How much do kids cost, in general? (1 Viewer)

[moleculo]

I hear people all the time saying they want to wait until they are in a better financial situation to raise a family. I say poor people have kids all the time, so what's the big deal?

Sure poor people have kids, but those kids often grow up with serious disadvantages in life. Most people would prefer to avoid that if possible.

Depends how poor you're talking.For example, living out of a car is a disadvantage. Living in cheapish rental property (assuming relative personal safety) is not ... not really.

You don't think there's a difference between sending your kid to a good school and a crappy one?

you don't think kids can succeed despite going to a crappy school?

 

[Doug B]

You don't think there's a difference between sending your kid to a good school and a crappy one?

Around here, that's not 100% dependent on where you live. If you live in the hood, but your kid is serious about studies, you can send your kid to public magnet schools. Caveat: they have to pass a test to get in, and there is a waiting list for older grades.Other than that, even the great non-magnet public schools around here have low-rent areas within their school zones (Section 8 housing is pervasive and scattered throughout upper-middle-class neighborhoods). Excepting below-poverty-level families, you can get your kid into at least a decent school.

 

[Third]

My wife breastfeeds for a couple years, so no bottles. We also don't use disposable diapers. My wife is insane for this organic cotten designer diapers. She has even designed a few. She even has some diapers that she doesn't want to use and keeps them new in package so she can trade them with other people. her version of FBG's is Diaperswappers.com

I bet she makes her own organic baby food, doesn't she?

 

[Doug B]

you don't think kids can succeed despite going to a crappy school?

There's this, too. So long as they're not dodging bullets in the hallways or getting their butts kicked daily by the Crips or something, kids can achieve anywhere.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I hear people all the time saying they want to wait until they are in a better financial situation to raise a family. I say poor people have kids all the time, so what's the big deal?

Sure poor people have kids, but those kids often grow up with serious disadvantages in life. Most people would prefer to avoid that if possible.

Depends how poor you're talking.For example, living out of a car is a disadvantage. Living in cheapish rental property (assuming relative personal safety) is not ... not really.

You don't think there's a difference between sending your kid to a good school and a crappy one?

you don't think kids can succeed despite going to a crappy school?

It's possible to succeed, but it's a big disadvantage.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You don't think there's a difference between sending your kid to a good school and a crappy one?

Around here, that's not 100% dependent on where you live. If you live in the hood, but your kid is serious about studies, you can send your kid to public magnet schools. Caveat: they have to pass a test to get in, and there is a waiting list for older grades.Other than that, even the great non-magnet public schools around here have low-rent areas within their school zones (Section 8 housing is pervasive and scattered throughout upper-middle-class neighborhoods). Excepting below-poverty-level families, you can get your kid into at least a decent school.

It isn't like that everywhere. And when you're deciding to have a kid, you don't know whether he'll be able to pass the test to get into a special magnet school.

 

[Doug B]

It's possible to succeed, but it's a big disadvantage.

Well, really we have to define "crappy school". Are we talking about Eastside High in Lean On Me, before Morgan Freeman came in and cleaned it up? Because once you get the personal-safety issues resolved in a school, and get a minimum amount of learning materials in place, the kids have all the opportunity they really need.At my daughter's school (public magnet), they are big on getting all kind of electronic gewgaws in the classroom - electronic whiteboards, WiFi set-ups, and so forth. To repeat the refrain, that's all luxuries ... almost completely unessential to educating children.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

You say to not worry about college, but unless you have an inheritance, you ought to think about it.The average cost of one year, in-state public college w/room and board is about $15000 per year. That is $60,000 grand if they wrap it up in 4 years.The average private education is double that.If you are having a kid right now, and think they might attend a private college in 18 years, you need to plan about a quarter million per kid.

None of this is necessary. My dad was a blue-collar single-income provider, and never could dream of saving a college fund for us. Yet, still, I got a tuition waiver at my state school, got loans for books and room & board, and went to college.A college fund, IMHO, is a luxury. Great thing to be able to bestow upon your child, no question -- but not something that dooms them to fail in life if it's not there. There's always a way.

There is not always a way. Many people can find a way, but not everyone. When did you go to college? The college landscape has changed- tuition is going up much much faster that salary increases. Many schools increase tuition between 6-10% a year. Tuition, as compared to salary, is in a different stratosphere that even the early nineties: it has almost doubled. Expected parental contribution is still fairly high. Financial aid only covers the gap between student loans, student expected income, and parental contribution. There was a time that if you- as a student- applied for financial aid, took out loans, worked part time during the year and your ### off over the summer, you could pay for school, even without parental contribution. That is not true anymore, unless your parents make live close to the poverty line.

 

[eoMMan]

Regarding the education of kids in a poor area issue, I think a lot of it has to do with the parent's role in the kid's education. For example, I'd be willing to bet that more middle class parents would read to their young kids as opposed to poorer, lower class parents. I think that the poor school system gets the bad stigma when it has a lot, if not most, to do with the parents and how they are helping their kids learn.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It's possible to succeed, but it's a big disadvantage.

Well, really we have to define "crappy school". Are we talking about Eastside High in Lean On Me, before Morgan Freeman came in and cleaned it up? Because once you get the personal-safety issues resolved in a school, and get a minimum amount of learning materials in place, the kids have all the opportunity they really need.At my daughter's school (public magnet), they are big on getting all kind of electronic gewgaws in the classroom - electronic whiteboards, WiFi set-ups, and so forth. To repeat the refrain, that's all luxuries ... almost completely unessential to educating children.

I think we're getting too far astray from the original subject of the thread here. But I think you're being silly if you think poor kids don't have disadvantages that make it less likely they'll succeed in life.

 

[Doug B]

You don't think there's a difference between sending your kid to a good school and a crappy one?

Around here, that's not 100% dependent on where you live. If you live in the hood, but your kid is serious about studies, you can send your kid to public magnet schools. Caveat: they have to pass a test to get in, and there is a waiting list for older grades.Other than that, even the great non-magnet public schools around here have low-rent areas within their school zones (Section 8 housing is pervasive and scattered throughout upper-middle-class neighborhoods). Excepting below-poverty-level families, you can get your kid into at least a decent school.

It isn't like that everywhere. And when you're deciding to have a kid, you don't know whether he'll be able to pass the test to get into a special magnet school.

Understood. There is always a way, though ... no matter where you are in the country. That way might not be magnet schools, or moving into a "mixed" housing area. The ways may be really hard to implement. But, rest assured, there are other ways. To get your kids in a good educational situation has to be a huge priority for any parent. IMHO, the only kids are hopeless in this regard are those living with their parents in cars or on the streets and whose parents are too proud to get the public help available for children in those situations.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Regarding the education of kids in a poor area issue, I think a lot of it has to do with the parent's role in the kid's education. For example, I'd be willing to bet that more middle class parents would read to their young kids as opposed to poorer, lower class parents. I think that the poor school system gets the bad stigma when it has a lot, if not most, to do with the parents and how they are helping their kids learn.

While I agree that parental input is significant, the school makes a huge difference. Schools generally teach to the average person in the room who is trying. If the average person in the room isn't able to read, clearly that slows the entire education process down for everyone.

 

[Doug B]

I think we're getting too far astray from the original subject of the thread here. But I think you're being silly if you think poor kids don't have disadvantages that make it less likely they'll succeed in life.

Put it this way -- the lack of money isn't in and of itself the disadvantage.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think we're getting too far astray from the original subject of the thread here. But I think you're being silly if you think poor kids don't have disadvantages that make it less likely they'll succeed in life.

Put it this way -- the lack of money isn't in and of itself the disadvantage.

Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

 

[Doug B]

Many schools increase tuition between 6-10% a year. Tuition, as compared to salary, is in a different stratosphere that even the early nineties: it has almost doubled. Expected parental contribution is still fairly high. Financial aid only covers the gap between student loans, student expected income, and parental contribution.

Come to Louisiana or Mississippi (or 18 other states):(link is to a PDF)

TOPS guarantees Louisiana students the right to a state-funded college

education if they will earn 16.5 units** in a specified core curriculum,

score a minimum 20 composite on the ACT, and earn a minimum

cumulative 2.5 grade point average in the core curriculum.

After TOPS became law in Louisiana, Patrick F. Taylor's focus shifted. He

began taking the Taylor Plan elsewhere, so that by the time of his death in

2004, more than 20 states had adopted versions of the Taylor Plan.

This is completely independent of income -- Bill Gates' kids could go to LSU tuition-free if they made it through a Louisiana high school with a B- average.

 

[trogg78]

My wife breastfeeds for a couple years, so no bottles. We also don't use disposable diapers. My wife is insane for this organic cotten designer diapers. She has even designed a few. She even has some diapers that she doesn't want to use and keeps them new in package so she can trade them with other people. her version of FBG's is Diaperswappers.com

I bet she makes her own organic baby food, doesn't she?

It really isn't that hard to boil a bunch a veggies and put them in a food processor.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Many schools increase tuition between 6-10% a year. Tuition, as compared to salary, is in a different stratosphere that even the early nineties: it has almost doubled. Expected parental contribution is still fairly high. Financial aid only covers the gap between student loans, student expected income, and parental contribution.

Come to Louisiana or Mississippi (or 18 other states):(link is to a PDF)

TOPS guarantees Louisiana students the right to a state-funded college

education if they will earn 16.5 units** in a specified core curriculum,

score a minimum 20 composite on the ACT, and earn a minimum

cumulative 2.5 grade point average in the core curriculum.

After TOPS became law in Louisiana, Patrick F. Taylor's focus shifted. He

began taking the Taylor Plan elsewhere, so that by the time of his death in

2004, more than 20 states had adopted versions of the Taylor Plan.

This is completely independent of income -- Bill Gates' kids could go to LSU tuition-free if they made it through a Louisiana high school with a B- average.

Well, this is great. I am glad to hear it. Especially given how many of the school systems on the gulf coast are still suffering from the storms of 3005. Unfortunately, this system is not in place for people half of the states in the country.

 

[Doug B]

I think we're getting too far astray from the original subject of the thread here. But I think you're being silly if you think poor kids don't have disadvantages that make it less likely they'll succeed in life.

Put it this way -- the lack of money isn't in and of itself the disadvantage.

Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

OK, but what level of good and services are necessary to raise a child successfully? What are musts? What are wants? What are truly luxuries?I agree with your position when you're talking about homeless kids, or kids of drug addicts, or kids who live in gangland war zones, or something like that. But not for kids who grow up in a run-of-the-mill suburban apartment complexes (Section 8, even) compared to kids growing up in Malibu.

 

[trogg78]

Regarding the education of kids in a poor area issue, I think a lot of it has to do with the parent's role in the kid's education. For example, I'd be willing to bet that more middle class parents would read to their young kids as opposed to poorer, lower class parents. I think that the poor school system gets the bad stigma when it has a lot, if not most, to do with the parents and how they are helping their kids learn.

I think the problem with schooling in poorer areas is that they aren't getting the education early enough. They are missing out, where most kids have had 2-3 years of pre-school before kindergarten.

 

[Commish77]

My wife breastfeeds for a couple years, so no bottles. We also don't use disposable diapers. My wife is insane for this organic cotten designer diapers. She has even designed a few. She even has some diapers that she doesn't want to use and keeps them new in package so she can trade them with other people. her version of FBG's is Diaperswappers.com

With a cotton non-disposal diaper, where does "it" go when you change a baby's dirty diaper?

 

[Doug B]

Well, this is great. I am glad to hear it. Especially given how many of the school systems on the gulf coast are still suffering from the storms of 3005. Unfortunately, this system is not in place for people in 60% of the states in the country.

Check around -- there might be something out there.Another thing to consider it flexibility in college choice. You explicitly mentioned private institutions in your first post. But going to a private college is by no means a necessity ... IMHO an education at a state's flagship university is more than enough to give your kid a great chance in the work world. Not everyone can graduate from Harvard Law ... I don't know where you have the bar set in your mind.

 

[trogg78]

My wife breastfeeds for a couple years, so no bottles. We also don't use disposable diapers. My wife is insane for this organic cotten designer diapers. She has even designed a few. She even has some diapers that she doesn't want to use and keeps them new in package so she can trade them with other people. her version of FBG's is Diaperswappers.com

With a cotton non-disposal diaper, where does "it" go when you change a baby's dirty diaper?

I don't change any diapers. When my wife changes the diapers the duty goes in the toilet or in the outside garbage and the diaper goes in a diaper pail.

 

[Sweet J]

I'm talking about younger kids, like new born to 10 years old or so. How much more each month would it cost for food, diapers, formula, etc? I mean, for a new born, are we talking about an extra $200 a month in expenses or an extra $500? I have no clue. Don't factor in day care, insurance, and college savings....just everyday expenses. Assume there would be a stay at home mom or grandma watching the kid.Don't worry.....I'm not expecting....just curious if I do decide to do this one day.

Kids take every single disposable cent you have. I felt no appreciable difference in lifestyle when our household income was 250k and when it was 100k. The bills get paid, and then everything - EVERYTHING - else gets used up.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Well, this is great. I am glad to hear it. Especially given how many of the school systems on the gulf coast are still suffering from the storms of 3005. Unfortunately, this system is not in place for people in 60% of the states in the country.

Check around -- there might be something out there.Another thing to consider it flexibility in college choice. You explicitly mentioned private institutions in your first post. But going to a private college is by no means a necessity ... IMHO an education at a state's flagship university is more than enough to give your kid a great chance in the work world. Not everyone can graduate from Harvard Law ... I don't know where you have the bar set in your mind.

I have attended public and private universities and taught at public and private universities. Currently, I live in Maine ad am an art professor here. My children could study in the UMaine system inexpensively. Maine public education varies- there are stronger programs and weaker programs at different universities. If my daughter on son were actually kooky enough to want to study art, I would encourage them to go to a place that had a lot of quality art either on the campus or in the surrounding community. I am a big believer that if you want to give your child the best chance of collegiate success, you try to find a school that matched your child's interests and personality. I am hopeful that when my son and daughter make a college choice, their final decision will be based on only two things:a) do they really want to go there?b) did they get in?I don't really have the bar set anywhere. I just want my children to be happy and find a good match for them.

 

[Sweet J]

It's possible to succeed, but it's a big disadvantage.

Well, really we have to define "crappy school". Are we talking about Eastside High in Lean On Me, before Morgan Freeman came in and cleaned it up? Because once you get the personal-safety issues resolved in a school, and get a minimum amount of learning materials in place, the kids have all the opportunity they really need.At my daughter's school (public magnet), they are big on getting all kind of electronic gewgaws in the classroom - electronic whiteboards, WiFi set-ups, and so forth. To repeat the refrain, that's all luxuries ... almost completely unessential to educating children.

I think we're getting too far astray from the original subject of the thread here. But I think you're being silly if you think poor kids don't have disadvantages that make it less likely they'll succeed in life.

I see your point, but I also see Doug's point. Can we sum it up thusly: There is a difference between two people who have been raised "advantaged" and making a concious choice to life simply/poorly, and raise their kids as such, and parents who were raised "disadvantaged" and having disadvantaged kids of their own.For instance: fatguy, suppose you decided, right now, that your calling was to do public service and you took some sort of public service job at a fraction of your salary. Suppose your household income dropped substantially. I would bet your kids' futures would be dramatically altered. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you were forced to live in some sort of slums because of your financial lifestyle choice, your kids would fair better in life (financially, schooling) than your neighbor's kids. Because you weren't raised in the slums, or if you were, you have acheived a certain educational benchmark.

 

[Sweet J]

Regarding the education of kids in a poor area issue, I think a lot of it has to do with the parent's role in the kid's education. For example, I'd be willing to bet that more middle class parents would read to their young kids as opposed to poorer, lower class parents. I think that the poor school system gets the bad stigma when it has a lot, if not most, to do with the parents and how they are helping their kids learn.

I think the problem with schooling in poorer areas is that they aren't getting the education early enough. They are missing out, where most kids have had 2-3 years of pre-school before kindergarten.

Steven Levitt has shown that the parental involvement in the child's education is one of the most important indicators of a child's success in school. I think that speaks to both of your posts, actually.

 

[roadkill1292]

I was recently told that having kids is overrated and that a great many people regret having them, but for obvious reasons, very, very few parents would ever admit that. Any parents want to chime in on this?

It's probably difficult to understand but it's possible to really care about your kids while at the same time, given the opportunity to do it all over again, to take a pass on the experience. I know that's awkwardly stated.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

I was recently told that having kids is overrated and that a great many people regret having them, but for obvious reasons, very, very few parents would ever admit that. Any parents want to chime in on this?

It's probably difficult to understand but it's possible to really care about your kids while at the same time, given the opportunity to do it all over again, to take a pass on the experience. I know that's awkwardly stated.

I think that if you have some personal goals that are very important to you, it is best to try to reach them before you have children. Because if you don't, at some point, you will quite possibly have to make a choice that either your goals (pre-children) or your children will be your priority. There is a fair amount of potential regret for many people there: regardless of choice.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

For instance: fatguy, suppose you decided, right now, that your calling was to do public service and you took some sort of public service job at a fraction of your salary. Suppose your household income dropped substantially. I would bet your kids' futures would be dramatically altered. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you were forced to live in some sort of slums because of your financial lifestyle choice, your kids would fair better in life (financially, schooling) than your neighbor's kids. Because you weren't raised in the slums, or if you were, you have acheived a certain educational benchmark.

I think all of this is true.

 

[Kuz]

I'm talking about younger kids, like new born to 10 years old or so. How much more each month would it cost for food, diapers, formula, etc? I mean, for a new born, are we talking about an extra $200 a month in expenses or an extra $500? I have no clue. Don't factor in day care, insurance, and college savings....just everyday expenses. Assume there would be a stay at home mom or grandma watching the kid.Don't worry.....I'm not expecting....just curious if I do decide to do this one day.

I didn't read any of the posts so not sure if this has been talked about yet. I tell my brother all of the time that I think I spend less now (with 2 kids) then I did when I had no kids. Sure you spend on formula, diapers etc.. but you're not able to go out every Friday-Saturday night partying & eating out.. you tend to stay home quite a bit more which to me makes it about a push..

 

[Sweet J]

I was recently told that having kids is overrated and that a great many people regret having them, but for obvious reasons, very, very few parents would ever admit that. Any parents want to chime in on this?

It's probably difficult to understand but it's possible to really care about your kids while at the same time, given the opportunity to do it all over again, to take a pass on the experience. I know that's awkwardly stated.

I'll weigh in: The whole thing is incredibly complicated to explain. I have come to accept that having children, and "raising them" at a level that I believe is minimally necessary, is a very very very difficult, stressful, and thankless job. When young, our children are fun and loving and sweet, but also an incredible burden to time, finances, etc. And when they get older, they will -- if they are healthy -- rebel, pull away, and quite possibly disagree with my fundamental core values. The teenage years are especially thankless. In order to grow, they have to separate, they move on and leave you. And you are left with years of sacrifice, work, frustration, drama, trauma, with nothing to show for it in the end, other than the hope that your child will return the favor and wipe your a.ss for you when you are old and feeble. But we give to them even if we know they will leave and never come back, because that is what drives us, compels us, as parents.I would lay down my life for my child, literally. I don't give him "whatever he wants," obviously, because that only hurts him in the end. But I give him what I think he needs. Love, patience, attention, the core of my being. I love my children with an intensity that is . . . unexplainable.

Would I change anything about having children? Of course not. But it is like with Neo taking the blue and red pill: If you take the pill and have children, your life will instantly become more difficult, both in the short run and the long run. Ultimately, it will be more difficult than not taking the pill, and quite possibly will cause you more stress, fatigue, sadness, heartache, than it causes happiness. But here's the kick in the balls: Once you take the pill, the core of your being will be changed that you can't imagine life before taking it, and you would NEVER trade your kids or regret your decision.

Or something.

 

[roadkill1292]

[OK, but what level of good and services are necessary to raise a child successfully? What are musts? What are wants? What are truly luxuries?

Reasonable question. Things aren't nearly as important to a kid as a stable household where he can feel safe and secure. Two parents who get along and face life's realities as responsible adults and offer consistent guidance are priceless assets to kids. A clean house, clean clothes and decent food on the table. Almost everything else is gravy. Seriously. Now, your kids won't agree with this. If they can't have the newest Ipod and the trendiest clothes, they're just gonna die. I mean, they just won't be able to face their friends who, by the time they reach puberty, are by far the most important people in their lives. But that doesn't really matter and they'll realize it, too, when they're older.

 

[Sweet J]

For instance: fatguy, suppose you decided, right now, that your calling was to do public service and you took some sort of public service job at a fraction of your salary. Suppose your household income dropped substantially. I would bet your kids' futures would not be dramatically altered. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you were forced to live in some sort of slums because of your financial lifestyle choice, your kids would fair better in life (financially, schooling) than your neighbor's kids. Because you weren't raised in the slums, or if you were, you have acheived a certain educational benchmark.

I think all of this is true.

I see that I left out a "not" that alters the meening of the paragraph. I put it in bold, above. oh, well.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

For instance: fatguy, suppose you decided, right now, that your calling was to do public service and you took some sort of public service job at a fraction of your salary. Suppose your household income dropped substantially. I would bet your kids' futures would not be dramatically altered. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you were forced to live in some sort of slums because of your financial lifestyle choice, your kids would fair better in life (financially, schooling) than your neighbor's kids. Because you weren't raised in the slums, or if you were, you have acheived a certain educational benchmark.

I think all of this is true.

I see that I left out a "not" that alters the meening of the paragraph. I put it in bold, above. oh, well.

Oh, then I don't agree. If my kids lived in the slums their lives would be impacted significantly.

 

[belljr]

If you have to ask ... you can't afford it

 

[trogg78]

I was recently told that having kids is overrated and that a great many people regret having them, but for obvious reasons, very, very few parents would ever admit that. Any parents want to chime in on this?

I can't think of anything else I would rather be doing. My kids give me more motivation than anything else. Replacing it with any other responsibility would just seem like a major waste.ETA: :salute: Major Waste!

 

[belljr]

I was recently told that having kids is overrated and that a great many people regret having them, but for obvious reasons, very, very few parents would ever admit that. Any parents want to chime in on this?

I can't think of anything else I would rather be doing. My kids give me more motivation than anything else. Replacing it with any other responsibility would just seem like a major waste.

Agree. Yes there are times I wish I could just up and go away for a long weekend or don't want to be bothered with the mundane today.But I wouldn't give up having my kids for anything nothing better than unconditional love, watching then mature, grow develop...Of course if my son becomes a dooshbag I may change my vote

 

[Sweet J]

For instance: fatguy, suppose you decided, right now, that your calling was to do public service and you took some sort of public service job at a fraction of your salary. Suppose your household income dropped substantially. I would bet your kids' futures would not be dramatically altered. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you were forced to live in some sort of slums because of your financial lifestyle choice, your kids would fair better in life (financially, schooling) than your neighbor's kids. Because you weren't raised in the slums, or if you were, you have acheived a certain educational benchmark.

I think all of this is true.

I see that I left out a "not" that alters the meening of the paragraph. I put it in bold, above. oh, well.

Oh, then I don't agree. If my kids lived in the slums their lives would be impacted significantly.

I intentionally didn't refer to their current lives, which I agree would change. I was referring to their "future." And yes, I know that every change we make now has an effect down the road. If you lived in New York and moved to california, obviously it changes their "future." I mean opportunities. Sure, it may make the difference between Ivy league and public school. But do you really think your kids would be that much worse off? More importantly, do you disagree that your kids have a better chance of "succeeding" than a kid living in the slums whose parents were also raised in the slums?

 

[Early_10]

On sports alone I spend about 1200 per year for 2 boys.

Just figured out we spent $2500 this season on hockey for two boys. Soccer in the summer and swimming lessons and dance class for the oldest girl. We're at about $3700 a year for 4 kids. *eta - oldest is more than half of this.Teenagers grocery bill is about the same as his sports bill. Our first formula fed 8 month old baby consumes about $300 a month in expenses.

 

[moleculo]

On sports alone I spend about 1200 per year for 2 boys.

Just figured out we spent $2500 this season on hockey for two boys. Soccer in the summer and swimming lessons and dance class for the oldest girl. We're at about $3700 a year for 4 kids. *eta - oldest is more than half of this.Teenagers grocery bill is about the same as his sports bill. Our first formula fed 8 month old baby consumes about $300 a month in expenses.

Canadian money though.

 

[texasheat]

newborns will burn through $120 of formula a month. I would say closer to 200 than 500 though to answer your question. One kid is not very expensive anyways, if they they to see the doc alot though that can change, even with insurance...

That's what teets are for

 

[eoMMan]

If you have to ask ... you can't afford it

No offense to you, but that's always been a dumb expression, IMO.What's wrong with planning and budgeting?

 

[texasheat]

If you have to ask ... you can't afford it

No offense to you, but that's always been a dumb expression, IMO.What's wrong with planning and budgeting?

I can't imagine he's being serious, but if he is...

 

[Beaumont]

Jake: [fakes accent] How much for the little girl? How much for the women?

Father: What?

Jake: Your women. I want to buy your women. The little girl, your daughters... sell them to me. Sell me your children.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Oh, then I don't agree. If my kids lived in the slums their lives would be impacted significantly.

I intentionally didn't refer to their current lives, which I agree would change. I was referring to their "future." And yes, I know that every change we make now has an effect down the road. If you lived in New York and moved to california, obviously it changes their "future." I mean opportunities. Sure, it may make the difference between Ivy league and public school. But do you really think your kids would be that much worse off? More importantly, do you disagree that your kids have a better chance of "succeeding" than a kid living in the slums whose parents were also raised in the slums?

I think if my family moved to the slums, my kids would be more likely to succeed than most of the other kids living there. But my kids would be less likely to succeed in the slums than in our current living conditions.

 

[Sweet J]

Oh, then I don't agree. If my kids lived in the slums their lives would be impacted significantly.

I intentionally didn't refer to their current lives, which I agree would change. I was referring to their "future." And yes, I know that every change we make now has an effect down the road. If you lived in New York and moved to california, obviously it changes their "future." I mean opportunities. Sure, it may make the difference between Ivy league and public school. But do you really think your kids would be that much worse off? More importantly, do you disagree that your kids have a better chance of "succeeding" than a kid living in the slums whose parents were also raised in the slums?

I think if my family moved to the slums, my kids would be more likely to succeed than most of the other kids living there. But my kids would be less likely to succeed in the slums than in our current living conditions.

fair enough

 

[eoMMan]

$245,000 to raise a kid now....not including college costs...YIKES.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/18/pf/child-cost/index.html?iid=HP_LN

 

[Clown Car]

So 245,000 for 0-18? That means about $13,500 per year. X9 for us is $143,000 a year just to take care of kids needs. Hogwash.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

So 245,000 for 0-18? That means about $13,500 per year. X9 for us is $143,000 a year just to take care of kids needs. Hogwash.

I'm sure that there are economies of scale.

Daycare is probably the biggest cost driver. It could easily be $10K per year at the younger ages.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Here is the calculator: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/tools/CRC_Calculator/default.aspx

And here is my breakdown:

Housing: $6050

Food: $3250

Transportation: $2338

Clothing: $1,025

Health Care: $1,200

ChildCare/Education: $4113

Other: $1438

Certainly housing and transportation will be easily scaled down for additional children.