Quote:
I should make clear that I am talking about a two-income household where both parents are hardworking professionals (working at least 50 hours per week), living in an expensive city with high real estate costs and marginal public schools. In 2015 the average cost of raising a child in the UK was estimated to be £230k (£250k in London). Granted that was worth more in dollars at the time, but that means the cost in sterling has probably rising dramatically too: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...UK-230000.html This estimates $234k in the US (or $285k including inflation, which is the right way to think about it): https://smartasset.com/retirement/th...aising-a-child And that’s only to the age of 17, so it excludes college (which could as much as double the figure for some private universities). Bear in mind these are only averages. They don’t take into account higher costs in certain regions, or in cities (where private school might be necessary), or focus on two income households where both parents are professionals and work way more than 40-hour weeks (meaning much higher child care costs). It also doesn’t take into account real estate costs (the need for more square footage, which especially in cities is very expensive). The additional interest cost on a mortgage is part of the “cost of having children”. And it doesn’t take into account the opportunity cost if that money had instead been invested, which is also part of the true cost. That $285k invested at 5% for 20 years would be worth more than $750k just by itself. Add all of that up - the $285k average after inflation (reflecting the rising cost of food, clothing, etc over the child’s early life), plus an upward adjustment for a more expensive geography, plus college tuition, plus real estate, plus opportunity cost, and the true cost is easily $1+ million. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Are they factoring in the tax advantages, which are considerable? $1 million sounds high. In Manhattan or Central London, yeah, but I cannot imagine a typical middle class couple in Dayton, OH is spending anywhere near $1 million, even considering opportunity cost.
Anyways, discussions of cost completely miss the point. Having my kid is, by far, the greatest thing that ever occurred in my lifetime. And it's anecdotal, but I find that having children strengthens your focus and makes you a better employee and person. |
Quote:
The additional focus on work because all you care about is your kids is probably true, but to me that is one of the least appealing aspects of having kids. It sounds like a very boring, one-dimensional life. |
Quote:
Those parents who do pay for all of their kids' post-secondary education are likely pretty wealthy, and so the overall "cost" of having kids (from a nanny to clothes to tuition) is probably a drop in the bucket anyway. |
Quote:
For the upper middle class, college tuition is something that stretches them financially, but something they do to avoid burdening their kids with student loans. It’s definitely a sacrifice however. |
Quote:
|
for the second time now, i listed "#4 have some children" purely for ordering purposes. in no way will having kids make you financially wealthier.
having kids is very expensive and disruptive to your life, and that's why it's a really good idea to have your career (money) and marriage (stability) in place first before making new mouths to feed. that's all i meant. if you don't want kids, then super, don't have any. the world absolutely does not need any more children whose parents don't want them. but we are literally biologically programmed to procreate, so most people end up doing so one way or another at some point in their life. my point was that if you want to have a greater chance for success in life, AND if children will be in your picture at some point, it's far better to wait until you have your education, career, and marriage in place. people who put the baby cart before those other horses needlessly make things more difficult for themselves. that's all. |
Quote:
Many, maybe even most parents, have kids and yet simply do the best they can. Given that at least some kids are essential for society to continue, and that those kids we have collectively should ideally grow up in the best conditions, makes IMO a pretty strong case for the state giving parents a bit of helping hand. |
Quote:
my parents bought the house i grew up in wilmette, IL (one of chicagoland's nicest burbs) for $27,000 in 1976, they lived in that house for 27 years and sold it for $675,000 in 2003. talk about luck. man, i sure hope the home i bought 2 years ago will be worth 25x its purchase price 25 years from now. i never imagined that i might someday own a $10M house :haha: :haha: :haha: |
Quote:
Anecdotally I can tell you that there is some additional drive to provide that seems to kick in after having children. At least for me, it did. So maybe that's part of it. Anyway, children are expensive, but the only families spending anywhere close to $1 million raising them are upper-middle-class families that are paying for all of the toys, vacations, tutors, brand clothes, etc. and a vast majority of families in the developed world aren't anywhere close to being in that income bracket. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
--- a few 2019 grocery examples: - artichokes 5 for $2.75 italy market; 2 for $5 usa foodland grocery - pound of apples in croatia grocery 62 cents; 75 cents per pound at usa winn-dixie grocery - $3.81 for 1/3 pound chicken breasts switzerland grocery; $3.20 for 1/3 pound organic breasts at usa publix grocery |
Quote:
million dollars to raise a kid? real estate? college? come on nigel that fanciful scenario is a sliver of the population. maybe like a fifth at best? for one thing by far most people do not even go to college, even stretching the term, much less have their family pay for it. as far as costs, you could just as easily say a similarly large poverty group on the other end of the spectrum raise kids on nothing. their uncle sam pays. actual reality is over 50% of kids under 18 received some kinds of means-tested assistance. :shrug: |
10023 is citing opportunity cost as part of his $1 million claim which may or many not be true depending on your career path(es). If a couple are both highly paid professionals and the mother takes five years off to be a stay at home mom (and she made minimum $100K on her own) to raise a couple of kids, that's a half million right there in opportunity costs in missed wages.
|
Everyone seems to be missing my point as much as Steely’s.
Never did I say that my estimate was true for most of the population. I specifically said “for an upper-middle class couple”. Yes it’s a fraction of the population, but it’s my fraction of the population, so that is the math I am looking at if we are to have kids. Especially as someone who is very adamant about staying in the city, about eating well, and about being able to travel (and I don’t mean cruises and all-inclusive resorts). |
Quote:
And child care, the big expense, is partially subsidized by the tax code (you can partially deduct it and pay much of it pre-tax). And most married professional moms don't completely quit work these days. They usually only do that if dad makes serious $$ or if they live modestly. |
Quote:
your pet niche is what is missing the point of reality. 17% of nyc lives in abject poverty (a record low btw, which is good news) and 25% of children under 18 do. they live in an expensive big city too, adamantly or not. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am specifically talking about the cost of having kids for upper-middle class households. Lots of poor people have kids they can’t afford. I’m just pointing out that most of those who are relatively well off would be shocked if they actually considered the math. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 8:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.