 55? Ok, there are places in the world where you can live like that, but I'd rather take the society we have here.

No I don't need children to do slave labor for me (or does mowing the lawn count?). And I'd rather my children don't have to care for my dying ass when that time comes. I'm glad we have to option to avoid this in todays society. But like I said you can move to rural China and you and your children can experience this wonderful life!

ps; If by "wealthy" you mean people who can afford children, yes I think only those with the means to should have children. I don't think it should be illegal, but personally I don't think it's right to produce a child if you can't properly care for it.

[Simple Abundant Living]

oo-kay? It's a" scary time" now because women aren't forced to be constantly pregnant pumping out children, half of whom will die before 10 years old, to endlessly toil on a sustenance farm from age 5, and then care for their parent's with pneumonia at age 55? Ok, there are places in the world where you can live like that, but I'd rather take the society we have here.

It's only scary if it's enforced.  However, if opinions like yours become mainstream, it might be someday. 

No I don't need children to do slave labor for me (or does mowing the lawn count?). And I'd rather my children don't have to care for my dying ass when that time comes. I'm glad we have to option to avoid this in todays society. But like I said you can move to rural China and you and your children can experience this wonderful life!

I have worked in these institutions that will take care of you so you don't have to burden your family with your dying self.  I can assure you, it's not the ideal situation you imagine it.  Especially with no family for oversight.

ps; If by "wealthy" you mean people who can afford children, yes I think only those with the means to should have children. I don't think it should be illegal, but personally I don't think it's right to produce a child if you can't properly care for it.

How much is enough?  At what income level do we allow this?  My grandparents raised six children on a dairy farm in the depression.  All six became college educated, and three became University professors.  I thought MMM was about making do with less.  But if you have a chart that shows how much you need to make in order to allow yourself these luxuries, please share.

[RichMoose]

I like how we went from purchasing a Suburban vs an 8 passenger minivan to whether or not having children is a luxury, necessity, burden on society, etc.

[Scandium]

I like how we went from purchasing a Suburban vs an 8 passenger minivan to whether or not having children is a luxury, necessity, burden on society, etc.

yes. this is totally derailed, and a pretty stupid discussion at that. Lets just let it die

[Goldielocks]

Years ago I drove a suburban for a summer job with fisheries and oceans.

It was the ONLY vehucle that would fit two workers, and the small boat inside the car, so we did not need a trailer.  Bigger /longer  than a full size pickup bed when the seats are folded. 4x4 was needed to access the put-in sites.

Other than that,  I can see no use for one.

[iris lily]

Are mini-vans even being made any more? I ask, having no children and no need to transport lots of humans.

I miss my station wagon which was perfect for 'porting 4 dogs, all with short legs. They could see out all of the windows in the back. Now they are in a deep well in my current SUV and they don't like it as much.

When that station wagon went kerplunk, the only car DH and I could agree on was the small Ford station wagon, but they had stopped making it by then and we had no time to go out and look for a used one. So we ended up with a generic SUV made by Mercury, but really, it's just an Escape with Mercury name on it.

I still want a small wagon but refuse to pay the $10,000 surcharge (over American make prices) for the Subarooo version.

[RichMoose]

Are mini-vans even being made any more? I ask, having no children and no need to transport lots of humans.

I miss my station wagon which was perfect for 'porting 4 dogs, all with short legs. They could see out all of the windows in the back. Now they are in a deep well in my current SUV and they don't like it as much.

When that station wagon went kerplunk, the only car DH and I could agree on was the small Ford station wagon, but they had stopped making it by then and we had no time to go out and look for a used one. So we ended up with a generic SUV made by Mercury, but really, it's just an Escape with Mercury name on it.

I still want a small wagon but refuse to pay the $10,000 surcharge (over American make prices) for the Subarooo version.

If you don't mind sharing, what is your budget, if you're buying used what kind of mileage and how old would you consider?

[TLV]

I've not looked at any numbers or information at all, but I would assume the ratings have more to do with safety then mpg.  It would be interesting to see how mpg varies based on weight, load on suspension, how overloading a vehicle will accelerate the required maintenance on parts, etc..   I'm sure load weight is a much smaller portion of mpg then aerodynamics or (lack of) hypermiling technique.

You are correct--higher weight means stopping distance is increased.  It will also negatively affect your mileage in city driving, but actually *benefits* you on the highway--your car sits lower and has slightly less air resistance.  I suppose there could be additional load on the drivetrain, but if it's designed and maintained properly (not always the case, sadly, even with Honda) it shouldn't be an issue.

Do you have a source for the load/mpg relationship? My anecdotal experience directly and strongly contradicts that. We used to make a ~75 mile drive a couple times a year to visit relatives. Under normal load (2 adults, 2 children, not much luggage) we get around 37 mpg each way in a scion xA for that trip. When those relatives were moving, they offered us their food storage because their relocation package wouldn't cover it. They're Mormons, so they had quite a bit - we got several hundred pounds of wheat, flour, dry beans, oats, etc. When I drove down, with just me and with the kids' car-seats removed, I got 41 mpg. Driving back, with a full load, I only got 32. This was all freeway driving, light traffic, 60 mph, minimal hills each way.

Perhaps it would make less of a difference for a car with a more powerful engine? As someone mentioned earlier, the total recommended weight limit for the xA is just over 800 lbs. Come to think of it, I very likely exceeded the limit on that trip...

[zolotiyeruki]

Do you have a source for the load/mpg relationship? My anecdotal experience directly and strongly contradicts that. We used to make a ~75 mile drive a couple times a year to visit relatives. Under normal load (2 adults, 2 children, not much luggage) we get around 37 mpg each way in a scion xA for that trip. When those relatives were moving, they offered us their food storage because their relocation package wouldn't cover it. They're Mormons, so they had quite a bit - we got several hundred pounds of wheat, flour, dry beans, oats, etc. When I drove down, with just me and with the kids' car-seats removed, I got 41 mpg. Driving back, with a full load, I only got 32. This was all freeway driving, light traffic, 60 mph, minimal hills each way.

Perhaps it would make less of a difference for a car with a more powerful engine? As someone mentioned earlier, the total recommended weight limit for the xA is just over 800 lbs. Come to think of it, I very likely exceeded the limit on that trip...

Heh--my anecdotal experience was that the higher weight increased gas mileage.  Of course, this was driving a minivan from Milwaukee to Minneapolis and coming back with 500lbs of wheat in the back.  Maybe I had a gradual downhill coming back, and you had a gradual uphill? :)

[zolotiyeruki]

Not to stop the /r/childfree debate, but back to the OP:  I get what you're saying, but this is a pick your battles situation, IMO.  I mean this even from an internet bb perspective, as you obviously didn't say anything to your friend.

As a 25 year old I have multiple friends with BMWs/huge houses/etc.  $15,000 on a car for a family of 8, while maybe not as mustachian as possible, is leaps and bounds better than the average household.

To me it's like pointing out your friend who saves $15% of their income.  Is it less than most people here? yes.  Is it loads better than 80%+ of people? Also yes.

That's a good point, and others have also pointed out that "at least they're using that capacity."  So I don't want to jump on them too hard, but it struck me as odd that they opted for the larger vehicle.

[TLV]

Do you have a source for the load/mpg relationship? My anecdotal experience directly and strongly contradicts that. We used to make a ~75 mile drive a couple times a year to visit relatives. Under normal load (2 adults, 2 children, not much luggage) we get around 37 mpg each way in a scion xA for that trip. When those relatives were moving, they offered us their food storage because their relocation package wouldn't cover it. They're Mormons, so they had quite a bit - we got several hundred pounds of wheat, flour, dry beans, oats, etc. When I drove down, with just me and with the kids' car-seats removed, I got 41 mpg. Driving back, with a full load, I only got 32. This was all freeway driving, light traffic, 60 mph, minimal hills each way.

Perhaps it would make less of a difference for a car with a more powerful engine? As someone mentioned earlier, the total recommended weight limit for the xA is just over 800 lbs. Come to think of it, I very likely exceeded the limit on that trip...

Heh--my anecdotal experience was that the higher weight increased gas mileage.  Of course, this was driving a minivan from Milwaukee to Minneapolis and coming back with 500lbs of wheat in the back.  Maybe I had a gradual downhill coming back, and you had a gradual uphill? :)

Minor ups and downs each way, but overall it was a slight downhill on the way back (about 100 ft over the 75 miles).

I googled to see if anyone had researched this. The EPA estimates 2% reduction in MPG for every 100 lbs, which is in the right ballpark from my experience.

[iris lily]

If you don't mind sharing, what is your budget, if you're buying used what kind of mileage and how old would you consider?

oh this was several years ago, but I guess today, I would expect to find a Subaru with less than 50,000 miles on is at a price that is less than a brand new stripped down Ford Escape.

[stlbrah]

Children are luxuries lol? I always thought of them more as a hobby or a lifestyle choice.

[dragoncar]

Children are luxuries lol? I always thought of them more as a hobby or a lifestyle choice.

Hobbies and lifestyle choices are luxuries.

HTH

[Guses]

Let's follow that logical path for a while:

-Kids are a luxury
-You are someone's kid
-Your existense is therefore also a luxury
???
-Profit

[Forcus]

I've noticed that most families that drive Suburbans around here fall in to two groups: (1) They have large toys like powerboats that a minivan couldn't tow (and notwithstanding the anti-MMM of powerboats), and (2) need 8 passenger seats because each passenger takes up two normal size seats. That is all.

[cavewoman]

I've noticed that most families that drive Suburbans around here ... need 8 passenger seats because each passenger takes up two normal size seats. That is all.

Central Illinois FTW!

Let's follow that logical path for a while:

-Kids are a luxury
-You are someone's kid
-Your existense is therefore also a luxury
???
-Profit

because science.

That was an answer given by an elementary student on one of my teacher friend's quizzes, and it is now my go to response.

[agent13x]

Honestly with 8 people probably close to 1500lbs your really pushing the van, I'll bet with that load the  suburban gets almost its rated mpg and the van gets no were near its rated mpg plus your starting to push the limits on payload and suspension.  I have seen lots of vans packed up and riding on the axles, floating down the freeway.  I'd choose the truck personally.

Something we rarely see around here. Actual vehicle capacities and ratings. My previous vehicle was a quad cab tacoma and even on a truck like that the weight capacity when carrying 5 passengers and some luggage hits the limit very quickly. If you're towing a trailer on top of that you're probably over the limit. A lot of mustachians driving econoboxes are unknowingly exceeding the vehicle's weight capacity when they have all seats filled or even just a few seats and some gear.

I'm curious about this. Can you link to some places that discuss optimum load and mpg? I'm still wondering why you wouldn't end up ahead driving a smaller vehicle, all things considered (incl. car cost).

Your vehicle's owner's manual would be a good place to start. We're not discussing "optimum load" vs mpg. I'm talking about actual maximum vehicle weight capacities.

[MrBuckBeard]

Jesus, it's not a clown car.

I'm not referring to the vehicles, by the way.

When I was a child, I nearly chocked to death on an Everlasting Gobstopper.  I mention this only because my coworker brought in unwanted Halloween candy, and I was eating another one when I read this comment.  I didn't chock, but I spit out the Gobstopper just to be safe! (True story)

[dragoncar]

Good one. Sounds about right..
I'm just the one pointing out that kids are just as much a luxury as an Escalade. Expensive, wasteful, and serve no purpose (there are more humans than we'd ever need). If you want to have them fine but somebody is going to speak the truth.

Looks like somebody doesn't understand basic economics and the cycle of life.

If you don't make children, old people become the majority and there's nobody to sustain the next generation, ensuring no future and and subsequently, no life. Your country basically ends up like Japan is doing right now.

Saying children are luxuries is like saying the sun serves no purpose.

If everybody walks/bikes and stops buying stupid shit, the economy tanks.  Nobody said luxuries aren't good for the economy, simply that they are luxuries.

[dragoncar]

That's not what I said unfortunately. I'm saying that even if the current economic system wouldn't exist, humanity can't possibly go on without children.

Which is irrelevant to whether children are a luxury.

[RFAAOATB]

Good one. Sounds about right..
I'm just the one pointing out that kids are just as much a luxury as an Escalade. Expensive, wasteful, and serve no purpose (there are more humans than we'd ever need). If you want to have them fine but somebody is going to speak the truth.

Looks like somebody doesn't understand basic economics and the cycle of life.

If you don't make children, old people become the majority and there's nobody to sustain the next generation, ensuring no future and and subsequently, no life. Your country basically ends up like Japan is doing right now.

Saying children are luxuries is like saying the sun serves no purpose.

We need to encourage the rich to have more children and the poor to have less.  If you're Kennedy Rich maybe you can have 9 kids and get them to be Senator/Attorney General/President.  If you're poor the government should subsidize sterilizations after (or even before) one child.  If you're middle class, the subsidy can wait until after two children.

I've read that Chinese economists regret the one child policy but I don't really understand why.  More resources to care for the elderly?  They won't be elderly for much longer.  Then there's more breathing room for the middle class to rich to stretch out.

As for Japan... It's a small island.  Quick Wikipedia check shows "The total population is still 52% above 1950 levels".  It would be a lot easier to get a house with that many people gone. 

[Scandium]

Good one. Sounds about right..
I'm just the one pointing out that kids are just as much a luxury as an Escalade. Expensive, wasteful, and serve no purpose (there are more humans than we'd ever need). If you want to have them fine but somebody is going to speak the truth.

Looks like somebody doesn't understand basic economics and the cycle of life.

If you don't make children, old people become the majority and there's nobody to sustain the next generation, ensuring no future and and subsequently, no life. Your country basically ends up like Japan is doing right now.

Saying children are luxuries is like saying the sun serves no purpose.

Haha, please show me someone who had had kids because otherwise demographic trends would lead to reduced GDP growth and insufficient pay-in to social programs.

That's why society needs kids, which is totally different from why individuals do. I don't care if an aging population is bad, I'd likely be dead by the time it matters. Our I'd find some way to deal with it.(probably involving all the money I saved by not having kids..)

[capital]

My grandpa had one of these bad boys to carry his 12 children:

[dragoncar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZeFDe44Ddo (I know it's been posted before)

[zolotiyeruki]

My grandpa had one of these bad boys to carry his 12 children:

If such a vehicle were available today, I'd be first in line (to buy it used).  That is simply gorgeous!

[Pigeon]

Ok. If kids are different than other silly luxuries please explain. Ready? go!
(not saying there's anything wrong with it, we all have luxuries. But let's just be honest here)

It takes some serious hubris think that your doing the world a favor by impose another one of you on it..

Hugs and wet kisses.  Giggles and races.  Wakeups at 1 am.

Future engineers and scientists. Doctors, nobel prize winners, farmers.  Someone to hold your hand when you lay dying on your hospital bed.

Or future drug addicts, rapists, serial killers, terrorists or despots.

[marty998]

Ok. If kids are different than other silly luxuries please explain. Ready? go!
(not saying there's anything wrong with it, we all have luxuries. But let's just be honest here)

It takes some serious hubris think that your doing the world a favor by impose another one of you on it..

Hugs and wet kisses.  Giggles and races.  Wakeups at 1 am.

Future engineers and scientists. Doctors, nobel prize winners, farmers.  Someone to hold your hand when you lay dying on your hospital bed.

Or future drug addicts, rapists, serial killers, terrorists or despots.

That is an awfully pessimistic view of the world Pigeon.

Kids turn into that because the adults around them have failed in their responsibilities. No one is innately born with those attributes.

[zephyr911]

Haha, please show me someone who had had kids because otherwise demographic trends would lead to reduced GDP growth and insufficient pay-in to social programs.

That's why society needs kids, which is totally different from why individuals do. I don't care if an aging population is bad, I'd likely be dead by the time it matters. Our I'd find some way to deal with it.(probably involving all the money I saved by not having kids..)

A certain ex of mine loved to tout her two young kids as future ass-wipers in her old age. I know estimates of the cost of raising a child vary, but I'm pretty sure $1M, or even just a couple hundred thousand, buys a shitload of ass-wipings.
Plus, chances are by the time you need your ass wiped, they're gonna be asking for help with their own kids.

That is an awfully pessimistic view of the world Pigeon.

Kids turn into that because the adults around them have failed in their responsibilities. No one is innately born with those attributes.

I think the point was that reproduction doesn't *only* bring about the best and brightest of the human race, but also the worst. And sometimes it's nobody's fault. If you ask me, bad parenting mostly produces mediocre people - the kind who fall into the bullshit consumer trap and have just enough kids to increase the population a bit, and idle in their SUVs for hours every day, waiting in traffic between their shitty job, 100%-financed McMansion, and overpriced comfort foods.
Sociopaths are born different. Many have loving upbringings.

[franklin w. dixon]

We need to encourage the rich to have more children and the poor to have less.  If you're Kennedy Rich maybe you can have 9 kids and get them to be Senator/Attorney General/President.  If you're poor the government should subsidize sterilizations after (or even before) one child.  If you're middle class, the subsidy can wait until after two children.

I've read that Chinese economists regret the one child policy but I don't really understand why.  More resources to care for the elderly?  They won't be elderly for much longer.  Then there's more breathing room for the middle class to rich to stretch out.

As for Japan... It's a small island.  Quick Wikipedia check shows "The total population is still 52% above 1950 levels".  It would be a lot easier to get a house with that many people gone.

With the falling population there are free houses everywhere! This is wonderful news!!

[Pigeon]

Ok. If kids are different than other silly luxuries please explain. Ready? go!
(not saying there's anything wrong with it, we all have luxuries. But let's just be honest here)

It takes some serious hubris think that your doing the world a favor by impose another one of you on it..

Hugs and wet kisses.  Giggles and races.  Wakeups at 1 am.

Future engineers and scientists. Doctors, nobel prize winners, farmers.  Someone to hold your hand when you lay dying on your hospital bed.

Or future drug addicts, rapists, serial killers, terrorists or despots.

That is an awfully pessimistic view of the world Pigeon.

Kids turn into that because the adults around them have failed in their responsibilities. No one is innately born with those attributes.

It is realistic. Not every child is going to be the next Nobel prize winner, and to suggest that having an environmentally irresponsible numer of children is a good thing because one of them will find a cure for cancer is ridiculous. And yes, there are people who are born into perfectly nice homes who turn out badly. It absolutely happens.

[golden1]

I don't get why the mini-van get's such a bad rap - it just boggles my mind that people actually see a car as a reflection of their masculinity.  Buy the tool that is the best for the job and in many cases, for large families, it is the mini-van.  I am old enough to remember when mini-vans first debuted.  People thought they were wonderful, until somehow they weren't and people decided that a light truck was appropriate for driving on everyday paved roads.  At least now the SUVs are starting to move in the right direction - crossovers have lower profiles, better gas mileage while still offering the same benefits as an SUV.  I actually laugh when I see the word "crossover" because they are really just slightly taller station wagons which is what families drove before minivans.

As far as how many kids someone should have....it's hard to say.  It is an interesting question because it is not cut and dried.  Some parents I wish had more kids - my MIL and FIL should have had 10.  They were that good at it.  But they only had 2.  My parents probably should have had none,  but I am sitting here typing on this keyboard so I am glad they made that mistake.  ;)  Part of my decision to stop at two kids vs. three was financial.  I wanted to funnel more resources into the children I had, but I won't fault others for making a different decision. 

I don't think using finances to determine the amount of kids someone would produce the best result.  I'd almost rather see potential parents go through a process similar to what adoptive parents go through, which does include financial ability to support a child, but also includes mental and physical health requirements.  I don't think we are there yet, but I could see this becoming a possibility if overpopulation becomes a problem.

Aso, I disagree that a child is a "luxury".  A child (looking at them from a cost benefit standpoint) isn't just a "luxury", it is also a "public good".  A child, if it becomes a productive adult, is a net benefit to society because it produces goods and/or services that benefit everyone.  A "luxury" is just a gratuitous good that benefits yourself and contributes to your own comfort only.  I don't view parenting a just a right, but as a responsibility to produce a happy healthy human being that is a positive good to society.  If you feel that bringing a child is purely for your own benefit, then you are doing it for the wrong reasons, and should not have children.  In that case, get a pet. 

[capital]

I've read that Chinese economists regret the one child policy but I don't really understand why.  More resources to care for the elderly?  They won't be elderly for much longer.  Then there's more breathing room for the middle class to rich to stretch out.

Total GDP correlates with national power. That's about it.

If you're interested in population decline and a stagnant economy, move to the Midwest somewhere— there are plenty of big beautiful houses for dirt cheap.