The High Cost of Having Children Print
Wednesday, 25th March 2009 (by J.D.)This article is about Choices, Kids
Because my wife I do not have children, I feel that it’s important to bring in outside voices to talk about money and kids. This is a guest post from Cathy, who writes about family finances, parenting, and cooking at Chief Family Officer.
I would never in a million years want to give up my children just because they cost too much. But recently, the cost of having children hit home as I was reading J.D.’s post about the “third stage” of personal finance, which comes after one has mastered the fundamentals of living frugally, saving, and pursuing financial goals.
I have to admit: I grew a little envious reading that J.D. was beginning this third stage. I still consider myself to be firmly entrenched in the second stage — and I’ve been in this stage for years already, and will continue to remain in it for the foreseeable future.
And I realized that it’s because I have kids. J.D. doesn’t. Now that he’s paid off his non-mortgage debt and begun saving, he can think about grander things.
If my husband and I didn’t have children — if we didn’t have to provide for them now or worry about providing for them in the future — our non-mortgage debt would be completely paid off, we’d be paying a lot extra on the mortgage, and maxing out our retirement contributions, all while still having a comfortable amount left over as spending money.
Because we have kids:
- We’ve chosen to have a larger cash cushion.
- We’ve delayed paying off our debts.
- We’ve reduced our retirement contributions.
- We have greater expenses in the form of childcare, clothing, medical needs, and life insurance premiums.
I see us balancing saving for retirement and saving for college (and/or paying for private school) for the next 20 years. If we didn’t have kids and didn’t have to perform this balancing act, I think we’d be making reservations for an Alaskan cruise right about now!
I do not regret having children. You could never put a price on the intangible privilege of bringing new life into this world, the joy they bring into my life, or the way they make me a better person. I wouldn’t change a single thing about my life.
My point is simply that this is the kind of financial ramification I didn’t think about before my children were born. Sure, I knew kids were expensive. But if I’d realized how much harder reaching the third stage of personal finance would be after having kids, I think I would have been even more diligent about paying off our loans and building up savings first.
In fairness to myself, I don’t think that I could have fully realized or appreciated the financial impact of having one child — let alone two. At the moment, each child costs us about $800 per month. That’s the total amount for childcare, health insurance, and the additional life insurance policies that we took out when they were born. That’s $1600 that we spend each month before adding in the cost of food, clothing, toys, entertainment, etc.
When you add the additional “savings” cost for future education, it’s easy to see why I don’t feel we’re even remotely close to the third stage of personal finance — notwithstanding how well we’re doing and have done with the fundamentals. But I’m confident we’ll get there — eventually.
For a related discussion, check out the Get Rich Slowly forums: Staying debt free with a baby: Is it possible? Previously at GRS, Cathy explained how to save hundreds by playing the drugstore game. Don’t forget to check out her blog, Chief Family Officer.

RSS Feeds
Facebook
Twitter

March 25th, 2009 at 5:12 am
You could say that having kids really hinders one’s ability to to amass wealth, but others might say having kids redefines what it is to be wealthy.
Thanks for running an alternative view JD, and great writing Cathy.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Sorry to say but this post makes no sense - you lament about the amount you have to spend on your children while constantly pointing out that you don’t regret having children. And I know certain comenters will come along and start comparing having kids to having pets and this whole discussion will deteriorate from there.
My bottom line = kids are an enormous gift (just ask the couples that can’t have children how much money they would give to have children) - they should be loved and one should not be remotely remorseful about the money spent on them. If this is how one feels, then one should not have kids. Just my $.02.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:34 am
Great post. I too have noticed that many of the most acclaimed PF bloggers out there who post their financial specs monthly are childless. It is great for them to have a comfortable lifestyle, and many people decide not to have kids for a variety of good reasons. However, it is rather frustrating for those who have or plan to have children, because the laudable financial plans of these PF bloggers are not at all realistic for those with kids. To top it off, parents are often represented as irresponsible/spoiled/the relative charity cases in the families of these bloggers while the kidless are depicted as the hard-working martyrs. (I haven’t seen this on J.D.’s blog but on several others). I think this is very wrong.
I also wonder if this is an effect of the overly independent-mindedness of western culture, especially in the U.S. In most other group-oriented cultures money is spread around inside families to help give each other a leg up when they need it. Families with kids are helped accordingly, and they aren’t seen as being selfish/bad people/failures because they can’t do it all on their own. Something to consider.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:35 am
If I told others one of the drivers to never have children was financial concerns, I’d probably be labeled Ebenezer Scrooge. Seriously though, with the rising cost of education (and virtually everything else) these days, why not?
My parents had one child (just me!) because they didn’t want to bite off more than they could chew at the time as they both worked and couldn’t afford to drop to one salary. I knew this for the most part growing up and that never gave me a complex or made them seem cruel…just very realistic and practical.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Even within the “I have kids” group of people, costs vary widely. I have 3 kids under 6 years old and was blown away by how much the author was spending on her two kids. Having kids doesn’t automatically mean a life of financial poverty (but it does automatically mean a life rich with love!)
And one question. Whats the reason for having life insurance on children?
March 25th, 2009 at 5:39 am
@Jimbo,
I thought the post made perfect sense. Kids cost a lot of money, and that should be considered as you plan a family.
The second part of her discussion contends that even though the price of having children is high it is well worth it.
Maybe the intent was to allow people who are thinking about starting a family, to consider where they are financially before they begin a family.
I think you should get a pet yourself, grumble at it in the morning and leave it off the blog if that’s the only reason you drop in.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:41 am
For me, it comes down to what money and wealth is for. We all tend to focus on how to build the biggest pile of money, but what good is it if you have no joy in your life?
My measure of success in my life is not how much money is in my bank account, how big my house is (or how soon it is paid off), or what kind of car I drive. My family is WHY I work and WHY I’m financially responsible. Would it be easier to save and pay off debt without a family? Of course, but what is the point?
It’s cheaper to go without a boyfriend/girlfriend or a spouse, but who wants to go through life alone?
I feel strongly about holding off on purchases until it’s financially responsible, but kids are my sole exception to this policy. There are a few clear instances when kids would break the bank, but it kills me when people keep waiting for “the time to be right” to have kids. There is no better motivation for savings! Kids are a blessing in every sense of the word. Given the choice, I would live in a cardboard box with a million in credit card debt before I would give up one day with my kids.
I look forward to getting rich slowly, but I’m more than willing to accept my course being a little *slower* than those without kids. Wealth is measured in happiness, not dollars and cents.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Thanks for the insight. I have to say, being a parent myself, that there ARE things you don’t think about before you have kids that you have to pay for. I don’t agree with the attitude of your post however. Everyone is happy to have kids, at least any good parent is. But to say they’re the reason you can’t make headway with your financial goals is where I find issue. I don’t completely agree with “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”, I think some of it is a bit “iffy”. I do, however, think it has some solid financial tips. To paraphrase one of my favorite scenarios, poor dad would say “the reason I’m poor is because I have you kids”(sounds a lot like your post) and the rich dad would say “the reason I must be rich is because I have you kids”. Whether or not that’s a true scenario, the lesson is the same - its a matter of perspective.
I agree with Chett though, I do think you’re giving a “be prepared” caution to all who aren’t parents, to get their finances in order before hand.
Great post, even if I disagree with some of it. Thanks
March 25th, 2009 at 5:42 am
I don’t really get the point of this post.
Is the author suggesting paying off debt before having children? Is she just complaining that they are expensive? It sounds like she is simultaneously upset with the impact of children on her finances and talking about how great it is to have kids.
Overall, I think this is a topic that I would like to see discussed but perhaps with a clearer thesis and more depth. I didn’t get anything out of reading this article. My first child is due in May and I would love to hear more about what to expect financially.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:42 am
@Weakonomist - Thanks! (And thanks to J.D. for the great editing.)
@Jimbo - I’m not lamenting having kids, but rather my lack of preparation for the impact they have had on my finances. I wouldn’t have delayed having them (I had two miscarriages, I would never recommend anyone delay having kids just for financial reasons!), BUT I wish I would have focused even more on living frugally and saving as much money as possible.
Of course my children are a priceless gift. But the point of this post is that having kids has a huge impact on finances - to say otherwise is simply wishful thinking.
@Marcy - Thanks! You make an interesting point, especially as I don’t expect (or foresee) any outside financial help. I do think it’s important to be financially independent whether or not you have children, though.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:44 am
@Aaron - That’s not life insurance on the kids, that’s life insurance on my husband and myself that we have to take care of the kids in the event something happens to one of us. And yes, it’s a lot. Visit my blog and learn something about me before you judge me though
March 25th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Wow, Cathy, I’m sorry, but you need to take a step back and take a look at your life. What are you going to remember when you are in the final days of your life? Are you going to remember that Alaskan cruise you took? Or are you going to appreciate the children and grandchildren that are taking care of you in your final moments?
My wife is a nurse and almost every week someone passes on. The ones with the most children are the most peaceful. The ones without or with children who don’t care about them, are always the most regretful.
There is so much more to life that amassing piles of money to be “safe”.
I have a passion for financial planning, but I will not let that get in the way of what life is truly about.
We need a post about the “High Cost of Not Having Children”. I think it would open your eyes Cathy.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:47 am
The flip side is that when you’re elderly, if you have kids, you’re more likely to have someone you can trust to manage your financial affairs should you become unable to, and check up on you and do minor household maintenance so you can stay in your home rather than moving to a pricey retirement community. Doesn’t always work out, obviously–sometimes they wind up hating you, or move to Peru–but I’d say it’s still the norm.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:48 am
I remember when I was pregnant 16 years ago with our first…it really jumpstarted my concerns with getting our house in order financially. Thankfully, I had read The Tightwad Gazette before we bought our house, and that was a gem when it came to raising kids on a budget. I followed many of her tips and was able to be a SAHM because of choices that we made (small but comfy house, cook from scratch, etc…)
The COL did take a hit when she was born, but it didn’t hurt quite so bad, as I anticipated buying thrift clothes and furniture for her. I saved many of her things, and when we had our second daughter, I didn’t need to spend as much for her (that was a savings!). They were 5 years apart.
Maybe that’s the ticket…have them years apart and then by getting used to the outflow, by the time #2 comes along, you barely notice an increase!
Kind of like just one car payment at a time…
My oldest is 15 1/2 and the checks you write when they are little are nothing to the checks you start writing when they are this age! Save while they are little and don’t care about stuff yet!
She’s come home from school with the “opportunity” through school to go here and there with various clubs and organizations…these run from $ 129 to $999 for a trip of just a couple days…plus driver’s ed ($329), plus summer camp, plus, plus, plus…start saving while they are young!
March 25th, 2009 at 5:48 am
It can be tough for families to pay off debt before they have kids, especially if they have a lot. For older couples, you are racing against the biological clock when it comes to having kids. Sure you can have them when you are older, but there is a greater risk of complications and other issues.
My wife and I have some debt, but we decided to go ahead and have a child. After two years of raising my son, I am so glad we did! Nothing beats the fulfillment of raising a child.
March 25th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Having kids is as expensive as you want it to be. If you want to work to pay for their daycare then thats an extra expense. The extra health insurance is as big an expense as the plan you choose. I believe that kids are wonderful and have no extra impact on our savings plans. The money I spend on them was spent on junk (clothes and stuff) before I had them. If anything kids are making me more financially responsible.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:04 am
@Aaron — The life insurance she is talking about is likely for her and her husband. My wife and I have recently upped our amounts to be able to cover paying off the house, in addition to paying for two college educations. When it was only the two of us, the insurance amount was considerably lower, since we didn’t have the college education, mortgage, etc.
Overall, though, I thought this was a pretty lightweight piece. Trent over at The Simple Dollar did a much more detailed analysis (although it, too, had flaws) about the financial implications of having children.
I will concur that I find advice from someone who is dealing with children and personal finance to be more interesting to me. Children add a lot to one’s life, both joys and challenges. If my wife and I had wisened up about personal finance a while ago, we would be in a different spot now — but we didn’t, and the kids are definitely a constraint in eliminating debt that you can’t sell off, give away or otherwise eliminate.
My advice to perspective parents would be to try and pay down as much debt as possible. Ideally you will know if you want kids when you get married, and also you should likely have a plan for what’s going to happen when the kids come. If you want to have Mom stay home, then start living like it — and use her income for paying off debt, racking up savings, etc. If you are doing daycare, find out what that costs and either use it to pay down debt or put it in savings. The worst thing to do is to start living on two incomes and get used to it, amassing debt, car loans, etc. Then when the baby comes, you already know you can handle it.
All that said, there really is truly no good time to have a kid. There are always things you want to do “one last time”, or you want to complete a degree, pay down debt, buy a car — but you are working against biology, and biology can be unreliable, so you likely need to work backwards from when you want to have the LAST kid and figure out when you need to have the first one. This may not align well with reality, but at least it’s a starting point. I guess kids are a decent reminder that you can’t have it all
And before the “I don’t like the breeders” people show up (they often do), I will say that having children was a very conscious choice on my behalf, and I do not try and impose the belief that everyone should have kids, or bring my kids out to fancy restaruants, etc. It wasn’t a *rational* choice by any means. But if we did everything rationally, the human race would have died out long ago.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:11 am
I like what weakonomist says to sum up Cathy’s post:
You could say that having kids really hinders one’s ability to to amass wealth, but others might say having kids redefines what it is to be wealthy.
I would also say that when thinking about having kids, it’s helpful to envision it as a lifestyle change, rather than as an ongoing monthly cost, or like having an extra large appliance in the house. It impacts much more than just your finances, but finances are one of the indicators that it’s creating a huge adjustment in your life.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:13 am
I don’t know. I found this piece refreshing.
It seems to me that whenever I read articles about children, they’re usually pretty black-and-white. Trent’s articles seem to conclude that kids don’t cost much at all (which goes against the studies I see everywhere else). Others conclude that kids are definitely worth it and no amount of money could make them not worth it. (To be fair, that’s basically what Cathy is saying, too.) From the other side, you sometimes see articles saying that kids cannot be worth it because of the financial and environmental costs.
I don’t think Cathy’s article pretends to be anything besides a meditation on the subject. It’s not trying to be deep or heavy. But I think that its biggest strength is that she’s honest. She’s wrestling with this question, and admitting that it’s not as clear-cut as people try to make it out to be. Obviously, she loves her children and would not change things at all, but she admits that having them requires a compromise on her part. She’s sacrificed one future for another.
What can I say? I like it!
March 25th, 2009 at 6:26 am
Wow, a this was a great perspective on the issue. Our first daughter is turning a year-old soon and shes a blast. My wife and I have decided to completely eliminate our consumer debt, before having our second which should only take a year or two. Hopefully, working towards financial independence will allow us to comfortably have many, many more.
How people view the relationship between finances and money is always fascinating to me.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:26 am
I agree with sandy, kids get more expensive as they age. I did the same things, was very frugal when they were young and thought I was pretty smart. But life happens, and with kids a lot happens that you cannot control. My two are in their 20’s now and out on their own, and we are trying to pay down debts from helping one through college as well as paying off an equity loan for years of medical expenses for the other. And in this economy sometimes they still need our help! If they ask to borrow money now, it’s not to buy a comic book, it’s to make rent or some other major bill. As everyone else has said, I love them to death and wouldn’t trade them for the world–but there’s no getting around the fact that becoming a parent is a serious lifestyle choice, not just a temporary expense. I definitely didn’t anticipate the full impact in the beginning!
March 25th, 2009 at 6:26 am
I enjoyed the article and the fact that it wasn’t “black and white”. All costs can’t be calucated with numbers.
Question for Cathy — The standard financial advice seems to be to save for your retirement before you save for college. I noticed you are balancing both. Financially is this a wise decision? Is there an emotional element that financial planners aren’t calculating?
I am single with no kids, so I don’t know what I would do if I were in your position.
Kita
March 25th, 2009 at 6:27 am
I liked this post as well. I read it as just a reaction to J.D.’s post about the third stage and not meant to be a deep analysis of the impact of children on finances.
I also found it helpful to keep in mind the impact that additional costs due to changes in lifestyle can have on debt elimination. I was recently told my my doctor “You’re eggs are getting old - if you want kids you should have them soon.” Not only was it somewhat rude of her, but she didn’t take the time to find out our life situation first. While I understand that it will always feel like there’s not enough money to have a child, I also don’t think that it would be right to bring a child into a home already saddled with a lot of debt. How could I start to save for their college education when I’m still paying for my own?
All to say - I found the post interesting and Cathy refreshingly honest.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Interesting post. Here’s my situation, yours may differ…
My wife and I have 3 kids (age 5 and under). We started having kids when we had some debt plus the mortgage. We dropped to one income with the arrival of the first baby, and continue to this day on one income. It’s a professional grade salary, but certainly “south” of $100K. Today, we are debt free except the mortgage, have a 6 month emergency fund, making accelerated payments on the mortgage, and saving 15% in our 401K. And there is some money left over to save for the kids college, replacement vehicles, etc. After that, there is not much extra, so we’re not going on cruises or such. I suspect the “cost of kids” will rise as they get older (extracurricular activities and “stuff”). But all in all, I feel we are doing quite well. But that’s just us.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:40 am
@Kita - That’s definitely the standard financial advice, and yes, I’d say that there’s an emotional component to it as well. However, I do prioritize retirement over college savings - it’s just that once the “minimum” retirement savings have been achieved, then it becomes a balancing act for me. It doesn’t feel right to me to throw ALL of our savings into retirement and save nothing for college.
@Kate - Like Jason (#17) said, there is no good time to have a kid. And as a woman who had two miscarriages and took them very badly, I’ll say that if you want kids and then experience infertility, it can be emotionally devastating. So if you’re financially responsible, even if it’s not the *ideal* time to have kids, you may not want to put it off. The emotional impact of infertility is incalculable. I’m not trying to be hypocritical - like J.D. said, there is no clear cut answer to any of this!
March 25th, 2009 at 6:42 am
I think some of the other commenters read too much into her post. Her point was that it can be hard to look at where someone like J.D. is at in his finances and compare them to her own. She knows she’ll get there more slowly than he; she’s okay with it because she gets so much from being a parent.
As a 27-(okay, okay, 20 days from being a 28-year old woman), I think it’s a good reminder of yet another benefit to my husband and I working so hard to pay our non-mortgage debt last year. And the possiblility of children is another reason for us to have a healthy savings.
Of course no one should wait to have kids until everything is perfect, because that day will never come. But I’m not ready for children just yet. I feel like we are in a great position to do all of the right things for the next couple of years to prepare ourselves financially, and maybe give ourselves the option for me to be a SAHM or maybe freelance from home.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:53 am
My wealth is my family.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:54 am
My wife and I plan on having children, but wrestle with two questions (1) when? and (2) how many?
We have plenty of time, but she wants to have children sooner rather than later. She’s a doctor (as of May, 2009) and she would really like to have any and all the children she’ll have before she turns 35 - because of the well documented health risks. On the other hand, she’d like to finish residency and perhaps a fellowship before having kids. That will give us a small window for having kids - especially multiple kids. It’s something that we currently discuss almost daily.
Cathy - I enjoyed the post. It’s just your thoughts, and that’s probably blogging at its purest. Don’t let the naysayers bring you down. You’ll never please everyone in an audience as big as GRS’s.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:58 am
JD, I read your blog because you don’t have children. It’s certainly interesting to see someone else’s take on them, but we’re not planning on having any so it’s hard to care a lot.
I agree that it doesn’t seem reasonable to wait to have kids for personal finance reasons, but I strongly encouraging anyone thinking about having kids to really consider adoption, and to read over some of the critical reasoning at vhemt.org detailing why it’s not so great an idea socially to keep pumping out kids, especially when there are so many that need better care than they can ever hope to receive at present.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:59 am
I am 41, am married, have 3 kids and am well in JD’s “third stage.” I don’t think having kids, or having a spouse, or going to a private college, or having a sick parent should be the blame of what stage a person is in. If people start their financial planning early, taking into consideration their lifestyle and goals, they should be able to meet them. I mean unless suddenly someone has sextuplets that they weren’t planning or a spouse suddenly gets very ill, most of the decisions we make are not made hastily and should be part of the financial plan. I knew I was going to have children and wanted to stay home with them. My husband and I saved for that to be a reality. We’ve never been in debt and have saved a good deal for retirement. The fact that we have kids doesn’t change that.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Sure, I get that kids are expensive but as a former teacher, I’ve seen the incredible disconnect between what parents think their children need and what they actually do need.
Kids don’t need the fancy clothes, the latest gadgets, music, fancy vacations, etc. If you can afford them, that’s great.
What children don’t need is parents working ridiculous hours to afford this “stuff”. They need their parents to spend time with them, to care about their progress in school, to discipline them, to teach them good moral values, and to teach them life skills — like balancing a check book, budgeting, cleaning the house and cooking decent meals.
If your kids have to do without the “stuff” they want that’s even better because they are learning about money management and learning to set priorities and wait for what they want.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:11 am
1. There is no better thing to spend your money on than your kids. They are the ultimate luxury good.
2. Kids like anything in life worth anything are hard work. If you don’t work hard, or if you work dumb, they become brats and a scourge on your existance.
3. When you are old and in a nursing home, your money won’t come to visit you and it won’t look out for your best interest.
4. Your money won’t give you grandkids, truly the ultimate luxury good.
5. Kids increase a Father’s ambition, and thus his earning power, especially in his younger years.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:14 am
I was glad to see this post. We have two kids (3 and 5), and I would not give them up for anything. That said, staying home with them for 3 years put a big dent in finances. Now that I am back at work and paying for childcare — it’s very expensive and you can’t write all of your childcare off — it depends on income. The cost of childcare also depends location. Those who are lucky enough to have family that can help out with childcare have a great gift… make the most of it. We simply don’t have that option.
Now I’m trying to figure out how to eliminate debt and save more for retirement, I’m stressed and scared and not sure where to start. I like this blog but the fact that JD doesn’t have kids makes a difference. I’m glad to see the costs of having children acknowledged.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:19 am
All I can say is that there are plenty more views on parenting and finances than this one.
I am much richer as a result of having kids.
If your only gauge of riches is a money stick then your definition of rich will be limited.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:25 am
When we first had our child, I couldn’t understand all the hoopla about how much they cost. So we buy some extra clothes and food — big whoop — but now I see the situation much clearer. Having children means someone needs to take care of them. That is usually the first five years if they will be going to public school. So either you are paying for someone else to care for them or you are doing it yourself.
I know some parents can give up one job, make some adjustments, and their lifestyle doesn’t change much. However, that wasn’t true for us. Going down to one income meant we had to dig into our savings until we could cut expenses (it’s hard to go cold turkey).
Talk about expensive and now we’ve decided to homeschool. Homeschooling meant that our earning potential would be greatly reduced in the short term.
But to spend more time with our child every day is definitely worth it.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:27 am
Wow! Your kids are a bargain. We pay over $2500/month - and that’s just day care/pre-school for three! Maybe it is just the part of the country we live in. Add in food, clothing, college savings, sports, health insurance and doctor co-pays and I would estimate our 3 kids cost us about $4500/month.
I can’t agree more with the sentiment of this post. If only I had managed my money better BEFORE I had kids, it would have prepared me much better for these expensive times.
But, as others have stated, it is totally worth the cost to me. The joy of their life is priceless.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:29 am
I liked Cathy’s post and to me her point was that it can take longer to get thru that third stage when you have others who rely on your finances.
I’ve been feeling frustrated that our financial goals seem to be moving slowly, but when I stop and realize why it’s usually something to do with my kids or my aging parents or a friend in need….we were going great in February and then hit an illness with my daughter, a death in a friend’s family, and some issues with my parents….all things out of our control (and yes, most of the expenses come out of our emergency fund, but then we have to take time to rebuild the fund).
Life happens for everyone, but the more people in your family/friends the more chances of “life” and emergencies happening.
Thanks Cathy for your point of view!
March 25th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Great to see a different perspective.
I too find the prospect of paying for college has significantly slowed down my progress towards FI. OTOH, there will be two competent, well-educated women to find me a good nursing home when that day comes.
One analysis I’d love to see here (or elsewhere) is a lifetime comparison of the costs of being a SAH parent versus a working-outside-the-home parent. Taking ten or more years out of the workforce can have a tremendous impact on financial security later in life.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Having a family in the United States is very expensive, but it’s also been money well spent for me. I’m happier for having children.
Health and education really does cost more that it should in the United States. I’m spending a total of $200,000 for college educating my two sons. All of society benefits from the creation of new, healthy, educated citizens. I don’t think society should have to pay all the burdens. But other countries with nationalized health care and low cost college education are paying for their fair share of creating new citizens.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Also, just want to say regarding tmk’s comment. I don’t think I would have started managing the money if it weren’t for the kids. So, if they “cost” so much, there existence has prompted all my saving instead of wasting. So, I think I’ll make out in the end…
March 25th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Explosive topic!
All I can say is my father is 89 and dying of lung cancer. He had three children, my two sisters and I. I feel the tug of relationship despite my living three thousand miles away.
I have no children. Aside from my wife, I wonder who will feel that tug of relationship when my times gets near?
March 25th, 2009 at 7:51 am
I think Beth @30 hit it on the head. One thing I’ve noticed with people having kids is that they can be a huge sink for waste. In other words there are so many more decisions of what to buy that many people who make good decisions elsewhere make bad decisions spending on their kids and wind up holding themselves back financially.
My kids need to be safe, feel safe and loved, need a roof over their heads, need healthy food, and need warm clothes. They DON’T need huge personal spaces, the latest designers, the latest toys, or fresh organic OJ with breakfast.
A HUGE part of this is the peers you surround your children with. Currently DH and I are struggling with where to move when we leave our house. We know we will leave before our oldest reaches junior high because the schools are bad, but the best schools have the most materialistic kids that we don’t want our kids to emulate. We don’t want our kids laughed at because they dress *poor*, but we won’t spend the money to make them like their spoiled classmates.
Ultimately I think many American parents need to get over their own guilt. It’s natural to feel guilty when you can’t give your child everything he/she wants, but often that’s best for them and character building, as well as what is best for your pocket book. It’s amazing how resilient the human spirit is, and the lessons you can learn around every corner, even if we have to share a bedroom with a sibling and don’t wear designer duds or have a Wii.
Kids are expensive, but not as expensive as many of us make them.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:51 am
I’d be interested to know how much that $1,600 per month actually costs you. Since it’s tax time, the tax benefits the IRS gives for children are foremost in my mind when I read an article like this.
As an example, I’ll assume that you and your husband are in the 25% bracket (using the marginal rate to keep it simple, this is very informal). Your $1,600/mo equates to $19,200/year. Off the top of my head:
Personal deductions for each child is $3,500. This translates to $875 per child (3500*0.25), total savings $1,750.
Child tax credit of $1,000 per child translates to total savings $2,000.
With these two items we’ve identified $3,750 in tax savings. There are other items that are harder to put a number on, but can save significant money. Two that come to mind are:
Child and dependent care credit - I can’t estimate because I don’t know what portion of your expense goes here.
Medical deductions, if you itemize, for the increased health insurance. Can’t give a number because it has too many variables.
I admit I’m a geek for this kind of math. I always do my boyfriend’s and my taxes twice - once for real and once as if we were married. Most years we’d save a bundle if we were married, in a few we would have paid a little more. I’m not the marrying kind so it’s just an exercise, but I think it’s valuable info to have because it gives me another perspective on my choices and my government’s values. In your case, if you did your taxes a second time as if you had no children, you could see how much of your out-of-pocket expense actually comes from your own pockets.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:53 am
I love Cathy’s blog and have been a loyal reader for years. She strikes me as a careful spender who lives well within her means and below most of her peers.
That’s why I’m so surprised to read that her kids cost $800 a month. Wow! I don’t pay anywhere near that much for mine, and I’d say at this point, we have a similar quality of life.
I think the key difference here is that Cathy and her family choose to live in a much more expensive part of the country. Though her kids *cost* more in daily care, she also *earns* much more as a professional mom than I do.
We’re also not saving as much for their educations as we are to pay off our mortgage within the next five years (our only debt).
Point being, kids do cost–but it’s really the choices you make about how you will live as a family that determine those costs, not the children themselves.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:55 am
@ Linear Girl
I do the same thing. I do our taxes, and then again as if we WEREN’T married. I should have divorced him a while ago ;).
March 25th, 2009 at 8:00 am
@The Geeks in #43 and #45
Kris and I do the same thing — sort of. When I did our taxes by hand, I always did them “married-joint” and “married-separate”. For the past few years, my accountant has done them for me, and it’s now a reflex for him to just work up both scenarios. (Which for him, I think, just means some toggle button in his computer program.) I like seeing how things break out. Plus, that’s how we used to divide our tax refund when we got one!
March 25th, 2009 at 8:08 am
I have alot of kids, (6 of them) they are required to help around the house and with family chores, it is part of being in a family. I find this generation is not taught to work hard and help others which I think is sad. So many families are so busy running to structured activities, rotating around schedules and what the neighbors are doing.
I never have a dull moment in my house and it seems like I always have a few “extra” kids.
I find the costs are not as high as the authors but that could be because of maybe were I live. We have disability and life insurance, (which I didn’t put a whole lot of thought in to till after I had kids) Childcare is expensive, but I have found you can price around for some things, and some things are not worth pricing around for.
I find ways to save alot of money when it comes to clothing and feeding my family, I would say that I probably feed and clothe my kids for less than what many spend on one or two of there kids. My kids do not have or get the latest and greatest toys but there sure have more toys and “stuff” than I had growing up. And I don’t believe I was deprived.
I am able to save and pay debt down and having kids around had made me more aware of my spending. I guess you could say it has forced me to be more mind full of my money.
Are kids expensive, of course they can be. I provide food, shelter, clothing and a good environment for my kids, which I feel is a necessity, everyone has different ideas of what kids “need”. My kids provide themselves with there own vehicle and vehicle insurance if they see it a necessity to drive, which teaches them that everything has a cost to it. I will help them with schooling but I refuse to pay for all of it, I had to pay for my own, many arguments can be made over this but I feel a child that has to pay for a portion of there education will value it more, it should never be an expectation.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Seriously? $800/month per child? I’ve got two kids I we spend $200-$300/month for them combined. Kids don’t have to be expensive.
Also, you should come what you make to what you on the kids. A few years ago MSNBC did a piece on who families with two working parents actually lose money. The money gained by a mother working outside the home in nearly all cases does not offset the cost of more professional clothing, child-care, more prepared foods, increased transportation costs etc.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:11 am
I completely agree with comment #1 by the weakonomist. I have made huge sacrifices for my children but I take it in stride and feel very blessed with their presence in my life. If I had it to do all over again, I would not change a thing.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:12 am
@Colin (#12)
“Are you going to remember that Alaskan cruise you took?”
Uh, yeah, actually, that’s the plan. I hope to have a long, fulfilling life full of rich experiences and memories with my loving wife.
“Or are you going to appreciate the children and grandchildren that are taking care of you in your final moments?”
Would I rather die with happy memories of being independent and traveling the world with my wife, or would I rather die knowing I was a burden to my family right up to the very end? Is that seriously what you’re asking? This has got to be a trick question.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:18 am
I’m a new reader to the grs site. Like a lot of commenters, I’d say if you don’t have someone to help share your wealth with, who cares how much money you have. My wife and I fortunate to have good jobs and a son, with another on the way. If someone were to ever ask me what the best investment I ever made was, I’d gladly tell them it was the $15 stuffed animal I bought my son two years ago that he takes with him everywhere he goes.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:24 am
$800 a month on each kid? I doubt I spend that much in one year on our son. We do get free child care twice a week at the wife’s preschool but other than that I don’t think we’re extremely cheap about anything. We even buy nearly all organic food. We have relatives we share clothes and toys with, which helps.
Why have life insurance on the kids? Are they providing income you would miss if God-forbid something happened to them?
We’re debt free except our mortgage. We save about 25-40% of our monthly gross depending on the month. We made a conscious decision to live on less and have the wife work part-time. Just want to put that out there for those of you that think it can’t be done.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Kids are not expensive!
They CAN be, but that is usually because of the choices of the parent as opposed to the child itself.
Rich people have kids. Poor people have kids.
Kids cost what you are willing to spend.
$10 per month or $100,000 per month. Just like anything else really.
This notion that children are somehow mandatorily expensive is ridiculous. They are not.
So, JD, listen to Trent on this, because he is correct.
Also, regarding the financial implication of children, I do agree that having children slows ones wealth building activities. Not because it has to (force), but because you want to (choice).
The biggest change I saw when I had my first child was the simple fact that my life was no longer about me. For the first time ever, someone else was more important. Until you have kids, I don’t think you ever get that - at least I didn’t.
So pre-kid you are free to focus on your prioroties, including wealth building.
Kids roll it, and things change. Your priorities take a back seat, and their priorities come front and center.
That is the gift of children. They make you realize you aren’t that important. They are.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Thanks so much for putting this into perspective. It is easy as a parent to get discouraged comparing your finances to the finances of someone who doesn’t have kids, and the priorities ARE MOST DEFINITELY DIFFERENT than they are for someone with no kids. This post is a great reminder that we have to keep the fact we have children in perspective.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:28 am
Transportation can be inexpensive (take the bus, walk) moderate (reliable used Camry) or very expensive (Ferrari). Housing can be inexpensive, moderate, or expensive. Food costs can be high, low, or in between. Like any other aspect of our lives, children cause the need for financial decisions and trade offs. The minimum costs include nutritious food, medical and dental care, a car seat, diapers, a few school supplies, some life insurance (for yourself), someone to care for your child when you cannot, and whatever critical items of clothing you can’t get via hand-me-downs. Unless you have a child with severe medical problems, most of this can be obtained fairly inexpensively.
The issue is most parents feel they should provide more than just the basic necessities for their children. Braces, swimming lessons, birthday parties, trips to the zoo, bicycles, college - these are all good things for which many parents will sacrifice other desires.
My family’s most current dilemma involves school as our oldest child is now kindergarten age. We can send her to our adequate, but not exceptional, public school for free. Or we can pay to send her to a fantastic private school. After figuring in tuition costs, lack of free busing, and fewer free extracurricular activities, I figure the private school will cost us $4000 per year per child. If the public school was horrid or if the private school was $20,000 per year, my choice would be easy. As it is, I have to decide if providing a better learning environment for my children is more valuable than applying extra money toward my mortgage principal. I want my child to receive a good education, but I would also love to be debt free.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:34 am
“Or are you going to appreciate the children and grandchildren that are taking care of you in your final moments?”
Colin, I would suggest that whatever motivates people to have children, that they NOT rely upon their children and grandchildren taking care of them in their final moments. It’s wonderful when they do and can, but the miserable reality, seen every day in nursing homes, is that many either are not able to do so - or do not want to do so. By all means, have them, love them, enjoy them - but save for retirement and buy a catastrophic insurance policy, or whatever is necessary to pay for your care. Don’t plan on your children, who may be raising their OWN children, and have neither money, time, nor the ability, to take care of all your needs.
I thought Cathy’s post was a simple reflection, and quite honest. It’s nowhere near as incendiary as the posts that can be found at violentacres.com on the costs and responsibilities involved in taking care of children. Children don’t live on air; it’s that simple. But there are a lot of people who could benefit from reading Cathy’s post. The people who come here are those who are at least trying to be fiscally responsible. It’s disingenuous to suggest that they not take into consideration the financial impact of the biggest decision they can make in their lives: whether or not to have children. Suggesting that people prepare - or even calculate whether they can afford to do so - is not monstrous, and doesn’t mean that the people who do so are child-haters. I would even advocate more strongly that the people who want children plan to live on one salary - not because all families will have a stay-at-home parent, but because, sadly, many families will not remain intact, and of those families, the number of parents who become single-heads-of-households is astronomical. Morever, the majority of those single heads-of-households are women. If families are already used to living on one salary, at least the fiscal change in their circumstances won’t be so violent.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:36 am
I definitely think that all manner of planning should come into play when starting a family. I’m 22 years old and my wife and i just had our first child, and it would have been great if we would have planned a little better. No one really told us the real cost of having a kid, so we were a bit naive in thinking everything would be fin. so now because of crappy insurance im stuck with almost $10k in medical bills, plus my credit card debt im trying to pay off, and im starting college for the first time in april. lets just say my financial outlook at this point is looking a little bleak. my advice to anyone thinking of having a kid? PLAN SAVE PLAN SAVE PLAN SAVE! also, invest in decent insurance with a low deductible.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Interesting post.
A couple of points:
1) Your daycare expenses are quite high which is difficult to handle. However, once the kids go to school they will go down significantly.
2) Part of the problem is that it sounds like you had poor finances to begin with before you had kids. While I certainly don’t think you should have delayed having kids I don’t think it’s fair to blame them for your finances. Yes, they do cost money but it sounds like that non-mortgage debt was there before they were.
The important thing is that you sound like you are on the right track to improving your finances which - kids or no kids - is the main thing!
March 25th, 2009 at 8:53 am
I would love to know where some of you people live. I paid $1200 per month for full-time child care per child (thus the reason I have only two kids!), and the good private schools in my area cost $20,000. And don’t even get me started on the cost of old-fashioned summer camps!
In some respects, I have found that sending your kids to *the best* private school or living in the town with *the best* public school system is overrated. I know many successful professionals who attended average public schools and attended state colleges.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Reasons to have life insurance for your children:
1). to ensure that they will be able to get it for themselves when they become self-sufficient (unforeseen health problem could prevent qualification).
2). for help paying for a funeral (which we know is expensive).
3). It’s very inexpensive- ours is simply a ‘rider’ on my own life ins.
4). You can purchase a small (cheap) policy that builds cash value and then turn it over to your child when they exit college (that’s what my father did for me).
P.S. I pay WAY more than I would have imagined for my kids (private school) and we are by no means rich. But, like others have stated…we are happy to give up the $$$$ for the XOXO.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:05 am
I love children, though we don’t happen to have any (we met each other too late). Children in the developed world are very expensive to the earth’s resources too, incidentally.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I cannot fathom how you could possibly spend $800/month on two children!! We have two kids as well and our food budget is $250/month. We have no need for childcare since I am a stay-at-home mom. We get free clothes (or they come from granparents) shop at thrift store and garage sales, and they have plenty of toys. We cloth-diaper, too.
I think all couples with kids should take a cold, hard look at their “double-incomes” and add up how much of that extra income is being absorbed through taxes, childcare, transportation, etc. With the resulting figures, most people realize that have two-incomes is not worth it at all.
Also, I think many people need to seperate selfish wants from true needs. A new car and nice house are WANTS (no matter how much you think you “need” or “deserve” it. Food is a need. Be sure you know the difference and manage your money accordingly.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:13 am
I hate it when people who have kids and people who don’t have kids fight over it.
Crazy, if you don’t want kids, don’t have any. If you want “experiences” call it what you want it is your personal choice and no one should really judge you for that, so I have to say that I feel for you when it comes to this. I have been to many get together s where all some people talk about are how great there kids are. The truth is I really don’t care how “great” there kids are I am glad that they are happy for their kids.
I am on the flip side of that equation, I have 6 and then people judge me by “how many” kids I have. What is really irritating about the whole thing is that we have always supported our kids, and if we want to have a dozen it shouldn’t really matter to anyone else.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:15 am
I am sitting here trying to figure out how it’s a shock to your finances to have children? Maybe it’s my Mormon/LDS beliefs but having a family has always been part of the plan for me. I didn’t get blindsided from my financial goals because we started a family. I’ve always planned for them. I mean, who cares if you don’t have as much $$ as people who don’t have children - your children are priceless!
Plus, I don’t think kids cost that much.
We get a lot of hand-me-down clothing, I buy things at Kid to Kid, we buy everything on sale, I breastfed for the first year, he eats what we eat and I make things from scratch. Health insurance is what it is. And I work so I understand that the price I pay is babysitting costs, but daycare, as a % of what you make, isn’t that high.
I think people put there kids in costly schools and expensive programs to satisfy their own pride. If you help your kids with their studies and teach them at home too, you don’t need expensive schools.
And I paid for my own college - so my kids can pay for a lot of theirs. I think it builds character and makes them responsible to have to work. I started working when i was 16. They can do the same.
Further, let’s think LONG TERM people. If you save a little each month for your kids, they’ll have a great start in college (if you choose to help them with that). We are beginning to save for a church mission and some college for our son, but if you save just $100 a month you’ll have $22,800 by the time they are 19). This will pay for the mission and will help him get started at a college.
My “wealth” and financial situation means next to nothing to me without having a family to share it with. We’re not here to just accumulate a bunch of money and then die. Money is just a means to have the things that really matter: kids and a family.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I had an abstract feeling of wanting to have kids someday, being slightly workaholic, until 9/11. That’s when I realized that life is short and I would not feel fulfilled going through life without having had a child to share it with. Finances were never a serious argument against it for me, as people told me that children take more time than money, and I knew I was happy to accept hand me downs, etc. So it was an eye opener all the fixed costs that come with raising children, everything from healthy groceries, to doctors and dentist visits, bigger and safer car, life insurance (for yourself, not the kids!) keeping to a stable job with benefits, housing choices (size, school zone etc). We are commited to living simply but it is a whole other ballgame when there are children in the picture. I am not saying this to dissuade anyone, but as a public service announcment, that if it is a goal to have children, like any financial goal one should evaluate and prepare for it both financially and in terms of commitment. For example for the vast majority, one can not have children AND retire early, you have to choose.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I don’t think kids are expensive, and honestly I don’t care. There is no price that can be put on our family life and our boys. It’s just irrelevant. Childless or a house full of kids, it is all about choices and priorities. My best friend is my age (mid-40s) and she and her husband have no kids. Their life is very different from ours. For each of us, our lives make sense.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:34 am
This post annoys me with its lack of substance. It’s title is “The High Cost of Having Children”, but its content is essentially, “mine cost $1600/month, that’s a lot!” Yeah, I guess it is a lot. There’s no breakdown at all as to how much any individual item costs, lots of things are left out, and it generally doesn’t provide much insight at all.
You might as well write about “The High Cost of Owning a Home” and then say, “Mine cost $600,000, that’s a lot!” Well, sure it is, but it doesn’t help me at all with planning to purchase one. And that brings up my issue - I’m 27 and recently married and planning on having kids in the near future. Articles on this topic could be so helpful, but they’d have to have some real info in them.
Beyond all that, the author’s expenses are ridiculously high. The average family in the US makes about $40k before taxes, so say no more than $30k after taxes. Given a $1000/month mortgage payment for the same family, that leaves them with $20k. Take another $1600/month out of that and you’re left with a whopping $800 to spend on *everything* else, including transportation, utilities, food, clothes, entertainment, etc to spend for the rest of the *year*. That’s right, $800 left over for the year, not for the month.
Yet, every day I see average families with kids doing OK. You know why this is possible? Because they don’t pay ridiculous childcare, health insurance, and life insurance costs. Certainly I can see why the author would choose to buy these things, but at the same time, I see them as luxuries and not necessities. If I modify that list for my own situation, it looks like this: Childcare: free, this is their mother’s job (quite literally). Healthcare: about $100/month, this is the company health plan premium when moving to a family plan, and it covers an unlimited number of children. Life insurance: I’d pass on this, I don’t think it’s necessary.
So, where the author lists $1600 for those three expenses, I can list $100. That doesn’t make kids sound very expensive to me, but that’s because I’m not targeting the most expensive child-rearing experience possible. To make a car analogy, the author could have said “Man, I love my car, but man is it expensive!” When you find out the author is driving a brand new Mercedes S-Class, you kind of think to yourself, “Well, yeah, of course it’s expensive”, and then you realize that you could probably drive a car for a lot cheaper, but the author didn’t give any clues as to how, so you’re left to figure it out on your own.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:34 am
I was listening to Clark Howard this morning on the Bill Handel show, and laughed when Handel said Clark’s mission was to teach people to live on $12,000 a year…Clark said no, he could live on $8,500 a year! Then he pointed out that his wife and college-attending daughter cost quite a bit more than that, and even the frugal Clark is OK with that–he still manages to save for the future and buy cereal at 80% off retail.
I think the writer’s point here is that we parents weren’t prepared for just how much kids cost. I love mine, and would not be nearly as happy without them, despite their $30,000 annual price tag. The good news is having that extra spending money later–woohoo!
It’d be nice if young couples had a better grasp of how much to budget for having children–they’d probably take on less debt and live more frugally ahead of time instead of trying to make up for lost time later.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Just a note of sad reality…
Most people who I know, who have kids, do it consciously and on a whim because another kid usually means a few more dollars in their pocket. They’ve usually got 2-4 anyway that they spend nothing on (state feeds them, take free stuff from charity), and every new kid is another dependent and corresponding credits for their 1040. They spend so little on their kids it’s always a net economic gain to have another one.
Has nothing to do with most GRS readers life situations I bet (anyone earning more than $30k-ish a year couldn’t get most if any of these free goodies courtesy of the taxpayers) or this post, but that’s how it is out in the real world, and why the people who can’t support them have lots of children.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:41 am
As a mother of two teen boys, I love what “weakonomist” said (first comment), and enjoyed Cathy’s post. There are so many factors involved with the expenses of raising children. I did not read all of the posts, but planning can be difficult because many children have special needs with expenses that are often not met with medical insurance, especially if alternative therapies are used.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Most financial advisors say to invest in your 401K before you invest in college savings. Your kids can get college loans based on their future expected income - but you cannot get a loan to retire.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:44 am
I am surprised that people here are unable to understand that costs are so different in different parts of the country. The least expensive childcare I could find for my 3 year old is 40/day. It’s a beautiful building with great facilities and the teachers are lovely. Still, I looked a lot before choosing a place because you need to consider how the teachers are paid and what their benefits are — unhappy people don’t make great teachers. You have to be comfortable with where you leave your child. I was very lucky to find such a nice place that’s good to their staff and reasonably priced.
Like anything else, these things are complicated, and everyone makes their own decisions for their own reasons, and that is fine.
I’d still urge a SAHM (or dad) to consider all the costs of having one or two incomes. I saw a post from the SAH side, so wanted to mention the other. Obviously both choices have expenses, including personal satisfaction (I missed working and wanted to return to the workforce), long term savings and contributions to social security — when MY parents split up, my mother had insignificant SS because she’d worked less to take care of us. It can also effect your return to the job market. It can be hard (and certainly is now) to return when you’ve been many years out of the workforce. Fields change, requirements change, and catching up with those is difficult. I love the time I stayed home with my children (3 years), but I really wanted to go back to work and I’m very lucky that I found a job based from my home. I don’t have clothing expenses or commuting, and I’m very available for emergencies. I gain personal job satisfaction and savings for retirement, including contributing to social security (even though I’m always told it won’t be there when it’s time for me to retire).
I’m not going to figure out every cent my children cost me every month, but I can tell you, 200/week for one child adds up fast. My 5 year old costs for full-day kindergarten and care on snow days and holidays. It’s hard to find care for less than that, at least in Central Massachusetts.
I guess I just think everyone needs to remember that everyone is different and location plays a huge role in cost of living, including cost of raising children, even when your kids do play with the cardboard box in the backyard for years in a row.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I am almost 42.
We have 5 children.
I have been the sole provider, working in the education sector (read: low salary relative to the rest of the workforce). My wife homeschools our children.
We’ve never carried consumer debt. We had a car loan once (18 years ago) that we paid in full in less than a year.
We paid off our house 2 years ago.
We are building wealth (have been for a while, actually)
It can be done.
I prefer to think of it as “the high blessing of having children.”
March 25th, 2009 at 9:50 am
“A hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove…but the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child.”
Forest E. Witcraft
March 25th, 2009 at 9:53 am
@Matthew144 (#32)
“1. [Kids] are the ultimate luxury good.
4. [Grandkids are] truly the ultimate luxury good.”
Which is it?
“5. Kids increase a Father’s [...] earning power, especially in his younger years.”
Conversely, they do they exact OPPOSITE for the mother.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Oh, I don’t know… $100 life insurance premium to make sure my children have a trust fund and/or good financial cushion should they lose one or both parents seems worth it to me. We don’t have to spend that much right now because it’s subsidized through my husband’s employer, but we’ve purchased gap insurance in the past. Totally worth it.
And if you think mom’s job is to stay home full-time, great. Just remember that not all of us are like that, and great child care is an essential resource for those of us who want to/need to work. We will pay what it takes. You truly get what you pay for.
What I got from this post was the idea that, wow, yes, I knew having kids would cost a lot, and I thought I was prepared. And then I actually had kids and realized that my preparation wasn’t enough!
I love my kids, not least because I think they’ve helped me move further down the road of financial responsibility. Some people pick up good financial habits easily; other people need good reason to change. No, I’m not as well developed as I should be financially, but you know what? I think I would be worse off without my kids, despite our $1600/mo child care bill. Now we have more reason to care, and it’s made a huge difference for us.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Thanks for the great article, I have marked your blog to check out when I have time. I have not been able to relate to JD’s 3rd stage of personal finance and hadn’t really put my finger on why I hadn’t it just hadn’t really clicked with me which is unusal since I typically enjoy his writing, but now after reading your article I can understand why I am not getting it, because I have a long time of raising three kids ahead of me before I am truly ready for the 3rd stage!!
And thanks JD for having a guest article on this subject.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I don’t see Cathy’s post as complaining about the cost of children or anything of the sort. The message I’m getting from her post is that for people with children the road to financial freedom may be a little longer than for those without, and not to lose patience while traveling that road. The point she’s making here is that reading blogs and books by personal finance gurus without kids or that don’t take families into consideration can lead a person to think “I’m not doing this very well” or “I’m not getting anywhere”. The fact is, kids are an added expense any way you look at it, and it’s going to take someone with kids longer to reach a financial goal than someone of equal income who does not have children. Patience is the key here, both in parenting and in reaching you financial goals.
Thanks Cathy, and good luck!
March 25th, 2009 at 10:12 am
( Snowballer says: Most people who I know, who have kids, do it consciously and on a whim because another kid usually means a few more dollars in their pocket.)
Excuse me? More money in my pocket? Who would have that type of mentality, I have 6 kids and your saying my thought is “hey honey I am pregnant here comes the money train!!!!!!!!” Get real!!! You would have to be kidding if you think people actually plan to have kids to get more money!!!! We have fully supported all of our kids, the ignorance of that post was unbelievable. What kind of people do you hang around that have that type of mentality? The tax deduction from a child does NOT = money in the bank.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:15 am
OK, I’m a bit confused as to what this post is for. I’m disappointed that the author hasn’t done better financially. Is this just a post to make parents feel better if they are not as far ahead as they had hoped? Yes, raising kids is expensive. I have 2 of my own - 1 in diapers. However as a parent, it’s even MORE important to pay off the debt, although it might be harder at this point.
I just don’t understand the “advice” on this one. My advice would be going back to Sara who some said was too frugal… Sara is doing it right, pay it ALL off now before you have kids. I didn’t have any consumer debt when the kids came along. The sooner you start paying off the debt, the better positioned you are for the cost of children.
I guess on some level I’ve been lucky, but luck also comes from planning, hard work, and sacrifice.
We take free hand-me-downs from friends and family for clothes - so we basically buy a cute dress here or there, socks, and underwear. That’s it. As for food, they eat what we eat, so we just make a bit more rice or beans or pasta. Medical has been more and so has our life insurance, but we have 20 year term, so we’re talking an extra $50/month for that.
We vacation by car and visit National Parks. Last year, we saved so much money by driving and not flying/renting a car to visit grandma that we were able to hit Disneyland on the way back for 2 days and still spend less money than if we had flown and not done anything fun. My idea of hitting Disneyland is on a budget though. We don’t eat at the park, instead we go off site to McDonalds or back to our hotel off property, and we don’t buy a bunch of stuff or pay to meet the characters.
However, we pay for music and dance lessons, and sports teams for the kids. It’s only because we can afford to do so AFTER we pay our other obligations, including our retirement being fully funded.
Childcare is a financial mistake many people make. I pay for childcare only because my income is high enough that it doesn’t make sense for me to stay home. Most people don’t fall into that category, but still work only to make enough to barely pay the sitter.
I do agree, though, there is no “right” time to have kids. They are a blessing, no doubt. And if you set yourself up with some hard work and foresight before the kiddos come along, you’ll be much better off for it.
I also suffered with infertility, and 4 miscarriages. So I don’t advocate waiting. If you want kids, you never know that you can have them.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Before my wife and I got married last year, we had long talks about how we envisioned our future. We decided as a couple that we would delay having children until we a) have a few years under our belt living with each other, b) establish our careers and c) making sure we take care of our finances and eliminate our student loan debt. It does make it really hard when all of friends are starting to have kids. We would enjoy our kids growing up together. Already, we have seen the financial hardships are our friends are going through. That’s one thing we are not envious of.
Stupidly Yours,
Matt
March 25th, 2009 at 10:23 am
>>”5. Kids increase a Father’s [...] earning >>power, especially in his younger years.”
>>Conversely, they do they exact OPPOSITE for >>the mother.
Depends on who stays home, doesn’t it?
March 25th, 2009 at 10:24 am
“A hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove…but the world may be different because I was important…in the lives of others.”
Honestly, I’m on the childfree side of the fence for a multitude of reasons.
I am pleasantly surprised that the majority of comments are balanced and thought out. Most places are very, VERY anti-child free and consider anyone without kids to be (take your pick) selfish/insane/criminal/to be pitied, etc.
I do think that with getting my financial act together with my wife we can both contribute to society without having children…teaching, charity work, etc.
Hence the tweaked quote from the poster above. If you want kids, great!, bt if you don’t want children I think that ’s a great option too.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I would also like to take a minute to respond to those readers who keep saying, If you don’t have a family/kids to spend your life with, who cares how much money you have?
Not everyone who wants kids can have them. Not even by adoption. Not every person who would like to go through life with a partner meets the right person.
Are you seriously telling me that these people have no worth? Or are you just saying that their lives aren’t worth living?
I’m guessing that at least some of you have managed to make people who’ve been less fortunate even more miserable than they might otherwise be. Conversely, it is also possible to build an extended family with people who care for you even if you don’t marry - or have kids.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Wow! “That’s $1600 that we spend each month before adding in the cost of food, clothing, toys, entertainment, etc.” Having “come out on the other side” of child rearing in the black and with a substantial amount of money in savings, I cannot believe it costs you so much! Of course, I stayed at home with my children until the oldest was in high school. We lived on one paycheck. For a while, we only had one car. You can save a lot of money by not needing work clothes and having only one car! I became the “garage sale queen.” Used clothing, toys, etc. saved us a ton of cash! We grew, canned and froze most of the veggies we ate. The weeding also kept those kids entertained/busy! We lived on 3 acres, so there was plenty of room to run and play. When I went back to work, my paycheck became “the college fund.” We saved for retirement all along. One thing I have heard thrown out there recently is: “You can take out a loan for college, but you can’t get a loan for retirement.” I think this is so true. As far as your children’s education is concerned, your kids should also be expected to contribute to their college experiences. Let them know far enough in advance how much you are willing to give toward it each year. Also, they need to know how many years you are willing to contribute. Four years is all we gave ours. Funny how they managed to graduate in 4 years! Lots of stuff to think about. But I do think that just starting at $1600 is excessive. Cutting corners is hard work, but very worth it!
March 25th, 2009 at 10:39 am
The article is OK, but as others said — light on details and concrete suggestions. Maybe she can do a follow up?
We have 2 kids, and we’re at the 3rd stage. But, we had no consumer debt and significant savings when we started our family. We were also borderline “old” — DH was 40 and I was 33 when our 1st was born.
DH has been a stay-at-home dad almost since my son was born. That wasn’t the plan. We thought we’d do the dual-income daycare routine, until #1 came out. Then, it was a decision about who had to go back to work. I don’t want to take the discussion off-topic with the whys of our decision.
We are pretty frugal, so our issues are more about “the opportunity costs of having children”. DH and I were making $150k+ combined before kids. We would undoubtedly be FI by now, had we not had kids and forgone one income. We knew that, and had them anyway. It was a conscious choice. (So was having the kids “old” — we had agreed that we would foster/adopt if we had fertility issues.)
However, having one parent as “household manager” helps us keep our expenses down: less stress, more time for smart shopping and financial management, minimal childcare expenses, home cooking, parental tutoring and enrichment, etc. So, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out we’re about where we would have been if we had both kept working after the kids were born.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:46 am
This is a great article that helps me stay focused on the big picture. One thing my hub and I did 6 yrs. ago to be able to save more was cut down the #1 expense - taxes. It was an “ah-ha” moment when we were introduced to Sandy Botkin. We were able to save an extra $10K every year, and dump that into savings. The key is not to spend it! Chk it out here: http://www.taxdeductionstrategies.com
Oh, also I’m a big believer in saving for retirement 1st b4 kids college–they give loans for college, but they don’t give loans for retirement.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Everyone, remember, term life insurance is not expensive…I pay under 200/yr. for my 300,000/20-yr. insurance (I am a stay-at-home mom; husband is insured for MUCH more. This premium has a rider to include $15,000 worth of life ins. for each of my 3 kids!) Parents, don’t make excuses for not protecting your kids’ futures–GET LIFE INSURANCE–but buy TERM, not WHOLE LIFE (expensive rip-off)
BTW- My husband is a police officer and it IS necessary (still cheap). And, No, I have no interest in the insurance business.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:06 am
I find it amusing when people try to count up the “cost” of having a child.
To those of you who think $800/m/child is excessive… is that because you have a spouse at home caring for them? If you count in the lost wages of that caregiver what is the cost then??
When my child was young and as a single parent I didn’t have the option of not having child care, and infant care at that time was $560 CDN per month. Now I understand it is more like $800 JUST FOR CHILD CARE. Add food and clothing, and it is much more.
But other than the obvious costs (child care, children’s clothing, etc), how do you calculate the savings of NOT going to the movies because it is more fun to stay home and play? Or the cost of seeing a movie that you don’t want to see because the 8 year old will DIE if you don’t see “Monsters vs. Aliens” when you would rather see the new Julia Roberts movie?
When I was pregnant I was told that “Children cost every dollar you make. Be it $10,000 or $100,000 or $1m” and it is true (and false, like all ultimate truths) because there isn’t ONE decision I make in the day that doesn’t factor in how it will affect my daughter.
When I had her I was earning less than $10,000CDN per year. Now I earn many times that much, but still every dollar is prioritized to provide her with her needs, then me with my needs, then her with her wants. My wants come in last place.
But my happiness is depenant on knowing that I am doing my best for her. What cost is that happiness worth? Every penny.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:09 am
@ Tyler — You mentioned that you don’t include life insurance because you don’t believe it is necessary. Assuming your wife’s “job” is to take care of your children, what will they do for income if something happens to you?
Just curious about what the contingency plan would be.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:09 am
It seems to me from reading the comments, when looking at children-related expenses there needs to be two sets of numbers. One set for a family with a SAH, one set for no SAH.
There is so much discussion about being frugal on clothes, toys, etc. For me, these expenses are trivial compared to childcare (which I’m not willing to skimp on), medical, and college savings.
I think the main takeaway of this post is for the younger people out there. Don’t waste away your money now and expect to save later in your 30s and 40s when you settle down. If you plan to have a family - start saving for it now - don’t wait because it gets much harder.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Kids aren’t as expensive in countries with a national healthcare system, government tax subsidies that actually make a difference and a cost of living that isn’t overinflated. Perhaps this is another anecdote on the depressing state of the American economy, and the inability of the US government to do anything but raise taxes and devalue your hard earned money.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:27 am
There’s only so much room in a guest post to fill in all the gaps, suffice it to say that we are actually doing quite well, financially. My point is simply that having children has changed our priorities and slowed our achievement of non-child-related goals like retirement savings and being debt-free. In other words, having children is slowing my arrival at the third stage, as defined by J.D., but I’m definitely not complaining about it - just pointing out that simple fact.
@TosaJen - Can you clarify or expand on what you’d want to know in a follow up post? Alternatively, a lot of your curiosity may be satisfied by checking out the posts over at Chief Family Officer - needless to say, there’s a lot more info about me there than there is here!
March 25th, 2009 at 11:29 am
@Beth: I do have some (fairly small) amount of life insurance through work. I believe it covers two or three years of my salary, and the premium on it is very low (in the neighborhood of $100/year). I also have our savings, and my 401k, which continue to grow.
So, in the event that I was to die, my wife would be left with a minimum of three years of my salary. If she wanted to be extra frugal, she could probably live on this for 10 years. Once we have children, that time span will be shorter, but by then, my 401k and other savings will be bigger as well.
So say she has five years of expenses covered. This gives her five years to get back on her feet. She’s a smart woman, and she’s not incapable of working for a living (she works now, and will continue working until we have kids).
So, if I die, my family is not set up to live carefree for the rest of their lives, but they are set up with a cushion to land on so they can pick themselves up and carry on. Considering that I’m pretty unlikely to die in the next 25 years, I think this is an adequate level of protection.
If I lose my life insurance through work (say by changing jobs to one that doesn’t offer this benefit), maybe a moderate life insurance policy like this is a worthwhile investment, but it’s a small investment and makes nearly no dent in a number like $1600/month. I still think that life insurance costing hundreds of dollars a month (as is implied by this article) is an unnecessary luxury.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:42 am
@ all the posters who are questioning what % to do what with vs. save for kids education and/or pay toward better schooling:
I think this is probably one of the first generations that are thinking of themselves first rather than their kids. Any previous generations would sacrifice almost EVERYTHING to give it to their kids if it was going to give them a better chance at a successful life.
I’m not talking about a sacrifice so your kids can wear the most expensive clothes or drive a new BMW they day they turn 16 either. I’m merely talking about banking every dime you can to give them the biggest head start possible. And teaching them the lessons learned *before* sending them out the door to live on their own.
One thing everyone seems to forget here, is that there is one big, huge caveat to all our plans. Death. You don’t know how much time you have to get your kids on the right path. My dad died when I was just going out on my own (1 year into my now 13 year marriage) and he was just starting to teach me some of his life lessons. I hope to start much earlier with my son, as I don’t want him to have to find his way in the dark as much as I have, or to try to correct mistakes once you find the path.
Everyone should be making every sacrifice they can to give their kids a better future.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:45 am
What can I say, I love GRS and I love the guest posts. The honesty of this post is cool. Our family’s experience is that having kids really improved our financial focus, but we’re moving much more slowly towards our goals. Financially, having kids has been a mixed blessing.
Like all things in parenting, nothing can prepare your house, your relationship, your heart, or even your account balances for the impact. Becoming a parent is a seismic experience. (And, for the record, I’d do it all over again in a heartbeat and would choose my kids over having a bazillion bucks any day. Okay, most days.)
March 25th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
La BellaDonna and Jla01– a big THANK YOU for your comments. I’d applaud if you could hear me.
I’m glad people appreciate the value of family. Just don’t rub the salt in our wounds if we don’t have what you have.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@Cathy: I found that a few statements piqued my curiosity:
“I still consider myself to be firmly entrenched in the second stage — and I’ve been in this stage for years already, and will continue to remain in it for the foreseeable future.
And I realized that it’s because I have kids. J.D. doesn’t. Now that he’s paid off his non-mortgage debt and begun saving, he can think about grander things.”
There are a whole lot of people who will say this isn’t strictly true. You’ve made a bunch of choices along the way that make this true, in addition to the kids. That’s where things get interesting to read about.
I will take a look at your blog (probably have already) when I get the chance!
March 25th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Honestly, I keep waiting for my kids to “get expensive” (they are 18 and 20). My husband and I got a late start on both work (advanced degrees) and kids (age 35 at first). We did not have the high income of the previous poster (teachers). It’s all about choices all the way. I have written about our college choices and will eventually write about other choices we have made over the years. As in “Your Money or Your Life” consciousness is the way to go!
March 25th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
We are having twins this summer and are anticipating paying between $1000 and $1300 per month PER CHILD for daycare alone starting next year. And not especially spectacular daycare, either—just the only places we have found relatively close to where we live where we’d feel that our kids would be safe and well cared for. That’s just what the cost is around here. (We live in a big city, not in the suburbs or in a rural area.) I understand the thinking that for that price, kids should be learning Chinese and trigonometry and be able to cure cancer, but it just doesn’t work that way.
And yes, if I stayed home, we’d be “saving” all that money every month, but (1) I’d be losing a lot in both immediate and long-term earning power by taking myself out of the game for five years (and then having to figure out a way back in later on), and (2) I find my career fulfilling and believe that happy parents = happy children, even if we’re not home with them 24/7. I like my job and my company, and giving that up isn’t something I’m especially eager to do. If it made crystal-clear financial sense for me to stay home, I would probably do it, but it’s not crystal-clear.
There are other financial considerations, like the fact that if I weren’t working, adding the three of us to my husband’s health-insurance plan would cost about $700 a month, whereas adding our kids to my employer-paid health-insurance plan would only cost about $150 a month. That’s just one example.
When you add up the long-term opportunity cost of not working, does the math still make sense for you? And do you actually like your job? Those questions should also make it into the considerations. If you hate your job, it might make more sense for quality-of-life alone to stay home with kids. But it’s not necessarily the most frugal choice, and those of us who choose to work aren’t necessarily killing ourselves just so we can buy our kids a bunch of expensive junk, either. My husband and I want to travel a lot when we retire, and we want to retire young, so it makes sense for us to both stay in the game right now. Nobody gets 401(k) matching for staying at home.