How much to raise children (Seriously)

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills
Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 19499
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

How much to raise children (Seriously)

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Fri May 20, 2011 2:28 pm

Okay, the previous thread about "can a couple afford to have children and still retire at a decent age" leads us to this threads question:

Seriously speaking, how much does it cost to raise chilren in today's dollars in your geographic region. This includes cost to clothe, feed, provide healthcare, braces if needed down the road, cost of education (differentiate between private and public), one or two extracurricular activities. Do not include frivolous or non-essentials like a Maserati, cost to attend the most elite of schools, trip to Tahiti over summer vacation.

Just the essentials needed to raise a kid. These figures being thrown out of $1.1 million or 500 thousand are bordering ridiculous. Let's hear it Bogleheads, how bout it?

User avatar
interplanetjanet
Posts: 2226
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:52 pm
Location: the wilds of central California

Post by interplanetjanet » Fri May 20, 2011 2:52 pm

I'm not going to answer this question, but I can say something else.

What it "costs" to raise children, more than anything else, is time. If you see your hours as a way to make money, the opportunity cost of raising children will dwarf the direct monetary cost for most people.

Sometimes the tie between time spent with/on children and expenses is explicit, such as with childcare. Sometimes it is much more vague. Sometimes even the best of parents look at the time they're spending and are frustrated, but when it's worth it, it's really worth it. Children aren't a job, in the normal sense. You don't get to spend X hours a day and then say ok, we're done for now. You're tied to them, somehow, for as long as you have each other in your life.

Money spent raising children is different. You can spend as much or as little as you rationalize, and people do. For the most part, I don't think that makes one one-hundredth as much difference to their lives and how they grow up as spending time with them and being present in their lives does.

I used to work long hours because I thought it was the best thing to do for my family. I realized at one point that when I thought to my own childhood, the vacations meant something to me not because of where we went or how fancy it was, but because my family was together. I work less these days but I have more time to build memories, and that is a tradeoff I can live with.

-Janet

User avatar
SamGamgee
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:21 pm

Post by SamGamgee » Fri May 20, 2011 2:52 pm

A lot of poor people raise kids in my area. I conclude it doesn't cost much.

:)

tbradnc
Posts: 1514
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:30 am

Post by tbradnc » Fri May 20, 2011 2:55 pm

It's not really a question with an answer.... What it costs to raise a child is based on how much money you have. If you're relatively poor you can still raise happy, well adjusted children without spending a ton of money. If you're wealthy you'll spend more because it's just natural.

I can tell you this much... we've got 3 teenagers and my 16 year old son and his friends regularly descend on our kitchen like a horde of locusts, eat everything that isn't nailed down and *poof* - they're gone.

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 19499
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Fri May 20, 2011 3:02 pm

tbradnc wrote:It's not really a question with an answer.... What it costs to raise a child is based on how much money you have. If you're relatively poor you can still raise happy, well adjusted children without spending a ton of money. If you're wealthy you'll spend more because it's just natural.

I can tell you this much... we've got 3 teenagers and my 16 year old son and his friends regularly descend on our kitchen like a horde of locusts, eat everything that isn't nailed down and *poof* - they're gone.
And you wonder why you haven't reached Flagship status yet? :lol:

@Interplanet Janet - Thanks for that post! I hope the OP of the "wanna retire early but can't if we have kids, reads that".

@SamGagee - I find that to be true as well. :)

livesoft
Posts: 62909
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Post by livesoft » Fri May 20, 2011 3:04 pm

^ Thanks for feeding my son! I really appreciate it. :)
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

porcupine
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:05 am

Post by porcupine » Fri May 20, 2011 3:08 pm

SamGamgee wrote:A lot of poor people raise kids in my area. I conclude it doesn't cost much.

:)
... or maybe your cause and effect analysis needs to be reversed! :wink:

- Porcupine

tbradnc
Posts: 1514
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:30 am

Post by tbradnc » Fri May 20, 2011 3:08 pm

livesoft wrote:^ Thanks for feeding my son! I really appreciate it. :)
Not a problem... (I've been hiding the Nutella for a while now.) :)

dickenjb
Posts: 2941
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:11 pm
Location: Philadelphia PA

Post by dickenjb » Fri May 20, 2011 3:08 pm

Well I went into Quicken where I have a spending category entitled "Children" and it says we spent $13,3 last year...

If I add in half our grocery spend of $12K we are at about $20K for 2 teenagers.

If we multiply $10K per kid times 18 years yielding $180K and then add on 4 years of undergraduate school for say $80K, yeah I can believe a quarter of a mil to raise a child.

I still retired last year at 55 and my wife has been retired for 11 years now. So it can be done.

Love my boys and if had to choose between early retirement and having kids I would have worked longer (or insisted the wife not retire at 41).

Winthorpe
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:29 am

Post by Winthorpe » Fri May 20, 2011 3:10 pm

interplanetjanet wrote:What it "costs" to raise children, more than anything else, is time.....For the most part, I don't think that makes one one-hundredth as much difference to their lives and how they grow up as spending time with them and being present in their lives.

-Janet
I have two kids, 4 y/o and 2 y/o, and another on the way. Janet says it best. You will find all sort of high dollar amounts thrown around on how much it costs to raise a child.

I'm finding that the cost can be about the same as not having kids. Areas where I spend more are offset in areas where I previously spent more. For example, my wife and I probably ate at restaurants 3 times per week before we had kids. Now we eat out once a month. That's a savings of at least $400 per month.

Additionally, I see friends/family spending all sorts of money needlessly on their kids. Fancy video game equipment, TVs in their bedrooms, fancy clothing and electronics, the latest greatest of everything. In the long term your kids will be left with memories and values instilled. The best of these often have no costs and involve mostly your time.

porcupine
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:05 am

Post by porcupine » Fri May 20, 2011 3:11 pm

GRT2BOUTDOORS wrote:
tbradnc wrote:[...]I can tell you this much... we've got 3 teenagers and my 16 year old son and his friends regularly descend on our kitchen like a horde of locusts, eat everything that isn't nailed down and *poof* - they're gone.
And you wonder why you haven't reached Flagship status yet? :lol:
[...]
I can see a vicious loop here:

Flagship --> locust magnet --> unFlagship --> locust repellent --> Flagship :wink:

- Porcupine

sjb19
Posts: 365
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:49 am

Post by sjb19 » Fri May 20, 2011 3:14 pm

I have a 3.5 and a 2 yr old. Not that it answers your questions, but I have found it interesting how uneven the costs are over time. Before 2 you have more frequent doctor visits (thankfully we have decent insurance), diapers, baby food and formula, more frequent clothing size changes and much more expensive daycare.

Currently, we have recently hit a relative cost reprieve with potty trained kids in cheaper daycare and eating "big people" food. It seems a few additional portions of spaghetti or chicken is significantly less expensive than the pre-packaged baby counterpart. We are fully preparing for the next cost uptick, but enjoying the current status while it lasts.

stan1
Posts: 6075
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:35 pm

Post by stan1 » Fri May 20, 2011 3:24 pm

It's a lifestyle choice, not a business/financial decision.

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 19499
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Fri May 20, 2011 3:25 pm

tbradnc wrote:
livesoft wrote:^ Thanks for feeding my son! I really appreciate it. :)
Not a problem... (I've been hiding the Nutella for a while now.) :)
Another fan here, I've got the extra large bottle at home! :)

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Fri May 20, 2011 3:25 pm

tbradnc wrote:It's not really a question with an answer.... What it costs to raise a child is based on how much money you have.
you could say the same thing about a wife. or a brain tumor. people will spend what they have. people will defend whatever they spend, and any reports/opinions are heavily influenced by survivorship bias.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37

User avatar
interplanetjanet
Posts: 2226
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:52 pm
Location: the wilds of central California

Post by interplanetjanet » Fri May 20, 2011 3:29 pm

I mulled this over a bit more and thought about what I considered nonnegotiable expenses for having children.

Good medical insurance.
A stable place to live (not moving constantly if we could help it) with good schools.
A house or apartment that had enough space.
Food.
A car big enough to haul them around.

Medical coverage really is nonnegotiable. All of the rest are on a sliding scale - a "big enough" house for me means not more than two kids per room, it doesn't imply a 3000+ sqft mansion. For some people it would mean more or less. It's not hard to eat cheaply if you cook, though I admit to splurging some there - my rationalization is that we hardly ever eat out, so can afford the good stuff for eating in.

I've made do with 5+ year old minivans on the car side of things, so that doesn't need to be crazily expensive either - we've been managing with a ten year old Corolla for the last year for two adults and three kids. My neighbor has a 20+ year old Volvo station wagon that's still quite safe by modern standards, and works great for her. In cities with good public transportation the a car may not be needed at all.

My 10yo daughter needed a new bicycle recently, so instead of going out and paying a couple hundred dollars to a bike shop, we went by the "bike church" in town last weekend - a volunteer nonprofit "help you fix or build your bike" place. She built her own bicycle with a little help from the rest of us, and we happily donated some money for the time and (used) parts. Not only was it cheaper, she has some bragging rights ("it's my bike and *I* built it from the frame up!") and we made some memories at the same time.

-Janet [she thought using a chain breaker was just the coolest thing]
Last edited by interplanetjanet on Fri May 20, 2011 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mhc
Posts: 3803
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:18 pm
Location: NoCo

Post by mhc » Fri May 20, 2011 3:30 pm

I have 3 young children (3,5,7). We probably average $1k per kid per month. There is no day care, and we only use a private pre-school; otherwise, it is public school. The thing that gets me is with more kids, you need a bigger house. You need bigger cars. More airline tickets .... My family is worth more than money. I would rather be poor with a family than rich without a family. Each person must decide if children are right for him.

User avatar
interplanetjanet
Posts: 2226
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:52 pm
Location: the wilds of central California

Post by interplanetjanet » Fri May 20, 2011 4:22 pm

GRT2BOUTDOORS wrote:@Interplanet Janet - Thanks for that post! I hope the OP of the "wanna retire early but can't if we have kids, reads that".
Thanks!

Something else that came to mind is this: you can usually turn time into money, provided you're in reasonable health. You can only buy back so much time with money, that is what we're all trying to do by saving - to get to the point where we can buy time to have freedom and do what we want. Money can only make us happy to the degree in which it facilitates other things in our lives.

As much of a good time I hope to be having in life when I am retired, I do not believe it will hold a candle to what I have gotten from the time invested in my family. That time is an investment in my life and theirs, even if it never has a dollar figure (or has a negative dollar figure) attached to it.

-Janet, mom to S (15), E (13) and H (10)

livesoft
Posts: 62909
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:00 pm

Post by livesoft » Fri May 20, 2011 4:35 pm

With kids there is quite a lot of totally optional spending that you can do without if you don't have the money.

If I start with non-optional expenses, then for us the incremental costs of kids are not that big a deal:

1. We would live in the same house if we didn't have kids. When we bought our home, it was very close to both our jobs and is still within biking distance to my job.

2. I would have the same family plan medical coverage since my spouse needs to be covered.

3. My kids go/went to public schools. We pay the same school/property taxes regardless of whether we have kids or not. No extra car needed for transportation either. Library books are free. We would have internet even if we didn't have kids.

4. Our kids eat at tbradnc's or the other neighbors' homes, so food is not a big deal. We like to eat out lots so another thousand or two on our food bill is not a big deal.

5. Our kids got lots of free clothes from relatives who have kids about a year older than them. My son has worn his sister's shoes. We live in a semi-tropical environment, so there is only one season of clothes needed: shorts, T-shirts, flops that works for both boys and girls.

6. My son has a bed, but no other furniture in his room. His clothes have just been on the floor (or in the laundry room) for the last 15 years. My daughter got her bedroom furniture when her grandmother died.

7. I would drive the same car, but my wife would probably drive a more expensive car if we didn't have kids.

As for optional stuff, we have the money so it goes for experiences and not so much for stuff.
Wiki This signature message sponsored by sscritic: Learn to fish.

isaidit
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:35 pm

Post by isaidit » Fri May 20, 2011 4:56 pm

I don't think kids cost that much in dollars, but they do sometimes cause us to miss out on money making opportunities.

Calculating exact costs is nearly impossible, I mean they don't eat a third of what we put on their plate so its hard to say food costs go up too much!

User avatar
Steelersfan
Posts: 3545
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:47 pm

Post by Steelersfan » Fri May 20, 2011 5:20 pm

Trying to do a cost/benefit analysis on having a child.

I'm highly analytical and cost conscious and even I wouldn't do that.

If you want them, have them. You'll make it work, as so many of the previous posters have shown.

If you don't, don't.

User avatar
Opponent Process
Posts: 5157
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:19 pm

Post by Opponent Process » Fri May 20, 2011 5:26 pm

I guess a similar question is: what determined your limit on the number of children? something should have, most likely relating to time or financial preferences, and not just sheer breeding capacity. thus, the concern is still a rational one, just that people titrate differently.
30/30/20/20 | US/International/Bonds/TIPS | Average Age=37

kiligi
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:21 pm

Post by kiligi » Fri May 20, 2011 5:31 pm

Having children didn't increase our housing or transportation costs, but that is in large part because we were already modest consumers of those two products (2200 sq ft 3bed/2bath townhouse, 1 car, use public transportation for most of our needs). Our two youngest share a bedroom, with no plans to change that for a long time, if ever.

Our food costs actually decreased with having children. We eat out a lot less often, and we don't eat a ton of meat. Our food/drink costs went down about $600/month once we had children (less time spent going out to bars with friends and picking up the tab at least one night a month). And we have 3 girls who eat like birds. Teensy tiny and mostly like veggies/fruits. Our food costs would have been down even further (I am a big couponer) but we eat a lot of organic fresh food which pops it higher than some may think it needs to be.

Public School (for 3 children) - $330/year registration fees, $150/year school supplies, $750/year combo of school lunches/home packed lunches.

Clothing/Shoes - ~$2000/year for all three combined (includes holiday outfits, outerwear (we live somewhere that has 4 full seasons) and any growth spurts that sneak up between smart sale shopping. But the biggest expenses always seem to be underwear, socks and shoes. I never knew what my parents were complaining about there until I lived it myself.

Health Insurance - this is a big cost, but mostly because we are a "self-employed" household (a downside to making partner at a law firm). Family plan - $1800/month. But that is also the cadillac plan - something that we thought was good preventative choice with three children and the myriad ways you can hit a high deductible limit without trying.

Swimming Lessons/Soccer Lessons - $400/child/year and $90/child/year (including suits, googles, cleats, etc).

So, $4600 in school, clothing, lessons/year for 3 school age children. Health Insurance another $7200/year (if you subtract the 2 person insurance plan v. the 5 person family plan).

So, for 3 school age children combined - it is costing us a total of ~$12K in base costs ($4K per kid per year). We might add another $500/year in Christmas/birthday gifts for the girls (we are pretty modest in gift giving).

User avatar
fundtalker123
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:18 am

Post by fundtalker123 » Fri May 20, 2011 5:45 pm

tbradnc wrote:It's not really a question with an answer.... What it costs to raise a child is based on how much money you have. If you're relatively poor you can still raise happy, well adjusted children without spending a ton of money. If you're wealthy you'll spend more because it's just natural.

I can tell you this much... we've got 3 teenagers and my 16 year old son and his friends regularly descend on our kitchen like a horde of locusts, eat everything that isn't nailed down and *poof* - they're gone.
Would they still eat all the food in the kitchen if the only food was plain vegetables, fruit, whole grains, legumes, and small pieces of fish?

User avatar
interplanetjanet
Posts: 2226
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:52 pm
Location: the wilds of central California

Post by interplanetjanet » Fri May 20, 2011 6:12 pm

fundtalker123 wrote:
tbradnc wrote:I can tell you this much... we've got 3 teenagers and my 16 year old son and his friends regularly descend on our kitchen like a horde of locusts, eat everything that isn't nailed down and *poof* - they're gone.
Would they still eat all the food in the kitchen if the only food was plain vegetables, fruit, whole grains, legumes, and small pieces of fish?
Yes.

-Janet

User avatar
greg24
Posts: 3298
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:34 am

Post by greg24 » Fri May 20, 2011 9:04 pm

Our kids are 8 and 4. Daycare seems to have been the only big thing, and we only did it part-time, so it was/is relatively low. As Janet pointed out about income reduction, my wife went down to part time, so that's the biggest financial impact.

I also agree that the "kid cost estimators" put a huge value on housing, when it doesn't really turn out that way. We bought our house for $194k. If we knew from the start that we'd never have kids, I guess we should have bought a smaller house, but not by much. I guess we could have found one for $175k or something, but even that is pushing it.

We probably spent more on a minivan than we would have on a non-kid car. But we recently bought a Prius, and its not like the size was driven by having two kids. Then again, we replaced a 13 year old car partially due to safety reasons, so I guess the Prius is a big kid cost. :D

User avatar
celia
Posts: 8600
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Post by celia » Fri May 20, 2011 11:10 pm

Opponent Process wrote:I guess a similar question is: what determined your limit on the number of children? something should have, most likely relating to time or financial preferences, and not just sheer breeding capacity. thus, the concern is still a rational one, just that people titrate differently.
Asking how much children cost is like asking how much your wife costs or your house costs. We all make different choices and choose things that work for us. When I read that it costs $x to raise a child, I cringe since that means it costs $2x to raise 2 kids, $3x to raise 3 kids, etc. That makes no sense to me. You do not spend twice as much raising 2 kids as 1. They ride in the same car as you, eat the same food (divided into 4 plates instead of 3, give or take), pass down clothes, toys, books, etc. I would take a wild guess and say that if children are within 4 years of age of each other (in the same school at the same time and can pass things down), two children would cost 1.5 of what 1 child costs, while 3 children would cost 1.9 of what one child costs you. (Many private K-12 schools even give discounts for multiple siblings enrolled at the same time.)

I get the same way when I hear that a state spends $y per child in K-12. What does it matter what it costs per child? It does not cost more to put 25 kids in a classroom compared to 20. A school with 2,000 students does not cost cost twice as much to run as a school with 1,000 students.

People use the numbers per child any way they want, but that does not make any sense to me. I just make choices based on the resources I have, and that includes a lot more than money. Someone with different choices obviously will make different choices than I do.

User avatar
kingsnake
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:05 am
Location: midwest

Post by kingsnake » Sat May 21, 2011 8:31 am

We have a 15 month old and likely another on the way, OB appt pending.
My wife asked for $300 more per month...unclear where its going...assume diapers, formula, food...

I am in process of teaching our son to rapidly tie very small knots and when he can do this effectively hopefully he can pay for his own way to teenager status. :wink:

hsv_climber
Posts: 3969
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:56 pm

Post by hsv_climber » Sat May 21, 2011 9:16 pm

I've just posted it in the frugal things thread. But I'll repost it here as well.
hsv_climber wrote:Here is the advice for a family with small (3-10year old) kids who like to travel:

- buy annual membership to your local Science Center (it costs ~$60-$80). It gives you ASTC membership, which allows you to enter 300 museums in the world for free. Average price to visit a museum - $40 for a family of 4.
Visit ASTC website for the list of museums.

We've saved more than $300-$400+ last year with ASTC membership.

matt
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:47 pm

Post by matt » Sun May 22, 2011 11:24 am

interplanetjanet wrote:...it doesn't imply a 3000+ sqft mansion.
3,000 sqft is a mansion? Wow! I'm a lot closer to the super wealthy than I thought.

User avatar
rustymutt
Posts: 3732
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Post by rustymutt » Sun May 22, 2011 11:37 am

I can't imagine a couple deciding not to have kids, because of money. If you love a woman, you just want to have children with her. Many children means a very happy retirement with lots of grand kids to enjoy. Time is the most important expense with children, as they require lots of attention growing up. Many parents nowadays both work and still manage to raise great families. I choose to retire in 2009 partly because our youngest son was now in High school and I wanted to devote more time to him and his need for adjustment into a man. I could have done this while working, but I'd have worried myself to death over him. The wife will continue her job til the boy is well into college. I also work part time now doing what I did for my company for 25 years.
I'm amazed at the wealth of Knowledge others gather, and share over a lifetime of learning. The mind is truly unique. It's nice when we use it!

yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria » Sun May 22, 2011 11:42 am

As noted, time, energy, and loss of freedom are the main costs. But in terms of money, here's my final post from the other thread, which I think is the most accurate:
Well it looks like the federal govt. does track these things, for issues like estimating court child support payments.

And you're right about the $390K being high for the average, which is only $222K through age 17. Throw in another $80K for college, and you're looking at only about $300K/child.

http://blogs.wsj.com/juggle/20....-ticks-up/

You also get a 22% discount on the third child. The concern, as the article notes, as that many child related costs (education, health care) are rising faster than inflation, so that cost is probably on the low side for a kid born today.

Of course most Bogleheads, being wealthier, will end up spending more.
Nick

User avatar
schnoodlemom
Posts: 456
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 3:06 am

Post by schnoodlemom » Sun May 22, 2011 11:44 am

hsv_climber wrote:Here is the advice for a family with small (3-10year old) kids who like to travel:

- buy annual membership to your local Science Center (it costs ~$60-$80). It gives you ASTC membership, which allows you to enter 300 museums in the world for free. Average price to visit a museum - $40 for a family of 4.
Visit ASTC website for the list of museums.

We've saved more than $300-$400+ last year with ASTC membership.
We did this many years in a row. For us an annual membership to Impressions-5 science center in Lansing, MI was less than others we were planning on visiting in the big cities. So we bought our pass online, in enough time to get it mailed to us before traveling. We've used these memberships all over the country so many times. Many zoo memberships work in a similar way with some reciprocity or discounted entry fees.

yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria » Sun May 22, 2011 11:56 am

rustymutt wrote:I can't imagine a couple deciding not to have kids, because of money.
You're not the only person that thinks this way - I realize that each time I drive through an inner city or visit a third world country.

Let me suggest that everyone should consider the costs of children before having them. Better for society, better for the kids themselves.

Nick

tbradnc
Posts: 1514
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:30 am

Post by tbradnc » Sun May 22, 2011 12:07 pm

yobria wrote:
rustymutt wrote:I can't imagine a couple deciding not to have kids, because of money.
You're not the only person that thinks this way - I realize that each time I drive through an inner city or visit a third world country.

Let me suggest that everyone should consider the costs of children before having them. Better for society, better for the kids themselves.

Nick
Both of you make a good point....

My wife and I finally decided that if we waited until we could afford to have kids we never would.

We eventually had 3 and as far I can tell have never been a burden on the system.

yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria » Sun May 22, 2011 12:09 pm

Winthorpe wrote:I'm finding that the cost can be about the same as not having kids. Areas where I spend more are offset in areas where I previously spent more. For example, my wife and I probably ate at restaurants 3 times per week before we had kids. Now we eat out once a month. That's a savings of at least $400 per month.
I've seen a lot "cost offsetting" of comments like this (eg "move to a worse neighborhood, and your housing cost won't rise as much").

I think children seem cheaper than they are because quality of life is not held constant. Which is perfectly fine in reality, but not for accurate costing purposes.

Nick

biasion
Posts: 1417
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:23 pm

Post by biasion » Sun May 22, 2011 12:18 pm

Children are most financially viable at the extremes of the SES spectrum.

If you are on welfare, children mean more exemptions from taxes, more public housing, more food stamps and a higher welfare benefit. The brother of a friend of mine in CA works in the welfare office, and there is someone who has 7 children who makes 108,000 tax free dollars a year from it. She drives a Cadillac Escalade with the spinners, no joke!

On the other end, children provide more people to whom you can tax free gift, people to relieve and succeed you in the family business, 529's, opportunities for business partners you can groom, family business trusts, a right hand man/woman etc. Also if you are of very high SES and you have expensive taste, even private schools are cheap compared to things you might buy that you could never enjoy or would get trashed by chidlren or are impractical. Seriously, with little kids it would take about 1 day for them to trash a nice car. No Porsche for me! you can't go on your nice vacations, nice restaurants. Seriously, even sending kids to private school is less expensive than some of these pursuits that having kids will make you give up. So you end up saving more because your time is filled w/ changind diapers, force feeding them, and preventing them from hurting each other whilst fighting for the same toy. Copay for antidepressants during this time period is negligible in comparison.

The financial cost seems to be most onerous to the middle class.

But as mentioned, the biggest cost of all is time.
1. Do not confuse strategy with outcome | 2. Those who fail to plan plan to fail | 3. Do not assume the unlikely is impossible, and | 4. Be ready to deal with the consequences if you do.

yobria
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: SF CA USA

Post by yobria » Sun May 22, 2011 12:19 pm

fundtalker123 wrote:
tbradnc wrote:I can tell you this much... we've got 3 teenagers and my 16 year old son and his friends regularly descend on our kitchen like a horde of locusts, eat everything that isn't nailed down and *poof* - they're gone.
Would they still eat all the food in the kitchen if the only food was plain vegetables, fruit, whole grains, legumes, and small pieces of fish?
That's probably what's in the kitchens of his son's friends :) .

Nick

marylandcrab
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:51 am

Post by marylandcrab » Sun May 22, 2011 1:56 pm

Another thought I have that is impossible to quantify.

I'm guessing that in my house, we are more successful financially because we know we have 2 kids depending on us.

I'm not sure if we would be where we are today career wise if not for the kids. We own our own business and until my youngest was in 3rd grade I was completely a sahm. It allowed my hubby to do what he needed to do professionally.

True, we bought a bigger house, bigger cars, etc but I know we for instance would not have felt the need to make more money and be more successful if we weren't trying to pay for private school, college tuition, camps, etc.

We could have been fine on less, but having these kids made us reach for more.

tbradnc
Posts: 1514
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:30 am

Post by tbradnc » Sun May 22, 2011 2:15 pm

yobria wrote:
fundtalker123 wrote:
tbradnc wrote:I can tell you this much... we've got 3 teenagers and my 16 year old son and his friends regularly descend on our kitchen like a horde of locusts, eat everything that isn't nailed down and *poof* - they're gone.
Would they still eat all the food in the kitchen if the only food was plain vegetables, fruit, whole grains, legumes, and small pieces of fish?
That's probably what's in the kitchens of his son's friends :) .

Nick
True... we do keep a pretty good stash of highly processed, refined junk food. :)

(for the health conscious, we're all average weight, very active outdoor types and in excellent health - a little junk food in moderation is pretty good....the operative word being moderation....)

avalpert
Posts: 6313
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:58 pm

Post by avalpert » Sun May 22, 2011 2:17 pm

matt wrote:
interplanetjanet wrote:...it doesn't imply a 3000+ sqft mansion.
3,000 sqft is a mansion? Wow! I'm a lot closer to the super wealthy than I thought.
Given your amazing ability to predict the market and identify the best fund managers I would suppose you would have to be...

User avatar
Watty
Posts: 14584
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Post by Watty » Sun May 22, 2011 2:35 pm

When you are looking at the total cost be sure to look at the NET cost since not only will there be things that you don't spend money on as a couple without kids, (sports cars, expensive dining, some vacations, etc) but when you are older even if they don't help you directly financially, they will likely do things like taking you to doctor appointments or managing your finances if you go into a nursing home and are not able to do this yourself.

Setting up a trust and paying some to manage it when you are in your 80's and 90's could be very expensive.


Greg

matt
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:47 pm

Post by matt » Sun May 22, 2011 4:30 pm

avalpert wrote:
matt wrote:
interplanetjanet wrote:...it doesn't imply a 3000+ sqft mansion.
3,000 sqft is a mansion? Wow! I'm a lot closer to the super wealthy than I thought.
Given your amazing ability to predict the market and identify the best fund managers I would suppose you would have to be...
So you think 3,000 sqft is a mansion, too? I suppose with your terrible investment returns, you probably have to live in a shantytown. So anything with more than 2 rooms will seem like a mansion to you.

epilnk
Posts: 2633
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:05 pm

Post by epilnk » Sun May 22, 2011 4:36 pm

matt wrote:
interplanetjanet wrote:...it doesn't imply a 3000+ sqft mansion.
3,000 sqft is a mansion? Wow! I'm a lot closer to the super wealthy than I thought.
I strongly suspect janet lives in the same town I do; around here that's a mansion. It's not the most expensive region of CA but this particular town has a lot of desirable features and amenities that keep real estate prices high; I feel lucky to live a luxurious 2000 sq ft lifestyle.

avalpert
Posts: 6313
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:58 pm

Post by avalpert » Sun May 22, 2011 5:03 pm

matt wrote:
avalpert wrote:
matt wrote:
interplanetjanet wrote:...it doesn't imply a 3000+ sqft mansion.
3,000 sqft is a mansion? Wow! I'm a lot closer to the super wealthy than I thought.
Given your amazing ability to predict the market and identify the best fund managers I would suppose you would have to be...
So you think 3,000 sqft is a mansion, too? I suppose with your terrible investment returns, you probably have to live in a shantytown. So anything with more than 2 rooms will seem like a mansion to you.
Not particularly, but whatever size house you live in you must be rich because you have such a talent for financial predictions that produce easy money for you. Or maybe your bragging of your timing capabilities overstate reality some...

User avatar
norookie
Posts: 3016
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:55 pm

Post by norookie » Sun May 22, 2011 5:16 pm

:D Put yourself in the service for 22/24 years. You get out with a pension. HCare. If you've educated yourself extensively, a GOOD pension. Or get married, have kids, and "enjoy!" :wink:
" Wealth usually leads to excess " Cicero 55 b.c

User avatar
norookie
Posts: 3016
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:55 pm

Post by norookie » Sun May 22, 2011 5:18 pm

matt wrote:
avalpert wrote:
matt wrote:
interplanetjanet wrote:...it doesn't imply a 3000+ sqft mansion.
3,000 sqft is a mansion? Wow! I'm a lot closer to the super wealthy than I thought.
Given your amazing ability to predict the market and identify the best fund managers I would suppose you would have to be...
So you think 3,000 sqft is a mansion, too? I suppose with your terrible investment returns, you probably have to live in a shantytown. So anything with more than 2 rooms will seem like a mansion to you.
When your 1 person, anything more than a 1 bedroom is a McMansion. Unless you have a dog and IT has ITS own bedroom also! :wink: Kids cost money! either you add water to the soup,.. or spend a extra 50k annually raising them. :roll:
" Wealth usually leads to excess " Cicero 55 b.c

User avatar
Ted Valentine
Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:28 am
Location: Music City USA

Re: How much to raise children (Seriously)

Post by Ted Valentine » Sun May 22, 2011 6:52 pm

GRT2BOUTDOORS wrote:
Seriously speaking, how much does it cost to raise chilren in today's dollars in your geographic region.
As much as you want. I know people that raise children on $30k per year. I know people that raise children on $300k per year. Either way it can be done and yet no matter both always want more for their kids.
Although our intellect always longs for clarity and certainty, our nature often finds uncertainty fascinating.

TRC
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:38 pm

Post by TRC » Sun May 22, 2011 7:25 pm

I've never kept track. I think the easy answer is "a lot".

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 19499
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: How much to raise children (Seriously)

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Tue May 24, 2011 7:54 am

Ted Valentine wrote:
GRT2BOUTDOORS wrote:
Seriously speaking, how much does it cost to raise chilren in today's dollars in your geographic region.
As much as you want. I know people that raise children on $30k per year. I know people that raise children on $300k per year. Either way it can be done and yet no matter both always want more for their kids.
True - at least that's the way I feel.

Post Reply