Is it Becoming Too Expensive to Be a Parent?

"In fact, the average cost of raising a child to age 17 is over $150,000 per year."
Please show me where this statistic came from. If this were true, then NOBODY would have kids. It's impossible to spend $150k a year just on a child. Seriously, Shine...please proofread your articles. I think that what the author meant to say was that the average cost of raising a child to age 17 is around 150,000. Not per year. Irresponsible journalism.

I can't stand this article. There is NO, and I repeat NOOOOOO, reason to call for increased government intervention to solve this problem. You're essentially asking for the government to bail out parents for making a bad business decision...

Look, it's not expensive to live. It's expensive to live high on the hog . If you get rid of your cell phone, JumboTron TV, one of your cars, and your cable, you know, go back to life as it was in 1980, you can get by just fine with a single parent working and the other raising the kids. It's our demand for these trinkets, these baubles, that didn't exist as recently as the 1970s, which makes the idealized vision of the June Cleaver household of the 1950s unattainable. No need whatsoever for a government bailout though. Boo. Hiss.

OK -- the guy is factoring in the money his wife does not make each year she stays home with a kid. (In which staying home with two kids would lower the cost per child by half, right?. But that's math.)

And he is looking at "lo$t opportunity." What the hey?

Sir, if you have not realized that life is chock full and overflowing with "lost opportunity" -- kids or not -- you still have some growing to do.

The article seems to be written from the persepctive of the utopian gen x or whatever with the $2000 bike on the roof of the $35,000 SUV, with the kayak in the garage, the snowboard on the wall, who drinks only good wine and designer brews, who is planning on summiting Everest after he hits all the National Parks, does Mardi Gras, and hits the white sands everywhere but Myrtle Beach and wouldn't be caught dead in WalMart.

It's those "opportunitie$" he's counting as missed if one has a kid or two or three. And of course that makes perfect sense when turning people into numbers. Or not, actually.

I am sure this guy's kids will appreciate his huge sacrifice when they get old enough to read this piece. ?

Some of us out here actually raise kids and love the person and the process and never have a wisp of the thought "This kid co$t me my PhD." And for those that do -- many of us say "So what?"

In college the epiphany I had was that people were more important than pieces of paper.

Serves me and my children well.

Its not the governments responsibility to step in!
Far too many people live way outside of their means. People are too fixated on materialistic goods and the latest and greatest technologically advanced items for their children. How about scale it back, buy used, and save.
Im struggling right now, just like everyone else is. I cannot find a job in my field, despite having a masters degree. I have a lot of student loans, that make saving difficult as well but I would never accept a government hand out. My daughter does not need every toy out there- nor does she need expensive flashy clothes.

If government wants to help, how about getting out of the way?
You see stories from time to time about parents being reported to Child Services for leaving a ten-year-old home alone, or leaving the kids in the car for ten minutes while they run in to the store. Spanking your kid can get you reported and your children removed from your custody -- and yet, you're still somehow responsible for anything your little darling might do wrong. Fat kids can be taken from their parents, at least in England. They prosecute daycare providers in some places for not belonging to unions -- *that* isn't going to drive up anyone's costs, is it? And then there's all the micromanagement about carseats for eight-year-olds and the rest of it.
Tax incentives -- where other people are forced to subsidize our choices -- aren't the answer. But backing off on the ridiculous regulations would actually *help*, without penalizing the innocent.
And while we're at it, how about ditching the CPSIA and other overregulation of small business, so more parents can work at home while raising their kids?

How can the "average" be $150,000? Most parents don't make nearly that much yet manage to raise their children, usually more than one at the same time? The author needs to explain and expand on that or the entire article will be discounted as rubbish.

"the average cost of raising a child to age 17 is over $150,000 per year."

2.55 million dollars to raise a child to 17? My daughter and son-in-law aren't going to make it without jobs paying a half million dollars a year? Or, alternativly they are giving up 5 ,illion dollars by having kids? Really? I'll be sure to keep this article around to show my grandkids why they should always question authority.

It's getting too expensive just to merely live, let alone with kids. With that said, it really depends. If you plan on putting little Johnny or little Susie in every single program and activity that they want to be in... of course it's going to get expensive, and quick... however, to feed, clothe and house children (even multiple children) it shouldn't be that much more expensive... You don't HAVE to buy the newest clothes at Gymboree or Baby Gap, when Goodwill or Once upon a Child (or some other resale shop) will do just fine. I can get MONTHS of clothes for around $100 at the moment. I breastfed until I couldn't anymore... and then I buy the store brand formula (I can save 50% doing that) and our little one will be drinking milk soon anyway... I don't buy the expensive name brand diapers either.... and now that our little one is eating real food, I don't buy baby food.. I puree it if need be on my own, but I don't have to do that too much.

[Is it Becoming Too Expensive to Be a Parent?]

If you plan on providing for your children yourself...perhaps. If you plan on letting others provide for your children...via money stolen from them by taxation...not at all! In fact, you're actually awarded for every new one you pop out!

THAT is the culture that Democrats have created in this country, folks - a perversive incentive structure whereby the productive class is DISCOURAGED from reproducing, whilst the consumptive class is ENCOURAGED to do so.

It's very simple to understand: in the mind of the Leftist, the producer can never GIVE enough, and the consumer can never BE GIVEN enough.

$150,00/year per kid? I'm calling #$%$

One of the many reasons I don't plan on having any more kids. One is enough for us.

"Impressive Girl" is kidding, right?

Or is she 20 years old?

I think it's clear the first sentence is a typo or mis-statement. I *assume* he meant the total cost over the 17 years is $150,000, which is certainly plausible. [in teenage years, the food alone is a good chunk of that]

Society is not obligated to help those who choose to breed.
Who will pay for your social security? who will make arts and scinece?, both are only done by young people
Who will buy whtaever you work to produce if there is no people?

"the average cost of raising a child to age 17 is over $150,000 per year"

This has to be one of the stupidest things ever written on any topic in the history of the written word. Sorry, but NO WAY. The average cost? So that would be $5,100,000 just to raise two kids to age 17? Ha. Very few gross that much money in their entire lives, before taxes and before basic necessities.

This article is of a piece with a prevailing attitude among many liberals that children, and humans in general, are a plague - on the planet, on your wallet, on your emotions, etc., etc., and if only it weren't for the human race we could save the planet and live in bliss. ("Save it for what or whom?" I ask.) But of course, after 500 words of how horribly expensive and ruinous to your life kids are, without a positive word about the financial benefits or the experience, there is the obligatory "I love my kids and I think parenthood is worth it, despite the sacrifices and difficulties." Really? You had me fooled. Then, of course, the obligatory demand for the handout from Big Gov to insulate people from the consequences of their choices. A good reminder of why I rarely bother reading written on Yahoo! and believe even less.

I've got three kids. According to this article I should be spending $450,000 a year on raising my children. Yet we're doing quite well at a fraction of this cost. I have to call 'bovine feces' on this article and its writer, who really should come back after he knows a single thing about raising children.

Unfortunately, NoName..."Impressive Gril" is not joking. I have seen her posts on several other articles and she basically preaches that choosing to have children is stupid, and expresses hate for everyone that does. What I am confused about, is why this user continues to post on PARENTING articles, when she is so against it! I believe "Impressive Girl" is just looking for a fight. I for one, am relieved this hate-filled person has decided not to have kids, as any potential offspring of hers are waaaayyyy better off remaining eggs! She also comes off as very pretentious, and self-absorbed....naming HERSELF impressive girl. I would be interested to know how many real people are actually impressed, besides herself! In a way, I feel sorry for this person who finds joy in pretty much nothing except herself, but to each their own, I will continue to enjoy every second with my family and be reminded of why I made the decisions I did every time my own kids impress me!

Having children is NOT a financial decision. What you learn and the love you receive from having children and responsibly loving them and their mother/father every day is more valuable than any material good. I completely disagree with articles like this that try to extend adolescence for so many men and women. Don't believe the myth that parenting has only negative impacts. Living well and creating new life matters, and don't believe anyone who tells you it doesn't.

The article is point on. Well said (except for that sappy, cliched last paragraph. Society is not obligated to help those who choose to breed).
There's absolutely no reason why a smart, educated, sensible couple should be having kids nowadays for all the reasons mentioned by the author. He should've included other factors as well, like the well-being of the planet, the finite resources, the lack of available jobs for 7 billion people, etc. Childless couples enjoy things parents can only dream of....free time, financial security, the pleasure of adult company and adult activities (no stupid kiddie parties with clowns to attend!) and the security of knowing they can always depend on each other for emotional support and well-being.