babble » blogs » Strollerderby
Strollerderby
They Say: It Costs HOW Much to Raise a Kid?
We all know that raises a child can be expensive. The clothes, the food, the housing they all add up. Once you add in day camps, birthdays, ballet or soccer classes, the figure can be staggering to even the most moneyed of moms and dads. So how much does it cost to raise a kid these days?
$221,000. Yes, almost a quarter of a million dollars. A new government report from the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion states that an average middle class family will spend that much on raising their kid from birth to the age of 17. The largest expense is housing followed by food and school/child care. This figure does not include childbirth or college. But that’s not it…no. When adjusted for inflation the amount jumps up to a staggering $292,000
But that figure isn’t just a blanket amount. “Families with more income spend more money on child-related costs, the report said. A two-parent family that earns less than $57,000 annually will spend about $160,000 on a child from birth through high school. Those with an income between $57,000 and $99,000 spend about $221,000 and those with higher incomes are expected to spend roughly $367,000 through age 17.”
Does that figure shock you or is that what you thought it would cost when and if you decided to procreate?
Go Back To Strollerderby
0 Comments
PlumbLucky commented on Aug 05 09 at 8:12 amEven after reading the report, I have to strongly disagree with their inclusion of housing expenses into the number. We were one of “those” couples who didn’t move into a bigger house when we had our first. And even if that room WASN’T a nursery, we would be paying for the room, and the utilities that serve the room. It is a cost, but to quantify the housing cost for a child for 18 years is something that really needs so many qualifications, why would it be included in a hard-number report?
jeannesager commented on Aug 05 09 at 10:33 amWhen they say housing PlumbLucky, I wonder if that refers more to utilities that are extra? I’m just spitballing here – not really sure – but an extra person means more lights turned on, more hot water used, etc. – and that might well fall under housing?
You might pay utilities for a room whether it’s a nursery or not, but you won’t turn lights on in it unless someone’s living in it. And a lot of people don’t heat certain rooms of their house to save money – not an option with someone sleeping in it.
Otherwise, I would tend to agree with you – that the physical room isn’t an add-on.
PlumbLucky commented on Aug 05 09 at 10:49 amHonestly, I had trouble navigating the statis-speak in the actual report…to me it (the report) sounded as though they were using the cost for the actual bedroom, plus the associated utilities for that bedroom, not just the “extra use” part. And even if it were extra for the use (i.e. the lights being on or off) how do you quantify other things (such as change in weather…our electric bill is LOWER this year even with the addition in our family due to MI having one cool summer in these parts at least as compared to last). I just don’t think that including what they have for housing serves much purpose other than “shock and awe” at how materialistic we are.
Some of the other things mentioned make me wonder how they were quantified as well – example – added costs for living in a “good” school district vs. not. In our case, we could compare where we live to a similar house in the Detroit Public School district – but would that REALLY give an accurate comparison and would we have made the same decision if we didn’t have a child? Well, in our case, I strongly suspect so as we had purchase our house in our area after we’d been given the medical prognosis of “not without significant fertility assistance” regarding our ability to have children (granted, we managed to prove this wrong, but still). Sure, we could have paid around 45% less (at the time) for a house in DPS area…but would we have? Issues of services available, safety, etc. came into play, not the quality of the district.
They exclude things such as loss of business opportunities and potential earned income; seems like they could exclude such a random variable as housing costs just as easily.
Here is a link to the report: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2008.pdf
jeannesager commented on Aug 05 09 at 1:24 pmOn that I totally agree with you, Plumb Lucky, it’s very hard to quantify this kind of thing. The price of living in my county is vastly different from just one county over. Drive an hour and a half, and you land in Manhattan, and that price of living literally sky rockets in comparison.
And life in a “good school district” can be a lot cheaper than life in a “bad” one. The town in my county with the lowest taxes actually has one of the best school districts because NYC supplements to the tax base in exchange for water rights for the city water system (sadly I don’t live there – I still pay higher taxes – sigh).
I will say, though, in terms of trying to arm people with a sense of “sit down and get ready,” I like hearing these kinds of reports come out. The problem is the way people take them – I don’t think people should be discouraged about having a baby because of this, just a little more realistic!
nu-nu commented on Sep 15 09 at 3:04 pmthis is not good
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Joslyn Gray 
Amber Doty 
Julianna Miner 
Monica Bielanko 
Sierra Black 
Meredith Carroll 
Carolyn Castiglia 
Sunny Chanel 
Madeline Holler 
Wendy Michaels 
Rebecca Odes 
Danielle Smith 
Danielle Sullivan 
Katherine Stone 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
0