Children don't come cheap: Report finds cost of raising kids up 22 percent since 1960

[Ed Barrow]

Source: Lexington Herald-Leader

The grand total for middle-income parents raising one child from birth to age 17 is $222,360, which doesn't include college tuition, according to the recently released U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2009 Expenditures on Children by Families report.

That's 22 percent higher than the 1960 inflation-adjusted cost of $182,857.

...

"We currently spend more than that on day care alone," said Carlo Hontiveros, an associate director for SNL Financial in Charlottesville, Va. Eight months ago, he and his wife, a physical therapist, welcomed their first child, Mia. "Mia currently attends what we feel is the best day care facility in the region."

Indeed, the report called child care and education expense "the most striking change in child-rearing expenses over time." Those expenses grew from 2 percent of total child-rearing expenses to 17 percent.

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/06/22/1319434/children-dont-come-cheap-report.html

[FedUpWithIt All]

1. Not the way we raise them.

We are trying to live simply and the kids are along for the ride.

[Iowa]

13. Yep...

I have always found those figures to be ridiculous. We spent FAR less... including college.

[jdlh8894]

2. 22% in 50 Years?

What is the bitch? A loaf of bread has raised
(no pun intended)500%,eggs,300%.Milk,don't even want to think.
22% over 50 years? What world are you living in?

[woo me with science]

3. It's adjusted for inflation.

"That's 22 percent higher than the 1960 inflation-adjusted cost of $182,857."

[Heywood J]

4. In 1960, people actually raised their children.

Now, daycare is the rule and children are being raised by strangers in an industry with some of the highest turnover rates around. That eight-month-old is forming bonds and imprinting, and it spends at least eight hours a day with someone else.

I'm sure there are many people out there for whom the second income is the difference between rent and being homeless, or putting food on the table. But on the other hand, I'd like to see some statistics on how many people are in this boat - who can afford to stay home and actually parent the children, but choose not to.

I'd be interested in knowing if the trend in daycare use for young children correlates in any way to behavioral trends.

[Oregone]

5. Of course it is...being a single-income family isn't easy

Daycare is essential. And expensive.

You want some statistics....take average male income and bounce that against a mortgage on an average home. Then, take into account the price of food and utilities.

And besides that...what woman wants to be driven crazy all day by their kids? Yeah, some love it...some want a job. There is no rule to say "directly raising your kids has more value than a trained professional". It depends on the case

[Alcibiades]

6. It's not just women who raise kids nowadays

I'm a man who has two small children who drive me crazy all day, and I love it. It's the best job I've ever had, even though it's got the longest hours and there's no pay.

[Oregone]

7. Im a stay-at-home Dad too

Sorta...my office is in the kitchen so I help my wife when applicable.

[hedgehog]

21. Good for you! My SIL plans to stay home with the kids when they have some -

my daughter is better paid and I think he is has a better temperament for little kids. My daughter loves her niece, but she thinks she will be a better mother if she has a paying job outside the home.

[Heywood J]

8. You're right in that it does depend on the case,

but the benefit is that you get to instill your own values in the child (for better or worse). A daycare worker's job is not to instill values and/or morals in your child, nor to teach them right from wrong, nor to set an example for their behavior.

Believe me, I understand that many people do it out of necessity. I wish that weren't the case, that two incomes didn't have to be necessary now to afford a life or children. I was raised in a single-income household and I can see the benefits it provided. I'd like those benefits provided to everyone who wants to take them.

[Oregone]

9. "I'd like those benefits provided to everyone who wants to take them."

How? You going to pay for people's mortgage?


"daycare worker's job is not to instill values and/or morals in your child, nor to teach them right from wrong, nor to set an example for their behavior."

Depends on the daycare really. Some do advertise those types of things, and many more

[Heywood J]

11. I have no intentions of paying for everyone's mortgage.

I'd prefer that we regain the jobs that paid well enough to enable the choice of having a one-income family.

A child is a commitment, not a pet or toy. It takes a bit more to raise a child than having someone come in to play with it once a day, feed it, put new water in the bowl, and scoop the litter box. You probably know that, as you mentioned being a father, but I'm trying to make a point on society in general and not your parenting methods in particular. When society starts treating children as an encumbrance that you need to hire someone to take off your hands, we should not be surprised when the child sees other human beings the same way.

[Oregone]

12. Well, thats a long trek. Good luck on that.

I think the old way of life may be unrecoverable.


"I'm trying to make a point on society in general and not your parenting methods in particula"

I understand. But its just not always the *worse* thing that can happen for a kid. Its case by case, depending both on the home circumstances and the provider.


"When society starts treating children as an encumbrance that you need to hire someone to take off your hands"

Look, anyway you cut it, expenses are an encumbrance, and people need to face fiscal realities during these tough times. We don't choose to live in the economy and society we live in (most of us at least). Some realities are just unavoidable.

Yes, its a sad thing in general that the economy forces people to make these choices. A lot of people are doing the best they can figuring it out. There isn't a single guide book on how to be a great parent & stay afloat

[Heywood J]

14. "It might be unrecoverable."

So let's not bother trying? We don't choose to live in the economy, but we can certainly work to change its reality. The middle class didn't appear by accident, nor did prosperity after WWII. A long trek just means we need to start sooner to get it done faster.

Yes, a child is expensive to have, but a child is not an expense or convenience in the same way as a phone bill, a television, a car, or Internet access. You don't owe a duty of care and attention to those things, nor can you sell/cancel a child when times are tough. You don't need to raise a television or a car in order for it to function properly. If you have the money to pay someone to instill beliefs and ideals in your child (that high-end of a daycare), you most likely have the money to do it yourself.

I guess my point is that a child should not be treated in the same manner as a pet being boarded or thought of in expense terms like an appliance that you can turn off all day and turn on when you come home. A child is a human being just like you or I, it learns from the surroundings and adopts behaviors based on what he/she sees or experiences.

There did come a time when children came first, that they were provided for before all else. To me, it looks like there are cases where "all else" is coming before the children, and that irks me. There's nothing I can do about it, and I don't intend to play nanny to other people, but this is a discussion board and I do have my own beliefs.

[hedgehog]

20. I agree - I stayed home with my kids, but I know other women

who needed to get out and work with adults. They were better mothers because they went to work. One is not any better than the other, the question is what is right for you? If we want healthy, productive adults to support us when we retire, it's in the interest of all of us to ensure that good child care is readily available, even if we have to subsidize it. Child care workers need to be educated and well paid!

[Abacus]

15. On an individual level, daycare is neutral or positive.

Kids from healthy homes tend to shrug off the effects of bad daycare, while kids from unhealthy homes gain from going to good daycare. Kids also tend to gain most from a stay-at-home parent in elementary school years, rather than preschool years as is typically assumed. I could source this for you in my childhood development textbook, but it's in the same room as my sleeping wife and waking her after midnight to find a book would be scary.

[Darth_Kitten]

16. People, or actually mothers?

It doesn't matter if people can or can't "afford" to "stay home".....it's really nobody else's business.

[CBGLuthier]

17. We raised three children with very, very little day care

Mostly by working opposing shifts. Also, I was fortunate during their youngest years to earn a high enough salary to enable my spouse to stay home, which was her choice at that time. Later, I stayed home.

My wife spends a lot of time babysitting our grandsons so our daughter, who needs the money, can work. Are you aware we live in a world that makes it very damned difficult to make a living on one salary?


Do you think women who work but don't really need the money are selfish to want a career? I would not put words in your mouth but there seems to be an undercurrent to your statements.

BTW, I was born in 1961 and MY mother worked. It's called being poor in modern america.

[pitohui]

10. so? their cost to the earth has risen exponentially

i really don't give a flying for the people who think every bored person who has no meaning in their life should be allowed to pop out a child, they are eating the planet

children should cost MUCH more than this and people who have children should be prepared to sacrifice a great deal to have them, just as i sacrifice a great deal to follow my hobbies -- there is almost NO hobby i can think of that destroys the earth like having a human being that will be on this planet for an expected lifespan of near unto 80 years, using resources etc.

right now, only the smartest people, who know math, pass on having kids -- the mentally ill person who can't put off quick gratification, the stupid person who actually thinks having a kid and getting on welfare pays (it doesn't pay ENOUGH to make enough for the kid but they are too math illiterate to see that), and so on...the stupid people, the people who can't plan, the mentally ill people... they are the ones having kids

we need to make it harder and harder to have kids until the stupid people finally figure it out that it's hurting them PERSONALLY to keep popping out these brats, right now, they're eating the planet, but they think they're making money (tragedy of the commons) by popping out brats so they keep doing it...

[My Good Babushka]

18. that is an ugly and cynical remark

and a very Republican idea that people have children so they can "luxuriate" on those great welfare benefits. People have children because they have love and hope for the future, that doesn't make them stupid. I can tell you really care about children-er, I mean "brats".

[Scout]

24. "People have children because they have love and hope for the future,"

some of them do ... many of them have children because they fucked. many of them have children to take care of them in their old age (as they point out to the child free so often on DU, how their kids will take care of us in the nursing home). many of them have children because their parents want grandchildren. many of them have children because "that's what adults do."

then they call the child free selfish, bitter, angry, jealous. :rofl:

[SunnySong]

25. Nice broad based attack. It's good to see Eugenics make suchj a healthy comeback. nt

[Bill McBlueState]

26. yup, this is par for the course

I figured you'd have something curmudgeonly to say.

[HughBeaumont]

19. Precisely why I got snipped.

1. I like my "me" time. I have no desire to be a 40 year old dad of a newborn.

2. The planet is already way too populated and we don't have infinite resources.

3. I'm not going to ever be able to financially provide for more than one child. I don't even know how I'm going to provide for this one's college.

4. I vasectomized to shut the "don't you want any MORE children? They're such a joy!" stupids up. Where is it commanded that a family must have a litter of children instead of just one . . . or none? Glad some people can be that generous to condemn me to a prison of debt for the rest of my life, all because of some weird societal quirk that families aren't really families unless they have more than one child.

The fact is, for every 2 great things they accomplish, there are 34 things they do to drive you insane. I'd never trade my stepson in, since he means the world to me. But the fact is, I can't mentally handle more. I'd see it as being shackled for decades and that just wouldn't make for any sort of happiness at all. I just couldn't do it. I want to do things, travel, write, catch up on my reading. Sorry, but in today's unfortunate reality, I'd never be able to do that with a second kid.

[hedgehog]

22. We would have a version of kindergelt if we were really serious about

ensuring the future. Let the families decide whether a parent stays home or the money goes to day care!

Other countries do this, even if it's done indirectly by requiring employers to provide long term paid maternity leave. We don't do it because too many of us are afraid that somewhere, someone might somehow take advantage. We love America, it's just other Americans we don't like!

[KillCapitalism]

23. This is why we only had one.

I don't really see how moderate income people can afford 2 or more.

We're fine with having one, we can give him more individual attention that way.