If you're new here, you may want to learn what this site is about. I encourage you to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
This guest post is from Nickel, author of Raising4Boys.com and FiveCentNickel.
I recently received an e-mail from a reader asking about the “real” cost of raising kids. In short, she’s heard a lot about the high cost of raising kids, and was wondering if it’s really as bad as people make it out to be. More than anything, this question seemed to have been born out of angst over what it takes to be financially “ready” to start a family.
To be honest, I’ve never really kept tabs on exactly how much having kids has added to our expenses. My wife and I are, however, in the relatively unique position of having four kids (all boys). Thus, I thought I’d share some insights gleaned from our experiences with starting a family on a shoestring.
First, a bit of background so you’ll have an idea of where I’m coming from…
We had Son #1 (currently nine years old) when I was in graduate school and my wife was working full time. We never really considered daycare to be an option so, when he was born, my wife scaled back to half-time and we made do on her half-time salary (plus benefits) and my stipend. That meant roughly $27k in gross income and splitting shifts such that one of us was available to care for our son at all times. My wife worked early mornings while I was at home, and then shortly before lunch we swapped out so I could do my thing while she was at home. I came home late in the evening, and the next day we would start all over again.
After graduate school, we moved, I took a new job, and we added Sons #2 and #3 (currently seven and five years old). During that time, my salary was in the $25k-$35k
range and my wife started staying home full time, which she still does to this day. While we weren’t making much more than our previous combined income, we felt like we were living large because we could afford to have her stay home full time.
After about three years, I was offered a job that represented a big professional step forward and which also roughly doubled my income. We moved, bought a house, and not too long thereafter we added Son #4 (currently two years old). Finally, a bit over a year ago, we moved yet again. Once again, this was a totally voluntary move that resulted in a new (and better) job along with a nearly 50% raise.
As you can see, we’ve faced fewer and fewer financial constraints over the years. In fact, we now have our feet squarely beneath us, and are in a position to face pretty much whatever comes our way. Nonetheless, things were very tight when we first decided to start a family. So… How did we make this all work, especially back in the early days?
We kept our living expenses really low. Perhaps the biggest thing we did in this vein was to live in university-owned family housing when we were just starting our family. It was no great shakes, but… Where some some people saw tiny apartments with cinderblock walls, we saw home. It was an incredibly convenient location on the edge of campus that allowed us to walk and/or bus to a lot of places, and since we didn’t have much space, we didn’t have to pay much to heat or cool it, and we also couldn’t buy a lot of extraneous stuff.
We avoided childcare. As I noted above, we never really considered childcare to be an option. This wasn’t really a financial decision, but it had a nice financial side effect… Since neither one of us was making very much money, putting our son in childcare would’ve been a major financial hit. While I realize that childcare is unavoidable in many cases, we were fortunate enough to be able to work around it. Sure, our non-overlapping work hours meant that my wife and I had to sacrifice in terms of time together, but we made it work.
We didn’t break our budget buying baby stuff. Rather, we combed the flea market and local garage sales for barely worn bargains. And no, we weren’t scraping the bottom of the barrel — this was nice stuff. Nicer, in fact, than we would’ve been able to buy if we had bought everything new. And since babies rarely wear things out, our flea-market finds later became hand-me-downs. In many cases, we threw down pocket change in return for nearly-new, high quality, name brand outfits that survived all four of our boys. We even found a barely used crib in the classified ads that served us well through all four kids, and which we were ultimately able to sell for nearly as much as we paid for it.
We minimized our medical expenses. When Son #1 was born, our health insurance provided a stipend for well-child care. The good news is that there was no deducibtle and no co-payments. The bad news was that it was a fairly limited amount of money, and once it was spent you were on your own for the rest of the year. There was more than enough to cover the regular well-baby appointments, but vaccinations were an entirely different ballgame. Had we opted to have our son vaccinated by the pediatrician, we would’ve blown through our well-child funds in no time. Instead, we got the orders from the pediatrician and then headed for the county health department. The beauty of the health department was that they offered a veritable buffet of vaccines for one low price. For $20 you could get all the shots you needed in a single visit.
We made smart choices when it came to routine baby expenses. For example, my wife breast fed all of our kids for at least a year. Not only does this save you a good bit of money on formula, but there are numerous health benefits, as well. And on those rare occasions where we needed to buy formula, we went with Parent’s Choice (the Wal-Mart brand, which is every bit as good as Similac and Enfamil). Similarly, we tried various brands and quickly came to realize that Sam’s Club diapers worked every bit as well as name brand diapers. Sure, there were stages that each of our kids went through where a generic diaper couldn’t “contain” them. But for the most part, the Sam’s version worked great and saved us a ton of money. Of course, we probably could’ve saved even more by using cloth diapers, but we didn’t have convenient laundry facilities, nor did we have the inclination to take it that far.
We steered clear of debt. Debt’s a funny thing in that it’s both a byproduct of and a contributor to living beyond your means. Since we lived a relatively frugal lifestyle early on (and continue to do so to a point), we were able to stay out of debt, and thus never faced the attendant finance charges, late fees, etc. In fact, aside from our mortgage, we’ve never carried any debt. How? Simple… If we couldn’t afford to pay for something, we didn’t buy it. Beyond the financial savings, this also saved us an awful lot of stress.
The bottom line here is that it is possible to start a family without breaking the bank. In fact, if you were to wait until you’re financially “ready” to have kids, complete with all the trappings that new parents often view as absolute necessities, you’d probably never start a family.


July 17th, 2007 at 5:25 am
My wife and I don’t have kids yet, but we’ve talked about doing the cloth diaper thing. When we mention the idea to people, they assume it’s environmentally motivated (we live in Seattle, where it will soon be illegal not to recycle table scraps).
Really it’s just because I’m a cheapskate :^) Yeah, saving the planet is nice and all, but saving my money has a more immediate impact on me. It’s a happy coincidence that the two seem to often intersect for us.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:47 am
I loved this article. I’m getting Married in a few weeks and while we don’t plan on having kids for several years, I am going to bookmark this and I’ll be calling you when it does happen
July 17th, 2007 at 5:49 am
We cloth diapered our son for a while. It really wasn’t much more difficult than disposables, and it did save a lot of money.
You have some great information here. We used did a lot of the same things when our children were born. You don’t need a lot of shiny new things to have kids. Kids aren’t going to remember all the “stuff” parents buy for them. They’re going to remember the way they were loved.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:49 am
Tim,
Some of my old friends think I’ve gone green because I suddenly grew to care for the environment. I didn’t. I still only really care about the green in my wallet, but darn if that green and the earth’s green don’t go well together.
July 17th, 2007 at 5:54 am
Hi all… Glad you’re enjoying the article.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Personally, I believe that your priorities will change to accomodate any financial changes involved in having kids. It will have more of an impact on your time than on your money.
If you are unwilling to give up your time or money in order to raise children, then you may need to re-evaluate your priorities and/or situation.
The big thing is to not let kids be your excuse to bury yourself in debt. I know you’ll always provide everything they need.
Lynnae is right, the love you give them will make more of an impact in their lives than any “stuff” you can give them.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:10 am
I’m interested in both protecting the environment *and* saving money. I stopped buying disposible feminine “hygiene products” & went to non-disposibles instead because I was tired of throwing money away. Similarly, I see no reason to throw money away on disposible diapers & baby formula, if you don’t have to.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:15 am
We avoided childcare. As I noted above, we never really considered childcare to be an option. This wasn’t really a financial decision, but it had a nice financial side effect… Since neither one of us was making very much money, putting our son in childcare would’ve been a major financial hit. While I realize that childcare is unavoidable in many cases, we were fortunate enough to be able to work around it. Sure, our non-overlapping work hours meant that my wife and I had to sacrifice in terms of time together, but we made it work.
While this may have worked well for your family, pushing this as sound financial advice is misleading. Your wife’s pay may or may not have covered the daycare at the time, but as her salary grew it would be increasingly likely that it did with money to spare. As a result, today you are missing the lost opportunity cost for all the money that she could have earned.
You made this as a personal decision to spend time with your children, but eliminating one income (and income growth of the years) worth of income wasn’t a good financial decision.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Does avoiding childcare really save money?
Unless the lower paid of the couple don’t make enough money to cover the costs of childcare and working, it wouldn’t actually save any money to not have childcare. Or am I missing something?
July 17th, 2007 at 6:31 am
Someone offered a folksy adage on this issue in the blog iMomus. When he was concerned about the expense of a child, they said: “just toss an extra potato in the pot.”
July 17th, 2007 at 6:51 am
These are all really good tips, but I felt that you kind of glossed over the childcare part. You and your wife are extremely fortunate (moreso than I think you realize) to have been able to avoid that issue entirely. Where I live your basic, professional but not fancy childcare facility will run you an average of $1000 / month for an infant, and that number decreases only a tiny bit as the child ages. That’s $12,000 *per year* — $60,000 overall until the child reaches school-age — that a person in this area has to come up with, assuming you don’t have the benefit of a wealthy husband or local relatives.
As a professional woman, having a child will effectively mean taking an immediate 25% pay cut, and that’s without including any of the other associated costs, like the significant bump up in healthcare premiums, various expenses, etc. Of course, that’s still better than cutting our overall household income in half, which is what would happen if I or my husband decided to become a stay-at-home parent.
We have a mortgage. We have significant student loans (my husband got a professional degree) that we pay as much as we can, but will be with us for a while. We don’t live beyond our means. We share one car, but we still have a car payment. Adding $1000+ to our monthly expenses is nothing short of terrifying, because it effectively will more than eliminate our surplus cushion and negate any savings plan we have going on now.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Our 6 month old daughter has cost us very little extra money. She has been exclusively breast fed up until recently when we started feeding her solid foods — banana, avocado, oatmeal, peas, etc. All are pureed or chop very finely. We are not interested in buying formula or commercial baby foods.
We have also cloth diapered her and this has turned out to be very easy. We have a high efficiency washer and dryer and use the sun to dry and bleach the diapers whenever possible.
These two items alone have already saved us over $1000 by my estimates.
We also bought a large amount of toys — all for
July 17th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Amen to not getting childcare. Most studies show that the cost of childcare is often not worth it. It usually ends up that the parent working to pay for childcare doesn’t actually increase the income of the household, spending all of the money on the childcare and getting to and from the new job. Given that you’re barely breaking even, it seems worth it to just stay home with the kids.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:38 am
These is a great perspective, but of course the biggest expense of kids is college, and with all due respect, you’re not there yet. Also you are blessed with healthy, high-functioning kids, something about which there is no guarantee. This is a scary country in which to have kids with special needs.
Also, you didn’t mention where they go to school. Many people resort to private school when they see what the public schools are like where they live, even ones which are highly rated. For four kids, that would really break the bank.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Great article. I see families with no income raising kids just fine. Where I grew up, some families had literally zero income, and still managed to raise their kids.
I have an NCO (sergeant) that works for me with 6 kids, and makes maybe 35-37k/year. They do fine on his income, and still are able to save for retirement while she stays home. It can be done.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:02 am
This was a good perspective on the issue. I have no intention to test it out anytime soon, but it is reassuring instead of hearing “KIDS COST 7 BAJILLION DOLLARS” that gets thrown around.
I have an NCO (sergeant) that works for me with 6 kids, and makes maybe 35-37k/year. They do fine on his income, and still are able to save for retirement while she stays home. It can be done.
To be perfectly fair, living in base housing, having easy access to schools (elementary at the minimum), having (usually) all inclusive/no hassle insurance for his family at rock bottom costs, and having access to the commissary and the exchange is all unaccounted for in the total salary. Those provide HUGE benefits that aren’t always accounted for. But I agree with the point, it can absolutely be done. And often that lifestyle is additionally cost saving by nature.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Plonkee: There are a number of factors to consider… At face value, if the parent that would otherwise stay at home earns more (after taxes, of course) then there’s a net financial benefit to childcare (although it might be rather small in some cases). However, you also have to factor in the costs of commuting (perhaps the addition of a car, additional mileage, etc.) as well as other miscellaneous costs associated with working (e.g., specific wardrobe requirements). In our case, we were able to drop from two cars to one, spend less on gas, have only one car insurance bill, not have to buy specific “work” clothes for one of us, etc.
There are also more nebulous issues, such as illness. For awhile, my wife worked part-time in the YMCA childcare which earned us a free membership plus some extra cash. She was able to take the boys with her, but while she was doing this they had a much higher frequency of illness (colds that turned into ear infections, etc.) and the additional medical co-pays, antibiotics for the ear infections, etc., when combined with the cost of driving in and out each day, cost more than we were receving in return (wages + free membership).
July 17th, 2007 at 8:11 am
It works great, I think when there are two adults in the family. The point where kids start to really cause problems with your finances is when you are a single head of household. At that point, you don’t get to have one person stay home while the other works. Convenience items become more important because the mother or father does not have additional time to spend preparing home-made baby food or washing cloth diapers. If you’ve got two or three kids in a single head of household home, God bless you. You sure need additional help. Daycare is a must if you want to work and it often comes at a premium. So, the best thing you can do to stay financially stable when you have kids is to stay married and keep some skills in case you need to go back to work. If your marriage is on the rocks, don’t think having kids will solve the problems. At times, it can increase them and if you split, one of you lives in poverty for several years while the kids grow up.
The point of this story is that the husband continued to increase his marketable skills while his wife now has zero. I don’t think it’s ever a good idea to sacrifice your money-making abilities for the sake of the children. There may come a time when that’s all they got to feed them. The guy wrote this post, but he hasn’t taken into account the potential for a divorce (which half of people who are married face) or his death. It’s not enough to say:”Let him or her stay home and you can make it financially for your kids.” You have to also include advice on how that spouse and children will survive should a divorce or death happen.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Anon,
I am assuming this family has life insurance, so that should help in case of the breadwinner’s death.
It could be the case that the husband and wife have committed to each other “until death” and in their minds, divorce is not an option. It is definitely that way in my marriage. I am working, with 1 child in daycare, and 1 on the way, but when the day comes that my husband earns enough for me to stay home, I will gladly leave my job and stay home with my kids.
I find it odd that you refer to “divorce” happening to the couple, as if they have no control over it.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:54 am
My wife and I recently started our family and she is now staying home. We can afford to live on one income, but to help out a little she is going to provide daycare for one child on a part-time basis. This won’t make a ton of money, but it should help!
July 17th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Wow, Anon, you sure paint with broad brush strokes. In reality, my wife has plenty of marketable skills (you made your statements with no idea as to her educational background) and may be heading back into the workforce when our youngest hit school age (we still haven’t made any decisions one way or the other on this).
You also say that I haven’t taken into account divorce or my death. One thing to keep in mind is that broad statistics such as a 50% overall divorce rate are only applicable to large population samples. The actual likelihood of divorce varies from couple to couple and, well, you’ll just have to judge your own comfort level when it comes to that. As for death, you have no idea the lengths we’ve gone to to protect our family in the event that either one of us dies. We both have ample insurance — don’t forget that the death of a stay-at-home parent is a huge financial liability — as well as a well thought out estate plan.
I do, however, agree that all of this is much easier in a two-parent household.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:00 am
@five cent nickel
I hadn’t thought of the cost of illnesses and so on (clearly I don’t have children). I still think that not using childcare doesn’t have a big impact financially - whether it impacts in other ways is a separate discussion.
@Anon (comment 12)
I think you raise a good point, especially regarding the career of the stay at home parent. I reckon nickel has a death plan (that sounds ridiculously ominous) sorted out but if not it certainly needs doing.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:11 am
We’ve got 2 kids (3 and 6 years old) and our financial story is pretty similar. It is possible to live within your means with kids!
I can count on the fingers of my hands the number of garments–excluding socks and underwear–that have been bought new for my kids. More than once I have bought a year’s worth of clothes for both kids for less than $50 at Value Village’s half-price sale.
We did a fair bit of cloth diapering, and it is less expensive than disposables in the long run, but there’s a whole lot of YMMV in how things go with diapers. My first kid would wake up when her cloth diaper got soaked, but not if she wet in a disposable. Was it worth it to spend the extra bucks to sleep through the night? You bet!!
Some expenses do arise despite your well-laid plans. Breastfeeding is terrific, but my first wouldn’t nurse for love or money. I pumped for 10 months and we needed to supplement with formula too. You can’t return the baby to the store for a refund, so you do what you need to do.
My husband and I have fairly flexible jobs that have let us minimize daycare enrollment (and costs). We have both chosen less-ambitious, and less-well-rewarded, career paths in order to be able to both fully engage as parents. I’m with Anon that there are risks beyond dollars-and-cents returns when one parent–most often but not always the mother–totally drops out of the workforce. Our family finances (and much more!) would take a big hit if one parent were to die, disappear, or become incapacitated, but we wouldn’t be totally at sea.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:13 am
I should add that I agree with Anon’s assertion that these other topics (”death plans” as plonkee put it, and so on) would be good fodder to write about, but they’re only tangentially related to what I was tacking here. Keep an eye out over at Raising4Boys, as I’ll try to put something together sometime soon.
@plonkee: I think people should actually turn the question around and ask if working whilst putting kids in daycare has a big financial upside. In many cases it does, but in others cases it’s nearly a push, and in some cases it’s actually a detriment but people don’t even know it. Their check is perhaps somewhat bigger than their daycare bill, but when you subtract out all the other costs, you move into negative territory.
There are also less directly related things that this impacts. For example, my guess is that two-career families often rely much more heavily on convenience products (especially in the realm of food), dining out, etc. This should all be accounted for in the net benefit calculation, but it seems that these sorts of things would be really difficult to tease apart and quantify.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:15 am
I may be pointing people toward this article when they say that kids aren’t always expensive if you’re responsible. A lot of the money-saving things are good, common sense tips– garage sale baby clothes, hand-me-downs, cheap diapers as long as they’re actually good– but things like housing and vaccinations are things someone else paid for. I’m all in favor of being able to take kids to the county health department for cheaper vaccinations because it’s responsible on a lot of levels.
As far as the wife staying home, that’s probably not going to be an option for me. If my husband (hypothetical) and I have the same job and the same qualifications, I’ll make less money (many employers assume women will leave to stay home with kids). I’m not a stay-at-home person. Even if I ‘only’ break even working and putting my entire salary toward daycare (why is it always the woman’s entire salary we compare? Why not combine it with the man’s and treat the couple as a unit?) it’d be best for me to be out of the house.
Which is a sort of tangential roundabout way of saying good post, good ideas, tripped the classism/feminism wires in my brain.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:18 am
@MoneyChangesThings: Our kids go to public schools. That was actually a consideration when choosing our current home. Along with the positive career move and additional salary, we moved to an area with fantastic schools. As an aside, if you have kids, it’s often more economical to pay a bit more to live in a better school district than it is to buy a house in a cheaper area and then end up having to go the private school route.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Oh, and as for college, this article is about *starting* a family. Yes, college is a major expense, but you also have 18 years to prepare for it. Moreover, not everyone feels the need to pay for their kids’ college (we almost certainly will, as long as they’re applying themselves, but others don’t).
July 17th, 2007 at 9:36 am
I think an ideal scenario would allow both partners work at least a little, to keep their respective toes in their chosen career fields, and also because I think it’s a wonderful thing when each parent is fully able to take care of the kids independently.
My mom always said, there’s no convenient time to get pregnant, and you’ll never be fully ready. I think she was right, though I haven’t put it to the test myself!
July 17th, 2007 at 9:38 am
“While I realize that childcare is unavoidable in many cases, we were fortunate enough to be able to work around it.” - is an attitude you should consider adjusting; it’s inflammatory and ignorant of other well-qualified thoughts on the subject. Of course everyone has an opinion on the subject, and as many of the commenters have stated, the solution depends on the situation. Money factors aside, statistics have shown that kids do just as well in good childcare settings as they do in good homes. A book that addresses this question well:
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Going-There-Brain-Develop/dp/0553378252/
And some extremely interesting peripheral knowledge on the subject in Freakonomics. It addresses questions like, will moving to a better school district increase my child’s chance of success in life?
http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0739462563
July 17th, 2007 at 10:00 am
This is an excellent article that is just reassuring for someone who is about to have his first child.
However, I do have to agree with the last comment. Although, having a spouse stay at home might make sense short term, losing marketable skills is too big of a risk that I would never subject my wife to. What happens when the bread winner can no longer work or die?
July 17th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Beth, it’s been suggested that career-relevant volunteering (someone who works in construction preparing renovation budgets for a local not-for-profit, for example) can help that ease back in to the workforce after more than a minimal period at home with children, because Anon is right, it is genuinely difficult for a lot of at-home parents (usually women) to get back in, and certainly to get back in at a comparative salary. It’s not always easy to get that holy grail of part-time work either, I have a couple of friends who tried and eventually had to go back full time.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:03 am
My parents struggled with this when I was born, but once my brother came along my mom decided to stay instead of keeping the baby sitter. When they worked it out she only made $6000 more per year and she didn’t think it was worth 40 hours a week to essentially make $6000. She maintained her license (nutritionist) and was able to work on projects from home as she liked, and once we were both in middle school she was able to go back to work.
It still is a personal decision and it really depends on your view point and situation. I think the takeway is to really evaluate your situation and priorities and see what option works best for you.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I worry about your wife. She has no career to speak of, no contributions to social security or 401K that are hers alone, and she has invested a lot of time into your career, that should you leave for a newer model or die, would be worthless to her. I think you didn’t cover any of the non-monetary benefits of going with childcare, such as the security a dual income offers if something happens to one of the earners, future earning potential etc. These things cannot be ignored so blithely as you have done here.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Good stuff and I think its important to realize that kids are not as expensive as most are lead to believe, assuming that you have good health insurance and child care options (which is sounds like you do). We recently visited with friends who just had a baby and they were telling us that they had hardly spent a dime b/c of gifts from friends and family, they are breastfeeding the baby (or the mom is) and her parents are watching the baby when she is at work.
I read another intersting article from MSNBC money about stay at home moms who were having a very difficult time rentering the workforce (one was recently divorced and one’s husband had recently died). I think its great for moms (and for dads) to stay home with the baby/kid if that’s what they want to do but I think especially women run a risk that they are going to be in a situation where they need to support themselves and their children and might have trouble due to the time away from work.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Excellent post, and timely!
Even less expensive than cloth diapers is raising your child diaper-free.
Check out http://www.diaperfreebaby.org/ for information on a trend that saves you money and brings your family closer together at the same time.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Re: Stacy
The entire “dual income = financial security” is pure propaganda. When you have two incomes, do you put one spouse’s income into savings in case of emergency or need, or do you live on both incomes? It’s human nature to do the latter.
Then, if one spouse cannot work, you’re stuck with one income and no way to make up the difference because the other spouse is already working. Whereas if there is only one breadwinner, and something happens where he/she cannot work, the other parent can step-up and fill the gap.
Also, on a side note, his wife does have a career. She’s raising their children, caring for their home, and supporting the family in countless ways. You say the author should have mentioned the financial benefits of having the kids in childcare. Well, what about the benefits having the mother at home? Don’t you think supporting and caring for her husband makes him happier and more productive at work? Which means more financial security. What about her having more time and experience to make better day-to-day financial decisions? Or cooking meals on a daily basis instead of ordering out several nights a week?
Sorry, but the entire “mom working = more financial security” propaganda is just that…propaganda.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
While it sounds nice to postpone having a family until you’ve got all your ducks in a row, as someone else mentioned, you’ll never feel ‘ready’ and there will always be one more reason to put off making that baby. It would have been nice if our finances had been in better shape when we learned we were pregnant, but really, for us the pregnancy itself was the catalyst to get ourselves in order. I don’t think we would have been as motivated to take the steps we did (ambitious debt repayment, building a savings buffer, cutting back on frills and tracking expenses) if we didn’t have a deadline for when our income would be reduced for the maternity leave. With concrete goals and a hard deadline, we were really able to knuckle down and do what needed to be done. We were lucky: my husband’s sister had a baby boy six months before we did, and since she’s done making babies we’ve gotten all her hand-me-downs. We also had great family support purchasing big-ticket items like the crib and stroller. I have been surprised at how much we spend on diapers, and just how often they need changing! You look at those big megapacks and think, how will that tiny baby use all those? Well, they do and more! As for breastfeeding, don’t forget to factor in the cost of nursing bras (they need to be changed more frequently than your regular bras due to leaks, so you’ll need more. Also, you may need to try a few styles to see which ones fit best and are easiest to hook & unhook). Also, breast pads. I didn’t realize how much milk you leak in the beginning. While you can use washable pads, they are much bulkier than disposables. This is another product you’ll be buying again and again, trying to find the best one for you (the least noticeable under clothes). You may also find you need to buy new clothes - I discovered that many of my pre-pregnancy shirts just didn’t fit my bigger breasts, or didn’t work well for breastfeeding (if they’re too fitted, it’ll be more awkward to feed in public, and will also show more skin). You’ll also go through many more tops than you’re used to, due to baby pee, spit-up and milk leaks. Ditto for pyjamas. Nursing tops are pricey and for the most part, ugly, so you’ll have to shop around if you want more discreet coverage when feeding in public. Even if you can buy some of these items used, they still need to be budgeted for. Breastfeeding is still cheaper than formula-feeding, but it’s not without cost.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I urge you to read “The Feminine Mistake” if you think stay at home motherhood is a remunerative career option that will lead to financial security should her husband die, become disabled, or leave her. Most women find it extremely difficult to re-enter the workforce after absences as short as two years. It sounds like this woman has been out for 8-10 years. And you expect her to jump back in somewhere near his pay scale if he for some reason either can’t or won’t provide? Career = independence and options. Relying on someone else to provide is purely a dependent lifestyle. There is no way around it. Depending on someone else to provide for you is not the way to make sure you and your children are always taken care of. It might seem like the best option now, but unless they’ve over-prepared for every possible disaster this could turn into a very, very sad story.
I urge everyone to read this gut-wrenching account of a woman who made it her life’s work to stay-at-home motherhood, only to change her mind when fate came knocking:
http://tinyurl.com/232qg9
“In the continuing case of Full-Time Homemaker vs. Working Mother, I offer myself as Exhibit A. Because more than a quarter-century ago I wrote an Op-Ed article for The New York Times on the satisfaction of being a full-time housewife in the new age of the liberated woman. I wrote it from my heart, thoroughly convinced that homemaking and raising my children was the most challenging and rewarding job I could ever want.”
July 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
re:Jenn
“Don’t you think supporting and caring for her husband makes him happier and more productive at work? Which means more financial security.”
This was exactly my point in the first post I made. She’s contributing to his career in all these ways you mentioned, but if he leaves her that career belongs to him NOT her. If he dies, that career is gone. If he can no longer work, again, her efforts vanish into thin air. How is that financial security? Putting all your eggs in one basket is nearly the definition of financial insecurity.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Re: Stacy
“I urge you to read “The Feminine Mistake” if you think stay at home motherhood is a remunerative career option that will lead to financial security should her husband die, become disabled, or leave her.”
I did not mention this in my previous comment, but it should go without saying that if one spouse is going to be the breadwinner, then there needs to be an adequate emergency fund, disability insurance, and life insurance, etc. In other words, solid financial and emergency planning can meet and/or supplement financial needs that arise if something happens to the breadwinner.
No, it not easy for a woman to re-enter the workforce after a certain period of time. However, if the husband cannot work, then at least she is *able* to work somewhere to help supplement disability, etc. And at that point, it’s about making ends meet–not matching her income or working in the same career from before.
Like a lot of women today, your thoughts center around the idea of not being dependent. The problem is, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t stay at home, living a supportive role, and expect to be equal with your husband as far as career and income. And the modern feminists have brain-washed society into thinking that giving up our jobs and equal career footing is the end of all. So they spout things about the safety-net of a two-income family, etc.
Well, the two-income family is only a newer occurrence. So if having one income means sure doom, how did our parents and grandparents survive? Simple. They practiced solid financial planning. (And there was also a wider sense of community to help in times of crisis, but that’s another topic.)
My point is,
July 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Whoops. I hit the submit button by mistake.
Anyway, I was going to say that the point is that you can be financially secure on one income if something happens to the breadwinner. It just takes planning.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
“This was exactly my point in the first post I made. She’s contributing to his career in all these ways you mentioned, but if he leaves her that career belongs to him NOT her. If he dies, that career is gone. If he can no longer work, again, her efforts vanish into thin air. How is that financial security? Putting all your eggs in one basket is nearly the definition of financial insecurity.”
Again, it’s called financial planning. You don’t count on him living until he’s 90. You make sure there are things in place to ensure you can make ends meet if something were to happen to him.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Oh, wouldn’t you just know it, that we’d break out in another skirmish of the Mommy Wars? Sigh.
Jenn @ 40 says, “The problem is, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t stay at home, living a supportive role, and expect to be equal with your husband as far as career and income.” Um, that is exactly what the people you’re arguing against are saying…
The GRS philosopy is more or less “do what works for you”. Each family is going to have to make their own choices, based on their individual circumstances, of how to navigate the tricky business of family finances when starting a family. No one can know ahead of time how it all will play out in the end, and most people just do the best they can given the present circumstances. Let’s all wish each other the best and give each other the benefit of the doubt.
July 17th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Re: Stacy and Jen’s dialog -
I can see both your view points. Without siding in one direction or the other, let me share where I’ve landed.
I’m married and have a one year old son. I decided I wanted to stay at home with our son, but 4 months into Mommyhood, I found myself wanting mental stimulation beyond parenting books, and my family/friends circle. So, I started free-lancing utilizing my writing and web skills. This has kept me content, and boosted my confidence for re-entering the work place in the future as I’m keeping my skills up to date. The additional income (though far below full time work), is very helpful.
I think good financial planning and a positive attitude toward marriage are far to scarce.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
p.s. Yes, I’m able to be a Stay-At-Home-Mom while free-lancing.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Good article overall.
I did find the “staying at home is best for the kids, and usually financially as well!” assumption a bit irksome (its a personal choice each family will have to make on their own, with a lot of factors to consider!)
Once the kids are in school, then I don’t see how it can make *financial* sense to stay home (but perhaps there would be other reasons)
The tips are great, I’m far from kids, but it is nice to have encouragement that while things will change, I will be ok!
July 17th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I guess I’m not sick of the mommy wars yet, as it’s an entirely new topic for me.
On the subject of financial planning for stay at home mothers, how exactly does one financially plan for a divorce? Of course we have pre-nups, but most young couples don’t bother. And I can almost guarantee the fivecentnickel and his wife didn’t bother with one. What his wife recieves in child support/alimony will be left to the discretion of a judge and, having recently witnessed the antics of the family judge presiding over the Anna Nicole Smith/custody trial, I’d prefer to take care of myself rather than hope some stranger will have my best financial interests at heart. Typically divorce is far harder financially on the wife than the husband. Is this because women tend to make less money than men? Absolutely. Women should take a more active role in their financial security- no one else is going to make up the difference for them after a divorce. Children of divorced parents are more than twice as likely to fall into poverty, usually because they live in a home headed by a single woman who no doubt didn’t put in the effort to make sure she could financially support herself and her children in the event of a divorce. To say that giving up your ability to take care yourself is a valid choice is ridiculous. To say that dependence on another for your well-being is a valid choice is ridiculous. It’s entirely invalid to purposefully put yourself and your children at risk of poverty.
In reference to the article I posted earlier, that stay at home wife was left totally unprotected when her husband divorced her, and the judge told her to get job training at 67. She assumed the courts would treat her fairly in the event of a divorce. No thanks. I’ll make sure I can support myself and my children every step of the way.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I’m not sure that modern women who stay home abandon their careers. For the women who stayed home in the 50s, college was a rare thing. If women did go to college, they dropped out half-way through or barely graduated before getting married. They had no work experience. Most had babies (and lots of them) pretty soon after getting married — often less than 40 weeks later.
For women in the 60s/70s, education was much more common. More women attended college, but a huge number dropped out to get married and many more got married right after graduating or perhaps a year or two later. Birth control was just coming on to the scene and many women had babies pretty soon after getting married. Women got married much earlier than they did now. When those women went to rejoin the workforce, the computer revolution had also hit.
Times have changed. Women are now having babies in their late 20s and 30s. By then, most have finished with college, gained solid work experience, established some savings and so on. Most women keep up their computer skills — just witness the success of Flickr, Facebook and so on. Distance education is far more common. And most of the women who do stay at home aren’t dropping out for 18 years like the women in the 50s. Moreover, many, many women who stay at home have planned their careers and their later workforce re-entry. There are far more resources available to help them. And, where I live, all assets accumulated during a marriage are common. If your husband leaves you, you’re entitled to half the retirement savings / pension contributions he made during the marriage and so on. If you get divorced, spousal support may be awarded to compensate the woman for the time needed to re-enter the workforce.
Furthermore, most women who stay at home continue working on their careers. I don’t know anyone who’s at home for a few years and NOT running a small business, working part-time, taking courses or otherwise managing their career.
Taking time out to raise children is a personal choice. But it doesn’t have to mean a death sentence for career or financial success. In fact, many of the skills gained in running a single income household build a foundation for future financial success.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I’ll definitely grant you that last paragraph, Andrea. Live within (or below) your means on one income, and your family will be in good shape when you start bringing in a second.
The “home for a few years” idea presumes that you’ve got one kid, or two closely spaced. (My brain started to smoke imagining running a small business with two toddlers underfoot…)
But in 5centnickel’s case, there is a 7-year gap between oldest and youngest. That’s 12 years from the birth of the eldest until the youngest hits kindergarten…approximately 1/6th of a person’s total lifespan, or something like a quarter of a person’s adult working life, HS graduation to approximate age of retirement.
Something to think about.
July 17th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
When I say “home for a few years”, I don’t mean 2 or 3 years. I’m talking about being home for 7 years or so — the amount of time needed to get two kids into kindergarten. (Most people don’t have four kids, but I’m sure Nickel and partner have worked this out.)
As for running a small business with two kids, I don’t think it’s going to be brutal. I’ve managed very well with one child up till now and I’ve got another on the way in a less than 3 months. Even if I earn half what I’m earning now, I’ll still be on par with what I’d earn in the f/t office workforce. Heck, given the costs of childcare, transportation and other conveniences needed to support two parents working f/t outside the home, even someone earning $200 a month is on par with someone earning $70k a year, where I live. And I expect to be earning a heck of a lot more than $200 a month.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
When we start having children, I’ll likely choose to stay home over further advancing my career, which I’ve worked hard at achieving for several years. I’ll choose to raise children and create a loving home environment rather than have career satisfaction, nicer and more stuff, a bigger house, etc. For those of us who choose that path, it’s essential to make sacrifices and learn to be somewhat of a home economist - find ways to cut costs, learn how to make minor home repairs, make meals from scratch, etc. If you’re someone who’s really dedicated to that goal, it’s absolutely possible on one modest salary. Also, the possibility of a sole breadwinner’s death or disability shouldn’t force both partners to work outside the home; it should inspire them to get plenty of life and disability insurance, which is both affordable and a necessity. And choosing a responsible and moral person on whom you can depend as a spouse is a woman’s best way to retain security and her best defense against divorce. Finally, there may never be a “perfect” time to get pregnant, but some times certainly are better than others. There are simple ways to try to plan for having a family, such as getting rid of debt, reaching academic goals, getting set in a career and agreeing with your spouse on a standard of living before kids come along.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Fascinating discussion. As another data point I’d like to add some to my post above. My wife is a Professional Engineer — she sat through an 8 hour exam to get a license to approve blueprints, etc. for construction and other civil engineering projects. She now has a complete home office and continues to do this work, a couple of hours at a time, on a 20 hour per week basis. She changed jobs during her maternity leave and actually earns more per hour PLUS benefits than she did at her prior job. I would say that she is well qualified to return to the workforce — should she ever choose to do so — and will be for some time to come.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
I’ve been a stay-at-home mother of four since my first baby was born (now ages 19, 17, 14 and 5). I have a college degree and worked as a teacher in a high-quality university-based daycare center before having children - that’s when I knew I wanted to stay home with my own kids. First, I love kids (or I wouldn’t have 4) and my family is my life passion - I’ve made it a wonderfully fulfilling, challenging and creative life choice. I can’t imagine staying in the working world just to have a back-up plan in case of divorce, when my life calling is at home.
Second, no matter how good the daycare provider is, no one will ever love your child as much as you do. Parenthood is the one job on the planet where the worker (parent) can’t be replaced by someone else. That said, I completely support a woman’s right to choose her destiny, including all the various work scenarios. Women won’t be free until all choices are respected, including full-time motherhood.
I don’t consider myself “dependent” on my husband - we work as a team. He earns the money, I keep it at home and manage our family and household. I understand that divorce can be financially devastating, but I refuse to live in fear of something that has very little probability of happening (we’ve been married 22 years and are having more fun than ever). Do people avoid flying because planes crash? We do have life insurance.
I’m not the only one at home - my husband is self-employed in a home office, and our kids are homeschooled (another option for high-quality education!). I could write a book about how frugality has helped us achieve our goals, but all that time together is also powerful - we have healthy relationships, a relaxed lifestyle and a zest for life. I would make all the same choices again.
July 17th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I agree with many of the posters here. It is a difficult issue that needs to be discussed in depth between couples, rather than choosing a short-term solution that may place the children at risk later.
I’ve been through a divorce and I can tell you that possession is 9/10th of the law. If you are facing a divorce, would you rather have $20,000 in your own retirement account that he has to sue you to get or would you rather have $20,000 in his account that you have to hire a lawyer to get a part of? Even if you live in a common law state what you get is not split 50/50. It’s what you negotiate or your lawyer does it for you. Either way, it will cost you money to get. Men get very clever when they are about to divorce too. They start to hide money, close accounts, and leave their wives high and dry even if they have kids! Some get nasty and trash an asset they have to give over so that it’s worthless. For sure, they will want you to take 50% of the debt, but when it comes to their assets, they will argue that you had nothing to do with their careers of 401Ks because you stayed home with the kids! And, a work history and good jobs are easier to get for young people than for old people with no skills.
The same goes for his death. Most men die much earlier than their spouses. If his assets are in his name only, you will spend a lot of money trying to get them and by then, you may have been forced to file for bankruptcy. Build up your own credit, your own bank account, your own work history, your own IRA, and that’s a bit more secure in the long run, because odds are as the women, you’ll end up with the kids who will be dependent on you to provide for them.
Personally, I think the poster with the engineer who is working part-time from home is the way to go. Set up a consulting or home business and make it profitable so that you always have your skills, in case something goes awry. And, set aside money in her retirement account too, not just his. This can be done through a bank.
I now have assets in my name, but there were times I thought I would go into bankruptcy. If I ever get remarried, I will insist on a prenuptial so that my child doesn’t get left penniless.
July 17th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
> I’ve been through a divorce and I can tell
> you that possession is 9/10th of the law.
Okay, perhaps that’s so where you live. I’ll accept that. What I do absolutely recommend is that women who stay at home (or anyone who’s the lower income spouse, really, regardless of sex or work status) require that their spouse contribute 50% of retirement contributions to their account. Even though I’m in a solid marriage, my husband and I split contributions. This means we each have equal amounts in our retirement savings and that we maximize the tax savings. (It depends on who’s in the higher tax bracket each year.)
> Men get very clever when they are about to
> divorce too. They start to hide money,
> close accounts, and leave their wives high
> and dry even if they have kids!
Both partners should have access to all financial records. The key here is to keep financial matters open. You should know how much your spouse earns, when, what assets you each have, etc.
(As for trashing assets…women can do that too. But having access to financial records can help you prove that.)
> they will argue that you had nothing to do
> with their careers of 401Ks because you
> stayed home with the kids!
The law is on the at home partner’s side where I live.
> And, a work history and good jobs are
> easier to get for young people than for
> old people with no skills.
I’m not sure what this (above) means.
> If his assets are in his name only, you
> will spend a lot of money trying to get
> them and by then, you may have been forced
> to file for bankruptcy.
Each spouse should be set as the beneficiary so that these things don’t have to go through probate. A will and estate laws also help tremendously.
> Build up your own credit, your own bank
> account, your own work history, your own
> IRA
Absolutely. But many people have already done this before they have kids, nowadays.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Both my wife and I are self employed. We make maybe $35-$45K between us a year, depending on the yearly fortunes and work (mostly, the wife does a craft market each Saturday) from home, with a 2 and a 4 year old.
While it can be difficult to juggle each of our work schedules, and the care of the kids, it works pretty well. The benefit to not having the kids in childcare is subjective, but we like having them watch us work and learn exactly where the money comes from, later they’ll contribute to our various businesses (such as helping at the weekly craft market).
We started off at a distinct financial disadvantage as we adopted both kids, but week to week they don’t seem to add much to our expenses as yet. The biggest hit, being self employed is health insurance. As others have said, thrift stores and yard sales have clothes, toys, etc in beautiful condition for pennies on the dollar.
We know many people raising kids on very little income (think hippies and neo-luddites) and it is very doable, you just don’t have all the stuff people think they need to have. We live a lifestyle that is luxurious by their standards, at least.
If you’re frugal, you’ll bring that frugality to childrearing.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
People are making a lot of assumptions about Nickel’s wife and her skill set. Having met him, he’s a reasonable guy and from reading his PFblog, I think he’s very concerned about his wife and their ability to provide for everyone should one of them pass on. Nickel is a big advocate of CYA and getting proper life insurance.
I’m not thrilled about the mommy war going on in the comments, but I will tell you what I know from working in childcare for three years at a private school. I’m not actually advocating either position, just making some other points to consider.
1) Childcare is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. Very few people make enough to afford what it really costs to have supervised care for children until 6pm daily. Even doctors and lawyers have a tough time of it. Sure it may be worthwhile for them because of the difference between the hourly rate they pay out vs what they bill, but it still takes a bite, even for the highest bracket Americans.
2) Kids do better when an adult pays attention to them. Period. End of story. There is nothing like a full-time caregiver. Sure it doesn’t have to be a parent, but go back to point #1. Childcare is extremely expensive. If you really want a full-time caregiver, sometimes the most affordable option is for someone to stay at home rather than daycare, a nanny or au pair. Not everyone wants their mother to live in and take care of their kids for them. I sure don’t. My mom is terrible with kids. (Laugh. That’s supposed to be funny, though sadly it’s true. My mom is awful with kids.)
3) No really, kids do better when someone pays attention to them. It’s very hard in a caregiving environment to pay full attention to every child, even with a parent at home. This is why middle children often feel neglected. Even then, the problem of caring for a child doesn’t really go away with a stay at home parent. What this means is that the quality of parenting is just as important when interacting with children as WHO is interacting with them. I’ve seen some totally kick ass parents who put their kids in childcare, but they were 100% with their kids when it was time to be with them. Those parents were amazing people and so were their kids.
4) I’ve heard of the Feminine Mistake book and was intrigued by its proposition. I understand the argument, but perhaps that is a pre-marriage issue to be considered when selecting a spouse and how your future is planned. No one goes into marriage planning on how they are going to get out of it. (The pre-nup planning is disgustingly pessimistic, though not without merit for those with serious assets to protect.) At least I hope they wouldn’t. The Feminine Mistake seems to be a warning for women, but like a previous commenter says, this blog is about doing what works for you, and maybe not everyone needs to worry about financial catastrophe if they are taking care of business from the Day 1 when they meet their future spouse. I’m just putting that out there. For people with fears of abandonment or lack of financial resources, something tells me they should work on that issue and do what works for them, but not be frightened into doing something they don’t want to do just because there’s a book about it.
5) There is no dollar value on spending time with your children that will adequately assign it its true worth. Ever hear that song Cat’s Cradle? Well it’s true. You miss out on the magic moments with kids if you let other people take care of them for you.
6) If people really think Nickel’s wife is making a mistake by staying at home, why don’t they consider her time at home as an investment in her future when her sons will care for her should Nickel depart early (for whatever reason)?
I’m sure I’m going to get yelled at for my remarks, but I think everyone really has to decide for themselves about staying at home or not and the personal values they have that go beyond financial valuation of child rearing. Personally, I know people who did various combinations of staying at home and working and ultimately raising children isn’t about the money you forgo in lost income. It’s about raising children to be happy, capable adults. If financial stability without one spouse is that much of a concern, then shore up the situation!
There’s a ton of cautionary tales out there about divorcees dumped without any financial foundation. If women are that worried, they should delay marriage until they can bring their own money to the table that won’t be community property later in a divorce.
All in all, this was a really good post about starting a family with limited means. It really gives me confidence that I could do it alone if I wanted. (Not that I’m hankering to do this, but I’ve thought of it.)
July 17th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
My wife and I are pregnant with our third. We are just as fortunate for her to be able to stay at home with our first two, aged 5 & 3. Our income is modest (in the mid 30’s). My wife saves us **TONS** of money by growing our vegetables for daily consumption, as well as canning them.
My wife makes our baby food by doing the following:
Home grown vegetables like green beans, sweet potatoes, etc are finely pureed in our blender. She then fills ice cube trays with the mixture and sets them until frozen. She removes them from the trays, and put in a baggie or other container. The ice cube tray size cubes are the perfect serving size for our little one and saves the rediculous cost of baby food from the store!!
just an idea!
July 18th, 2007 at 5:21 am
Hello. My 7/2 article (click name link) agrees with most of Nickel’s points, except I did not mention getting a new job that doubles your income as an option, but I did mention “single”-parenting, and also a child’s important tax effects on net income, which people often overlook. Thank you.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:56 am
mapgirl, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
A few additional details, some of which I’ve already alluded to in comments above… Our plans in the event of my wife’s or my own early demise are extensive (and possibly excessive), but you can’t be too careful.
As for getting access to your spouse’s assets before filing bankruptcy in the event that they pass on, a well-structured estate plan (complete with named beneficiaries for every asset) will take care of this.
And like I said above, everyone will need to make their own decision with regard to their comfort level with and trust in their spouse. It’s inaccurate to make a blanket statement about 50% divorce rates and use that brow beat people into living life in a certain way (note that I’m not saying anywhere here did that, but certain books/gurus have). It’s simply not a coin toss in each and every marriage. Some marriages have a much greater (near 100%) likelihood of failure from the get go, and others have a very, very low probability of failure. Again, people have to make their own choices when it comes to things like this. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.
As for childcare choices, my intention was never to get into a pissing match about this. Rather, in *our* case, we wanted someone to be home with the kids. Early on, my wife and I split these duties, with me staying home while she worked, and then her staying home while I did my thing. We later transitioned into her being home full time and me working full time. For this *we* feel fortunate. Others might not see it the same, way, and that’s their prerogative. And mapgirl’s right in that you get what you pay for when it comes to childcare. There’s no way we could’ve afforded an acceptable (to us) level of childcare given our financial situation at the time.
July 18th, 2007 at 5:58 am
@J: Heh. I wasn’t suggesting doubling your income as a strategy for starting a family (though it certainly wouldn’t hurt). Rather, I was trying to give people a sense for where we were we came from *before* the raises, promotions, etc. In fact, we already had three kids before any of that started happening. And I also wanted to head off people who might say: “Well, yeah, you can start a family before you’re financially totally ‘ready’ if you’re willing to be doomed to a life of poverty and frugality.”
July 18th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Childcare IS expensive, but it is doable. When a child is young and in diapers, its close to $10k/year. But after potty training, it gets much cheaper. Plus you can shop around to get better rates. I pay less than $5k/year now for a 4 year old. Luckily I only have one, I can’t imagine paying that for multiple children at a time. Though I’d hope you’d get some sort of group or bulk rate!
=)
July 18th, 2007 at 7:33 am
From Mapgirl #57:
“For people with fears of abandonment or lack of financial resources, something tells me they should work on that issue and do what works for them, but not be frightened into doing something they don’t want to do just because there’s a book about it.”
There isn’t just a book out about this topic. There are also facts. More mothers live without a partner than do. Every marriage has a 50% chance of failing due to divorce. To trivialize these matters is blithe and irresponsible. Divorce puts children at twice the risk of poverty than staying married. These are serious issues that shouldn’t be glossed over by saying “just do what’s right for you”. We lose that responsibility when we have children. Every mother should be able to care for herself and her children should their father have a mid-life crisis and leave.
#60 Fivecentnickel:
“It’s inaccurate to make a blanket statement about 50% divorce rates and use that brow beat people into living life in a certain way (note that I’m not saying anywhere here did that, but certain books/gurus have). It’s simply not a coin toss in each and every marriage. Some marriages have a much greater (near 100%) likelihood of failure from the get go, and others have a very, very low probability of failure.”
And how does one judge their own marriage’s chances of failure?? One would imagine that nearly 100% of marriages were started with the intention of ’till death do us part. That means 50% of married people are wrong. Everyone knows at least one perfect couple that didn’t make it. No marriage is 100%. Period. No one is brow-beating. We are simply stating the facts. Loudly.
July 18th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Stacey@: I agree that most marriages are started with the intention of ’til death do us part. But it’s important to keep in mind that that perception if formed leading up to the big day, whereas the sorts of decisions we’re talking about are typically made later (much later in some cases), after the reality of the situation has begun to sink in. While every marriage may have a 50% probability of ending in divorce *at the outset*, the odds change over time.
It’s just like life insurance. According to an actuary, you have a certain likelihood of living to (say) age 65 when you are 20. But when you are 30, the odds are different. Assuming you are still healthy, the odds have gone up. But if you’ve been diagnosed with cancer in the interim, the odds have gone down.
To say that every marriage has an equally likely chance of ending in divorce is fallacious. If your argument was that, at the outset, every marriage has an equally likely chance of failure, then I’d be more willing to buy your argument. But the odds at the outset aren’t what counts here. What’s important are the odds when you decide to start a family, stay at home with the kids, etc. And by then you can make a much more educated decision. Sure, it’s not 100%. Nothing ever is. But the point is that you need to weigh all available “evidence” and make the best decision for you and your family. In some cases, the best approach will be for both parents to work. In other cases, it will be best for the mom to stay home. And in yet others, it’s best for the dad to stay home (or both, as we did by splitting shifts at the outset).
Again, I would argue that individuals need to make their own, individual assessment of the situation rather than being fear mongered into one approach or another. There is no blanket answer here.
Would it help if I said it “loudly”?
July 18th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Stacey makes a good point about the probability of divorce. Things change over a lifetime and even marriages that start out good can crash and burn. You can’t always predict the future. I’ve been married for almost ten years and have 2 kids and we were together for five years before that. If you asked me two years ago I would have said we would never split up. Things have gotten pretty rough since then and we’re way closer to divorce than I ever imagined. That story linked earlier about the woman who had written for the New York Times was pretty chilling as well, to be surprised by divorce papers on your 40th wedding anniversary!!!
Some marriages do last a lifetime, I still hope mine will be one of them, but people who have a “It couldnt’ happen to us” attitude remind me of teenagers who drink and drive because they think they’re invulnerable.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:05 am
The mommy wars again. In our family the mommy works a full time professional job while my husband is the full time caregiver, and also works a couple days of week in the evening. The same argument can be made for him, that he is sacrificing his future money making ability by staying home with the kids. Some of these arguments are critical to the point of being disrespectful of others choices. We consider ourselves a partnership. It’s up to each couple to decide how the division of labor is going to work best for them. For us the benefits of the children having a full time parent home taking care of them, also someone who makes home cooked meals, cleans, is available for errands and doctor’s visits, is worth its weight in gold and saves us money/time in many other ways. There is no one right answer, everyone needs to figure out what works best for them. Regardless of who makes the money, there does needs to be transparancy of what money comes in, how it is spent and saved and decisions made jointly.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:16 am
fivecentnickel, the message of “prepare in the event of divorce of death” is more for women than for men. Men don’t have the same risks as women do in the event of divorce. Men’s incomes actually INCREASE after a few years, unlike the woman’s which decreases substantially and keeps going down (from divorce statistics). If a woman dies who stayed home, it doesn’t have the same impact economically on the family than if a man died who was the sole provider for many years. So, while it’s nice to hear your views, you are not at risk as far as I can tell.
It’s nice that you have a great marriage, but your wife could be put at a severe disadvantage should anything happen that you claim will never happen. And, if her children are still young when it happens (nobody gets to live forever), then she will face poverty.
All those years of saving the “family” money equate to her loss if things aren’t taken care of in writing and with assets under her name. I’m sure you love your wife enough to do this, but there are many men (and women) who don’t think about this until it’s too late. They only see “saving money” in the short-term. When you write a column about frugality and saving money, I understand it’s difficult to put in everything, but please take into account next time that your “blanket statement” that having a partner stay home and save money is the way to make ends meet with children may not be the best option in some cases.
I preferred staying home with my child and it does make a difference, I just don’t think people should risk the farm while doing it. I hope that if one person does decide to stay home that they put assets under that person’s name and stay married at least 10 years because that’s when that person can share in her husband’s social security benefits. If he dies before then, good luck.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:10 am
@Anon:
“When you write a column about frugality and saving money, I understand it’s difficult to put in everything, but please take into account next time that your “blanket statement” that having a partner stay home and save money is the way to make ends meet with children may not be the best option in some cases.”
I just went back and reread the article. I didn’t see anywhere in it the suggestion that in order to raise children cheaply one partner must stay home. Nickel never says that. What he does say is that they chose to have one partner stay home, that happened to have a financial benefit for them, and that it worked for THEM.
Have you ever read an article anywhere in which all of the points applied to everyone?
July 18th, 2007 at 10:10 am
@Anon: Thanks for responding. As I’ve already said, we have a well thought out estate plan, generous life insurance policies (the coverage on me is sufficient for my wife and kids to continue our present lifestyle without her having to go back to work, and the coverage on her would allow for a full time nanny for as long as we’d need one), and all of our savings/investments (except retirement accounts; see below), as well as our home, are held jointly.
When it comes to retirement accounts, our retirement savings that come through my job are in my name only because the IRS doesn’t allow joint ownership of retirement accounts. Moreoever, back before we could afford to fully fund both of our IRAs, we always funded hers first, sometimes leaving mine without contributions of any sort for the year. Since our work-related retirement plans were in my name, this just seemed like the right thing to do.
My wife is the sole beneficiary of everything, (and vice versa) and we have a testamentary trust (as well as guardianship) set up for the kids in case we both die. Where we live, she also has an equal claim to all of these assets if we were to ever divorce. Sure, one of us could hide (or trash) assets, but we won’t. And we’re both comfortable with that - again, you need to make this assessment for yourself.
We have also kept credit cards in both of our names (we are both authorized users on each other’s cards, but there have been rumblings that FICO scoring will start ignoring authorized users, so if you don’t have your own cards, you may not have a good credit history).
I also agree that blanket statements are a dangerous thing, which is why I reacted negatively to the notion that my wife staying home was a decision on her part — nobody can make that assessment without know all of the facts, yet many responded with matter-of-fact, know-it-all statements. I have said throughout that everyone needs to assess their own situation and make the best decision for them.
While I agree that all of the things you and others have brought up should be considered (and yes, we did consider them, although I didn’t have the space or foresight to include every last detail when putting this article together), statistics on the divorce rate, etc. are no more the be-all, end-all on this subject than are our own personal experiences as we started a family and somehow made this all work.
If you re-read what I wrote, you’ll not that I jumped into the money saving thing by saying “How did we make this all work, especially back in the early days?” (bold emphasis added) This piece a personal perspective on how it’s possible to start a family without breaking the bank, not a manifesto on how people should lead their lives.
As to your concerns about women vs. men, the issue is actually one of the stay-at-home parent vs. the working parent, regardless of gender. Yes, it’s more often the mom that stays home, but (as others have pointed out) stay at home dads are equally susceptible to many of the risks you have laid out for moms. Women can be just as vindictive as men in a nasty divorce, a man’s professional skill sets can become outdated just as quickly as a woman’s, etc., etc., etc. Granted, a woman may shoulder a greater burden in the wake of divorce if she gains custody of the kids, but even here that’s not an absolute. In many ways, this issue revolves around family roles moreso than gender. It’s just that gender is often correlated with “typical” family roles, such that people tend to use them interchangeably.
As an aside, if you’re curious about the finer points of many of these financial issues (as they pertain to us, anyway), I’ve written in fairly good detail about most of them over at FiveCentNickel.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:30 am
[...] How to Start a Family Without Breaking the Bank by Nickel (as a guest author) @ Get Rich Slowly. The way this post reads, Nickel must be responding to my earlier post: Think About Your Finances Before Having (More) Children. As I see it, you should either be prepared with money, or be prepared for the sacrifices (which you should do - not your kids) - in either case, you must think along these lines before you have more kids. [...]
July 18th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I’ve got a lot of friends who waited later to start families only to find fertility issues are huge and so I have a few friends who discovered what they say about still being able to have kids in your late 30s has only limited truth. I discovered the same thing for myself.
So, no kids for me because of waiting until too late.
I look at peers who didn’t wait and a lot aren’t making ends meet and I think will have tough retirements. I’m in BC and I think our economy is pretty bad for the 45 and under crowd, especially with kids. Coquitlam, where everyone moved in the 90s because of being able to afford a home there, was a net loser of families with kids and the number one reason why families were moving away was because they could not make ends meet. So, people were picking up their families and moving to where they’d have a 60-90 minute drive to work, or another province.
July 18th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Deborah, very good point. I wish people would understand and take seriously the fact that it often isn’t easy, simple or cheap to become pregnant in your late 30s and 40s. It may even be impossible. The notion that we must wait to have all our ducks (or bank accounts) in a row before having children is somewhat misleading. First, you’ll likely NEVER have all your ducks in a row and be totally ready to have children. Second, if you wait too long, it might just be too late. Of course, that’s not to say that some times aren’t better than others. But consider yourself warned.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
As a divorced mom(47) of 1 son(17), I can attest to the money issues. However, many women (including me) do it to themselves. When we stay home, do we make it our business to know where the money goes? What are the bills? Do we insist on being a full financial partner in our marriage? Not just a parent partner, social partner, love partner and sexual partner but also a financial partner. You can stay at home, care for and love your children and still protect yourself financially. In fact, it is your responsibility to protect yourself thereby protecting your children. Just like on the airplane when the stewardess says put the mask on yourself first and then your child. Insist on a Roth IRA contribution each year even if you don’t earn money. Even if you don’t physically write the check to pay the bills, know what money comes into and out of your lives. Know your credit score and protect it. But, I still believe that women can stay home with their children and protect themselves financially. We just need to be trained how to do it, accept the responsibility, insist on it, and follow through. If you can stay home and want to, do it. Use The Feminine Mistake” as a learning tool. She did not protect and care for herself financially every day and year of her marriage. She came from an age when she wasn’t supposed to have to. Thats what society told her. That age is dead. Just like corporations are discontinuing pensions expecting employees to be responsible for themselves, women in marriages must take financial responsibility for themselves. Failure to take personal financial responsibility is the mistake, not the decision to stay home with your children.
July 18th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
My personal opinion on childcare ( much like others’ opinions on cloth diapers,etc) has little to do with money, and everything to do with family/upbringing.
My wife let me know in very certain terms that if we had a baby she would not even consider working for a minimum 2-3 years after her birth. “child care” was not an option. While I didn’t feel as strongly as she did, I pretty much agree. There is no way I could see dropping off a baby/infant at some daycare. I could see starting around the age of 3-4 going somewhere ( more like a SCHOOL than a daycare) for social development and other reasons,etc. But other than that, no thanks.
I will say that I realize this may not be an option for single parents. I had a single mom part of the way and my siblings did all the way ( dad died when I was 12 and they were babies). In this situation I consider it the admirable thing to do what you have to work and support your children, even if it means daycare.
However, if you are fortunate enough to have a 2 parent family it is more often a CHOICE to have both work and drop your kid off on someone else. Now you may think it is more important to be a “professional” or own 2 new cars, a big house, whatever. However, keep it in mind it is a choice. You decide to pursue those things at the expense of your children, IMHO. This applies to anyone with at least “average” earning power.
July 19th, 2007 at 4:03 am
I think your article was very interesting. There are certain things in it that I hadn’t considered before (my husband and I have chosen to be childfree, especially now as we pay down our debt).
But I feel like you have been blessed, and are on a completely different playing field than most of my friends who have children. Most of my friends who have kids have absolutely no money. They’re on WIC, they’re on food stamps, they have debt up to their eyeballs.
Most grad students don’t have spouses who have a part time pay of $27,000. That’s where your blessing came in. Most of the grad students I know have very little to no money coming in while their spouses stay home full-time with the children.
While I think this article is fantastic, it’s definitely not geared to the usual grad student or young married couple starting out. Heck, it’s not even geared to anyone who has any kind of debt.
But, it was your choice, and you did have the means to start a family - most people don’t have the means to do so. Right now, my husband and I don’t want to add hospital bills (even though we have fantastic insurance there are still going to be bills from labor and delivery) or anything else to my debt right now until I can get some of it paid off.
I too would want to be a stay at home mom, but my current salary is needed by our family just to pay rent every month (and we’re living in the cheapest housing in our city - at least the cheapest in a safe neighborhood). If I quit work we’d be in some serious financial straits.
Congratulations on the blessings you have! I hope you will continue sharing what has helped you stay debt free with a family of six.
July 19th, 2007 at 5:36 am
wendidm: Just to clarify, that $27k income during graduate school was my wife and I combined (it was about half her income and half my stipend). I would thus argue that there our situation wasn’t particularly unique. Sure, we were better off than some grad students, but worse off than many others.
And while you say what I’ve written isn’t geared to people who have debt, you’re missing the larger point… We didn’t have debt in large part because of the decisions that we made. We intentionally avoided buying things we truly couldn’t afford. And that had a two-fold benefit — it kept us out of debt, and being out of debt kept our expenses down. If you slip into debt, it can become a vicious cycle of spending money on interest, fees, etc. which causes you to fall short on money for everyday living expenses, which leads to more debt, and so on. This is why I made a point of including that in the article. Had we incurred a pile of debt early on (perhaps before we even started having kids) it could’ve gotten ugly.
While I know that there are a lot of people out there that truly can’t afford to have kids, my article was largely motivated by the great many others that think they can’t afford it even though they’re in a much better financial situation than we were when we started our family. For people in that situation, I would have to say that it’s all about choices… Kids don’t have to decimate your finances. Are there expenses associated with raising kids? Sure. But if you’re careful, you can minimize them. No, this doesn’t mean everyone can pull it off, but the situation isn’t as dire as it’s often made out to be.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Ah, some bitter, bitter folks, here, waving their famous (but proven-to-be misleading) statistics regarding divorce rates “facts.”
The divorce stats are have also been called “the most specious pieces of statistical nonsense ever perpetuated in modern times” (as said Pollster Lewis Harris with regard to the idea that half of American marriages are doomed.)
More-useful stats can be found here:
http://www.divorceinfo.com/statistics.htm
Among the more interesting bits:
“Poor people get divorced more than rich people”
Add that to the corollary that marriage increases wealth, and you get more of: the rich get richer (while the sick get sicker and the dumb get dumber).
Now, I realize that a single data point does not affect the curve, but I will give some perspective from my family.
My highly educated, formerly “professional” wife (now full-time mother to our children) asks “well, what are we all working toward, anyway?” She does not seem to miss her consulting career (and SHE had a great job; what about all the folks–including or especially women–who have mere “yobs,” i.e., who are not in “high powered” career tracks or…whatever).
As for “security,” some tidbits:
She has said to me, “You do realize that you are not getting out of this marriage alive, right?” And I believe her.
She actively and consciously helps me maximize my income (”what else are you good for? You can’t even pick up your socks!”) for the good of the unit.
While I do know my annual salary (which, thanks to her efforts, has really taken off), I have no idea what happens in my family bank accounts, I really can’t be bothered. My income is the family’s income, and my wife is the home economist (I carry neither ATM nor checkbook–although I do pilfer the occasional Benjamin as necessary).
Childcare? I do not really mean to be mean, but there is no such thing. My wife was commenting the other day that the nannies that she sees (we have plenty in our town) “look like they are at work.” That is, they are just putting in the time… And as for group childcare… Imagine you are a child; which would you have preferred: Mommy (& Daddy) or daycare… hmmm?
More basically: how many of you–even you liberated Mamas–would hire a MAN as a babysitter? Would use a male-run daycare facility? Hmm? (Be honest, now.)
I will not comment on the struggles of single parents (but you are free to read my thoughts at http://www.anonymous-bosh.blogspot.com)
Lastly, with regard to “security” (and my wife outright *laughs* at the doom and gloom of e.g. the feminine mistake):
Life insurance is cheap (why do folks always cite “the death of a partner?” Life insurance is cheaper than ever before! Sheesh.)
We are in the process of putting all assets in her name (yes, it’s true).
Why am I willing? Uh, because she is the mother of my children (oh, and, yes, my one true love but, hey, we can’t all be that lucky…).
The family is a unit, and each plays a part in the unit’s overall success. My own personal success is directly attributable to the efforts of others (my wife, her parents, and even my children who serve in no small measure to inspire me to work harder and to be a better man).
A number of “modern” factors–often intended to “liberate” women–have had the unintended consequence of allowing men to remain boys (self centered, self absorbed, immature). The joys of marriage and fatherhood are not self evident, they are subtle and evolutionary.
Finance is easy (why does every make as if it is so difficult to spend less than one earns? When I was a SOLDIER I spent less than I earned; I MADE MONEY attending graduate skool–while my colleagues tried to strike for higher stipends(!); and now, my early savings are really adding up).
Marriage–i.e., a familial unit best suited for the propagation and training of the human race–is difficult, but difficult is not impossible, and somehow the “joys” of divorce have gotten blown way out of proportion.
Oh–and cloth diapers rock!
July 20th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Weekly Roundup - Dow 14,000 Edition (and the Mommy Wars)…
In case you haven’t heard, the Dow Jones Industrial average closed over 14,000 for the first time yesterday. It actually flirted with 14,000 earlier this week, but retreated before closing. That is, until yesterday… On a related note, did y…
July 20th, 2007 at 11:28 am
“[M]y husband and I don’t want to add hospital bills (even though we have fantastic insurance there are still going to be bills from labor and delivery).”
Think outside of the box (Oh, in SO MANY ways!).
We did not do it for the $, but consider midwife attended homebirth. Total cost was $3k (covered by insurance).
Here are some things folks assume:
Babies must be born in a hospital.
Babies need a nursery.
Babies need innumerable toys ‘n’ stuff.
Babies need formula.
Weirdly, while my *mother* more or less flipped out over the home birth, my grandmother thought nothing of it, stating “hospitals are for sick people.”
Once we decided we were too cheap to build a nursery, “co-sleeping” seemed like a good idea, especially given that my wife was committed to breast feeding. Now we cannot imagine things having been different for *any* or our children.
Homebirth gave my wife the control she craved over the birthing process.
Co-sleeping & breastfeeding: outside of injuries, our children have never cried, have never been alone in the night, have never kept anyone else up. Now the older children share a bed together, while the baby is still in with us.
And for those readers who are going to react to what is written above–take a deep breath. Examine your reasoning.
Some families live in yurts; the idea of an entire room blinged out to the max and devoted to a tiny, needful baby seems peculiarly American.
Breast is best, as we all know. And allows not just the father but the mother to sleep comfortably. (And, YES, I am sure that there is some small percentage that, for whatever reason, cannot breastfeed: I am talking to the other 98.5%).
Let’s see, what other crits are inbound? Oh, co-sleeping! With the first, I slept badly for two weeks, always afraid I was going to squish her. Never bothered me since, not even through multiple children. Very good for nervous babies in the night.
Homebirthing: sure, go ahead, criticize it–you are free to do what you want (I often recommend birthing centers to people). We were attended by a team of four midwives. The babies were born according to their own schedule (not some doctor’s schedule).
For the reactors; just so you know: we went from wanting a full-on nursery and hospital birth with scheduled C-section to our hippy, tree-hugging decisions in our first pregnancy–after week 30! So, don’t get all defensive, just think about it on your own time, your own terms. No skin off my nose if it’s not right for YOU!
July 20th, 2007 at 11:40 am
[...] How to Start a Family Without Breaking the Bank [...]
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:40 am
Dear Stacey,
You misconstrue my remarks. I am advocating that people take care of their relationships so they don’t end up in a divorce. I don’t know why you think I am trivializing divorce. I was trying to give people something to do before they get to that point. I watched a 10-year relationship implode 3 weeks before the wedding because the parties involved never really figured themselves out. I think I gave pretty sound advice on preventing a bad scene from happening.
I think people have a lot of fear about the future that cripples them. All I am saying is work out those issues and it will probably end up with a happier situation relationship-wise. That is all.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I’m expecting my first baby in September, so I really enjoyed the article. I’m planning to stay home for at least a year (I’m really lucky that my job, as an art teacher, will be waiting for me up until my child is ready to start kindergarten). We’re just now planning out the whole life & disability insurance & IRA deal. I feel extremely fortunate that this is a choice we were able to even consider.
A word about childcare/ daycare… As a child I attended daycare and was adored by my hardworking, single mother. My mom always said that she could never provide the resources that a roomful of caring adults and engaging peers could. It was a rich experience for me (and not outrageously expensive for my mother).
I’m excited to start this new adventure. And I’m glad my husband and I chose what feels right for us in a responsible manner - which I think is a major point of the article.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Excellent post. I am raising 3 boys as a Single Dad and agree with nearly everything you have written here. Having children does not have to break the bank. The thing that frustrates me most and one area one of my recent wives (yes, I collect ex wives like they are going out of style) is that no matter our income, her kids have to have the best, every gadget, at least a few hundred dollars in gifts each for Christmas (which usually meant her taking a loan). I’ve had lean years where my kids got $20 each worth of gifts for Christmas and they have never been happier. It’s all in perspective I suppose.