Cost of raising a child nears a quarter million dollars

[Guses]

http://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/

It's important to note that a *LOT* of the stuff on the list is of low nutritional value in addition to being cheap and high calorie. The author touches on it a little with his scurvy comment and his love of legumes.

It is possible to feed kids (and adults) cheaper than many people think or do. Meal planning isn't a lost art but it's getting there.

True :)!

I am not advocating feeding only flours to kids, I was merely pointing out that nutrition is cheap.

Calories are cheap.

Nutrition, not so much.

(FWIW, my grocery bill last year for a family of 4 was in the "low cost" per the USDA.  I do know what I'm doing.)

170$ per person per month is cheap. I am assuming you feed your family nutritious food, yes?

There is even a plan for 140$ per person per month. I assume the USDA also knows what they are doing, yes?

Some posters are able to eat (presumably) nutritious food for even less. Surely, they also know what they are doing, yes?

[J Boogie]

On your prime childbearing years thing, I disagree on what those are.

Fertility determines that for humans right now 36 is not "prime childbearing years".

And everything else I mentioned in my post lets you know I wasn't talking about biological optimal age to HAVE the kids but instead optimal ability to raise them. Others bridged the gap, but you can mentally substitute childrearing for childbearing if it helps.

I agree with your comment about good ages for parents to raise kids, but you DID misinterpret the meaning of the phrase prime childbearing years in the first place.  No one suggested that parents in their mid 30s are not in their child rearing years.

When you misuse or misinterpret a word, even though others bridge the gap as you say, your statement still stands - and it's perfectly valid and appropriate for people to respond to you by applying the correct definition to the words you use.

Admitedly, I am a bit of a stickler for definitions and correct word use.  For example I really do not like the misuse of the word literally, which is quite common these days, and I do not like the use of the word travesty when tragedy is what is really meant.  I believe this abuse of our language chips away at our collective vocabulary.

[Guses]

This study looks at what people ARE spending to raise their kids. Not what they have to. 

And this is exactly why it should be discussed in the wall of shame forum.

About Zero:

I have already given an example how it is possible to raise a kid without spending a cent.

I am not claiming that everyone should strive for this or that I was spending zero. Just that it was possible.

[ysette9]

Admitedly, I am a bit of a stickler for definitions and correct word use.

I'm with you there. I am currently engaged in a probably-hopeless debate on FB with someone regarding a Mike Pence speech on how evolution is "just a theory". I had to (not literally) bust out the dictionary to remind everyone of the scientific definition of the word "theory". This type of debate so where not understanding the correct meaning of the word has signficany and negative impacts on our society.

[StarBright]

You are correct that the quarter million overstates for low income. The article actually specifies that the quarter million number is for "middle class" which in the case of the study was declared to be those families making between 59k and 107k.

The number per child given for families earning less than 60k was about 175k.

Families earning more than 107k had an average closer to $350k.

To me, this clearly illustrates that most of the quoted number is (parents) WANTS not (children )NEEDS. 

Do you really believe that a kid's need is a function of its (their?) parents' salaries? I certainly don't.

Is it surprising that people spend most of their available funds on their kids? No. Is it required? No.

I agree with the first sentence to a point - simply because parents generally strive to have their children do better. They WANT their child to have better than the baseline. so sure.

I do believe a child's needs (ie. what you spend on them) can be a function of parent's salaries - ie. when the middle class makes too much for subsidies (healthcare, SNAP, childcare, etc). Our childcare facility offers lower rates to families who make less than us so the cost for my kid's needs is clearly a function of my salary. - *note I have no problem with this at all! I believe quality subsidized childcare for those who can't afford it is a worthy outlay of my money. 

I think we essentially agree really. I'm just saying "250k is a possibility so try to come in as far under that as you can while still providing for your kids responsibly." Correct me if I'm wrong - but I think you are just saying "Zero is possible so there is no need to spend 250k!"

I think my whole point when I jumped into this thread was that while 250k sounds insane, what I consider to be reasonable spending (so no fancy cars, big houses, travel teams etc) can actually get you close to that number quite quickly.

[Schaefer Light]

I don't have kids (and this thread is making me really happy about that choice :) ).  But I was having the same thoughts, with people saying they pay $25k+ per year for day care.

The lower paid spouse would have to make over $30k per year just to break even and cover the cost of day care and taxes.  To say nothing of the thousands of dollars it costs to work (gas, work clothes/shoes, professional fees, tolls, etc).  It seems unlikely that any job paying less than $35k would be worth even getting out of bed for.

When you consider the additional costs of working:  no time for making meals and more eating out, no time to do household chores/repairs and possibly hiring someone to do them (or be run ragged trying to do them after work), no time to do money saving things like clipping coupons or managing investments.

Damn, it seems that any job paying less than $45k would hardly be worth it.

And even then, you will be far more stressed and exhausted.  To say nothing of the toll warehousing kids in day care takes on them (as opposed to being at home with a mother/father).

It seems that unless the second spouse was a well paid professional, it wouldn't be worth the cost/stress/damage to take a job.

Note I said "second spouse," not "wife."  Either parent could be the stay at home with the kids.  So please, feminists, don't go off on me as a "Donald Trump-like mysogynist."

I totally agree, and that's why my wife is planning to quit her teaching job when we have our first kid.  She'd be working full time in order to increase our savings by zero dollars.  To me, that's a no-brainer.

[Guses]

You are correct that the quarter million overstates for low income. The article actually specifies that the quarter million number is for "middle class" which in the case of the study was declared to be those families making between 59k and 107k.

The number per child given for families earning less than 60k was about 175k.

Families earning more than 107k had an average closer to $350k.

To me, this clearly illustrates that most of the quoted number is (parents) WANTS not (children )NEEDS. 

Do you really believe that a kid's need is a function of its (their?) parents' salaries? I certainly don't.

Is it surprising that people spend most of their available funds on their kids? No. Is it required? No.

I agree with the first sentence to a point - simply because parents generally strive to have their children do better. They WANT their child to have better than the baseline. so sure.

I do believe a child's needs (ie. what you spend on them) can be a function of parent's salaries - ie. when the middle class makes too much for subsidies (healthcare, SNAP, childcare, etc). When our childcare facility offers lower rates because their parents make less than me then the cost for my kids need is clearly a function of my salary. - *note I have no problem with this at all! I believe quality subsidized childcare for those who can't afford it is a worthy outlay of my money. 

I think we essentially agree really. I'm just saying "250k is a possibility so try to come in as far under that as you can while still providing for your kids responsibly." Correct me if I'm wrong - but I think you are just saying "Zero is possible so there is no need to spend 250k!"

I think my whole point when I jumped into this thread was that while 250k sounds insane, what I consider to be reasonable spending (so no fancy cars, big houses, travel teams etc) can actually get you close to that number quite quickly.

Yes, same reaction.

Instead of belaboring my opinion, here is an excerpt from an interesting Fraser institute study on the cost of raising children:

from https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/cost-of-raising-children.pdf

Yeah, it's mostly about Canada but it covers USA, UK and Australia too.

“The skyrocketing cost of raising kids”

The above subtitle is the name of a very recent article from Canada’s Financial
Post (Martin, 2012). It is typical of the many recent stories in the print and
television media about the high cost of children. These stories and reports are
shamefully biased and needlessly alarmist. They generally take an anecdotal
situation and then run with it as if it represents all families with children. In
the case of the Financial Post article, they feature a Toronto couple paying
$17,000 per year for child care for two young children. No information is
given about the couple’s two incomes or about their other spending. They
also quote a UBC professor as saying that “Canada has become a country in
which it is harder to raise a family.”

This is simply not correct. In fact, the evidence presented in this paper
suggests just the opposite. It has never been easier, financially, to raise children
in Canada: the necessities are easier and less costly (as a proportion
of income) to acquire; real incomes are higher; there are more dual earner
families; people are raising fewer children than ever before; and, for lower
income families, there are substantial government benefits that will partially
or completely offset the cost of raising a child (benefits that were not as generous
in the past).

Yet, the various estimates of the very high cost of raising children have
a receptive audience in the media. For whatever reason, the media consistently
portray child costs as very high and use emotionally charged words and
phrases (like “skyrocket”) that go well beyond honest reporting. This, regrettably,
appears to be the message to the general public in the US, Canada,
Britain, and elsewhere that children are very expensive indeed.

There is even a well known blog (Whynokids.com) that advocates against
having children due to the high costs involved. Public expressions of concern
and puzzlement about low fertility rates in Europe and North America
might find some answers in the widespread, media-fed belief that children
are expensive. One recent estimate from the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA-a very common source of stories about the high cost of children) has
the cost, in 2010 dollars, of raising one child to age 18 by a middle income
family, as being US$227,000. And a more recent article from the Guardian
in Britain revealed that the cost of raising one child to age 18 in that country
was £218,000 (or about CND$350,000). This latter claim does not include
any housing expenses (as those are parental costs) but estimates that education,
child care, and babysitting will cost parents in Britain about 61% of that
amount (about CND$213,000).

These estimates are as frightening as they are wrong. They simply don’t
reflect the experience of real contemporary families raising children. Without
disputing that parents could spend these amounts on their children, they
certainly will not need to spend anything close to that in order to cover all of
the required needs or healthy development at socially acceptable standards.
In Canada, that core spending amount is in the range of $55,000-$80,000
over the first 18 years of the child’s life. And a great many parents find ways
to reduce that amount by using savings strategies when shopping, home production
of some goods, and by expecting children, when they are old enough,
to work part-time for pay to offset some of their expenses.
The experiences of real families raising children seems to be a missing
ingredient in most of these estimates of the high cost of children. It is rare that
their opinions are sought when estimating costs and when considering policy.
However, sometimes parents are compelled to speak out to dispel inaccuracies
and claims made in their name. Appendix A contains a selected number
of recent comments by parents about the stories of the high cost of raising
children. These comments are not part of a scientific study but are worth
reviewing for the balance they provide to alarmist, inaccurate media stories.

[Chris22]

You are correct that the quarter million overstates for low income. The article actually specifies that the quarter million number is for "middle class" which in the case of the study was declared to be those families making between 59k and 107k.

The number per child given for families earning less than 60k was about 175k.

Families earning more than 107k had an average closer to $350k.

To me, this clearly illustrates that most of the quoted number is (parents) WANTS not (children )NEEDS.

Do you really believe that a kid's need is a function of its (their?) parents' salaries? I certainly don't.

Is it surprising that people spend most of their available funds on their kids? No. Is it required? No.

I'm guessing what it actually means is that A) higher earners live in higher COL areas so things cost more and B) higher earners see more of an impact from time off work or missed promotions or whatever based on their higher salaries.  If a woman making $30k takes 6 months off of work and gets a prorated 4% raise at the end of the year, she misses out on 2% x $30k = $600, compounded annually for the next N years.  If a woman making $150k is in the same circumstance, she misses out on $3k compounded annually for the next N years, plus probably a significant one-time bonus miss (say 50% of 20% of $150k is $15k).

Yes, higher earners probably spend more in other discretionary areas too, but I'm guessing the impact of fancy clothes versus non-fancy pales in comparison to the above.

[Prairie Stash]

Please note the USDA doesn't say you can't sell a larger house and regain the cash. It simply says that families tend to have larger houses, what you do when you're 70 isn't captured. I very well could spend $250k and then get back $150k when I downsize, neat trick that. I still spent that money, but my NW wasn't diminished by $250k, so its both true I spent $250 and it can be true that my kid cost $100k.

Fraser institute captures that trick upfront, it assumes you already own the house (no reselling later to regain money spent on children). USDA assumes you buy the house with extra bedrooms so that your kids have rooms . At the end they both assume money was spent but the motive was different, so one assumes its a cost of children while the other assumes not, at the end your NW balances though...

Here is the link to the USDA statistics.
https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/expenditures_on_children_by_families/crc2015.pdf

Fraser
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/cost-of-raising-children.pdf

[sixkids]

Kids are expensive, yes. But nowhere near the amounts listed there.

[ysette9]

After all of these things I have read about kids being expensive, I was rather surprised by how little our baby cost us when she came. Diapers are crazy cheap. We got most of her stuff for free as hand-me-downs from friends. Even second-hand clothes aren't that much. The money we spent on her was offset initially by the fact that we stopped going out entirely.

Then, of course, daycare hit. That is an expense ($1400/month) but fortunately at our incomes it is something we can shoulder. I can easily see how having two kids would make parents feel much differently if you spend more on childcare than housing. Thankfully this expense is temporary. I have no idea what it costs to have a kid once kid hits school age. Right now I consider her 529 contributions as an expense and that is the second highest cost after daycare.

[BTDretire]

I'm afraid to say, we will be spending at least $250,000 on one of ours
in just the next 5 years. Dental school.

[Guses]

I'm afraid to say, we will be spending at least $250,000 on one of ours
in just the next 5 years. Dental school.

As long as you don't claim that it's a need or complain about it, you won't get beef from me. :)

[mm1970]

170$ per person per month is cheap. I am assuming you feed your family nutritious food, yes?

There is even a plan for 140$ per person per month. I assume the USDA also knows what they are doing, yes?

Some posters are able to eat (presumably) nutritious food for even less. Surely, they also know what they are doing, yes?

This is where it gets tricky.

I think that I'm doing pretty good, and yes, I consider it pretty cheap.  However, compared to other people here, other families in different areas of the country, even my own family 5-6 years ago, it's high.

I guess it depends on your definition of cheap.  My neighbors spend $24,000 a year on food.  So I feel pretty good.  I cook a lot from scratch, but I'd say the *biggest* contributors to a grocery bill are where you shop and what you eat.  Still, that comes out to about $34,000 in 20 years, per kid.

My daycare bill is middle of the road for this location.  Some people see the annual bill (one kid in preschool) of $15,000 and choke.

However, about half of the full time options are more expensive, and half are cheaper.  A majority of the cheaper options are church based.  While that would probably be fine, I'm an atheist, and I'd rather just keep it "school" and "fun" with no religion.