It’s that time of year again! Articles offering up the good news and the bad news when it comes to the costs of raising children.
And now, are you ready for the bad news?
Our little (and big) darlings cost us a fortune, and the latest annual reflection on the expense of child-rearing is no less impressive than earlier discussions on the matter.
The New York Times offers one opinion of the annual report from the Department of Agriculture, as Nadia Taha, the article’s author, takes the stance that she did the math and simply can’t afford children.
I figure it would run close to $2 million by the time it was all over…
The United States Department of Agriculture Department publishes an annual report on what families spend on their children, so I used that as a basis… In 2007, The Wall Street Journal tried to improve upon the government figures…
And what exactly is the current total being offered for our consideration? The average figure which was used a year ago was approximately $227,000 per child, from birth to age 18, with my own estimate at the time closer to $400,000 each.
This year’s official dollar amount? With many variables, it’s roughly $300,000 to $490,000.* And yes, that’s a wide range, nonetheless adding credence to my own $400,000 estimate.
Baby-Making Bites the Bullet?
Ms. Taha, apparently in her late 20s, refers to another Times essay on the subject of opting out of parenthood. She might be expected (wrongly?) to turn sentimental, toss her hands up into the air, or surrender eventually to her biological clock, some vague baby lust, or even peer pressure. She may conclude that whatever it takes, she and her husband will figure it out and alter their lifestyle accordingly if needed.
That’s the line of reasoning most of us follow, isn’t it?
But she persists, sticking to her calculating guns:
Without excessive expenditures, surely people like us could raise a child for more than the $435,030 the government estimates but less than the $776,000, $1 million or $1.6 million guessed at on the pages of the Wall Street Journal…
I had hoped so, but my estimation… ended up being more…
It will be interesting to see how she and her husband eventually “solve” this equation, especially when they’re in their 30s. I do not think she rules that out, along with the unavoidable compromises.
One of the elements of the Times article which makes excellent sense is factoring in regional differences. Not only is this a matter of cost of living, it’s also a matter of career options, income levels, and available “services.” Ms. Taha and her husband reside in New York City. Housing, childcare, and education for example are not the same as in Nashua, New Hampshire or Nashville, Tennessee.
Ms. Taha also considers the increase in health care costs and writes:
My health insurance plan would charge us nearly $4,000 more each year for an additional dependent. Co-pays, prescriptions and other therapies could easily cost another $750 each year. At some point, our hypothetical child would probably have braces as we both did, which costs $4,000 out of pocket.
It’s difficult to dispute the dollars and cents.
More Money, More Money, More Money
Ms. Taha goes on to cover the financial side of the parenting terrain as it truly exists for many of us, including (ideally) putting some money into a fund to save for college. There is also an assumption of continuing financial support between ages 18 and 25. For some parents (and kids) that’s valid, and for others – going nowhere as adult children is not an option – certainly not for midlife or older parents struggling themselves, who simply cannot afford it.
And let’s not forget that the writer’s calculations are based on two income-earning parents to share the responsibilities and the costs.
Yet as a woman, Ms. Taha rightly points out the inevitable flattening (or even reduced) earnings picture, with wages lost on maternity leave, potential mommy-tracking for a time, and a cited set of figures on the “motherhood wage gap” referring to data showing women who are mothers
Doubt those percentages? I took on the Matriarchy Myth recently, complete with details on continuing gender disparities in earnings. Take a look for the less than stellar picture.
Children: Only for the Very Rich?
Naturally, the commentary that follows from Times readers is, well… an interesting mixed bag.
The figures I once used, following a Motherlode article from an earlier year and by the same source, hovered at the $227,000 per child figure, from birth until age 18. I knew at the time that was considerably below my actual expenditures as child care alone can require a hefty annual sum. And don’t we need child care in order to work and hopefully bring additional income into the household – not to mention keep some skin in the professional game for sanity, for self, and for self-protection should the marriage end or a spouse lose his or her job?
Are we to conclude that children – especially in certain parts of the country – are simply not an option unless you’re very rich?
And then there’s the other end of the spectrum, the very poor – with fewer alternatives all around, including access to family planning services.
Why We Have Children
The reasons we bear children, nurture them, love them, fuss at them, fight for them, worry about them, support them, and ultimately guide them (we hope) to independence have little to do with reason or even reality.
Some of us become parents because it is expected, and we find an extraordinarily rich bond after the fact. Some of us ache to have children because we love our partners, we love kids, and we want to build a family together.
Some of us bear children we did not plan or did not want. If the children are lucky, we will be caring and responsible. If the children aren’t lucky, I believe we’ve been irresponsible in raising those children ourselves. Then again, for many, there aren’t other “viable” options.
I imagine there are many more reasons for becoming a parent, and none are so simple as those I’ve just outlined. What happens to many women – and men – when they first see or hold their child, biological or adopted, is a transformation that is inexplicable. Some of us, when finally sending our own out into the world, even toy with the idea of doing it again in some fashion.
Fixing the Financials in Parenting
As a long-time single / solo parent, I would like to highlight one paragraph from the Department of Agriculture report:
Child-rearing expense patterns of single-parent households with a before-tax income less than $59,410 were 7 percent lower than those of husband-wife households in the same income group. Most single-parent households were in this income group (compared with about one-third of husband-wife families).
Note these words: “Most single-parent households were in this income group” (less than $59,410). And note, too, that finding doesn’t specify whether there is one child or four in the care of the single parent trying to make it at or below that income level.
Big Picture, Interrelated Systems
Financial common sense may seem irrelevant with a cooing baby in our arms or a sweet-faced toddler clinging to our legs. But we do have to live in the real world. That means facing the considerable costs and consequences of parenthood.
Shouldn’t we be focusing on the systems – human and organizational – that comprise our society’s approach to family?
- How about the positive impacts of community that foster sharing of resources and services. How do we encourage more of that?
- What about the sometimes terrifying facts that surround placing your child in another’s care? How do we extend and improve the available quality early care and learning environments for our children?
- And our inflexible employment environments that talk a good game but are less than family-friendly?
What else could we look at?
How about the state-specific divorce industry as it exists today, with courts and attorneys too often incapable of doing right by single mothers – collecting delinquent child support, and other monies that are not labeled “support” but are entirely child-related?
How about education – public education – so private schools wouldn’t feel like the only safe bet to many? And while we’re speaking of education, what about the sky-high expense of college?
None of this is easy. All of these systems are interrelated. And a “quality” life will always cost, and always require reasoned compromises.
Price Tag Per Child
I understand too well where this writer is coming from. Like most, I was of the “we’ll figure it out” school of thought. I was also older when I married, and older when I had my children. Midlife mothers face their own (financial and emotional) challenges.
I didn’t look at this picture on the front end; I’ve surely lived it these past 20 years. Yet it saddens me to think that any adult woman or man who wishes to have a child and raise him responsibly and lovingly would have to “do the math” first, and conclude that it’s not possible.
And here are the questions rattling around in my brain:
- Are all non-wealthy parents doomed to struggle financially, or just make far more compromise than they initially expect?
- Will the women always carry the lion’s share of both burdens?
- What if we knew before having a child that the price tag would be a cool half million? Or $400,000 at the typical middle income level? Or the “former” $227,000? Would we still do it?
I imagine each of us needs to balance a close examination of values and lifestyle, willingness to compromise and sacrifice, and accepting that these figures are not an exaggeration. There’s no question in my mind that we must confront these very real costs and their complicated origins and issues.
But we also must remember that parenting is both responsibility and privilege. We can put a price tag on parenting responsibilities; the privilege that offsets them is priceless.
Note: The Department of Agriculture Report of Expenditures on Children by Families provides considerable data including graphs, comparisons, and qualifications. Search toward the end of the report for specifics summarizing the figures cited here. $490,000 figure – Table 10 of the report.