How is it possible for people to not be able to afford children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, before inflation happened I was paying $4k/month for two kids in a very unimpressive daycare. Since that's about the median wage for a lot of 4 person families it's pretty apparent why it's unaffordable for even 30 year olds.

No one is forcing you to live in the DC area and no one is forcing you to pay Bright Horizon prices. No one forced you to have children two years apart. We had ours three years apart so we were only paying double daycare for two years.

Uh, if you Google in home daycares in this area you get lots of articles about child deaths, unlicensed facilities, and lots of other problems that would make it hard to work while your child is there. The people getting cheap care are desperate and hoping for the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because they can't afford to have children and maintain their current lifestyle. They don't want to give up eating out 5x a week, taking multiple vacations a year, buying the nicest everything.

Mmm... yes. So me of us prefer that to having children. Having kids is not an obligation that I need to give up the things i like just to have them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've heard the "I can't afford children" from many couples without children. These couples are in their 30s which is an age at which you've worked enough to have a decently paying career, so it's weird. I was making around 50K before I had my children and stayed home and my husband didn't hit 150k until a couples of years later, so we're pretty average in our area. We're planning to send our kids to public school when they're older and enroll them in cheaper activities, but it looks like everyone around us is holding out for private schools which can be incredibly expensive. Have these lifestyle expectations made children "unaffordable" or there's something else I'm missing?

A couple making a combined $100k in this area can easily afford one child. The FT daycare years will be uncomfortable, but public K12 will ease some of the crunch. Gently used cars. Whole family dresses in clothes from JCP, Kohl’s, even Target and does low budget driving vacations. The kid does CC, then transfers to state flagship.

Many people would not have one child. I would not: I have seen too many only children have to deal with parents in old age. It was 0 or 2 for me. I would never have one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if she’s a troll or not but I agree with her. I work at a school full of lower to lower middle class parents in the DC metro area and most of them are doing a terrific job raising kids on not much money. They would think it insane that upper middle class white collar professionals think they can’t have kids. I wonder how many of those professionals have parents with paid off homes and 5 bedrooms but they wouldn’t be willing to move home for a few years to cover costs. When families stick together it’s not hard to make it work if it’s your priority.

I would wager that more adults from this area, with family still nearby, have kids vs. transplants who moved here for jobs. Because then they can do the things you say- live with their parents for a while and potentially have some childcare help when they do have kids. The cost for childcare, housing, and college is especially daunting when you feel like you are totally on your own.

I have lived here for 25 years. I have not met one person with kids who was raised here. Literally everyone I know moved here after college for jobs. No one has family here. This is very common here and hard to raise kids this way\

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if she’s a troll or not but I agree with her. I work at a school full of lower to lower middle class parents in the DC metro area and most of them are doing a terrific job raising kids on not much money. They would think it insane that upper middle class white collar professionals think they can’t have kids. I wonder how many of those professionals have parents with paid off homes and 5 bedrooms but they wouldn’t be willing to move home for a few years to cover costs. When families stick together it’s not hard to make it work if it’s your priority.

I would wager that more adults from this area, with family still nearby, have kids vs. transplants who moved here for jobs. Because then they can do the things you say- live with their parents for a while and potentially have some childcare help when they do have kids. The cost for childcare, housing, and college is especially daunting when you feel like you are totally on your own.

I have lived here for 25 years. I have not met one person with kids who was raised here. Literally everyone I know moved here after college for jobs. No one has family here. This is very common here and hard to raise kids this way\

I have one coworker who grew up in Arlington. She's 10-15 years older than me and lives the lifestyle of someone making at least 3x as much, I think it was a great advantage!

I had to move to a Frederick for affordability and my spouse's job (while mine is still in DC), and it's surprisingly different here. Most of my kid's friends don't need camps for school breaks or help from friends for pickup ever, because the grandparents are so close by. I've had people say "you found a babysitter?!" in an impressed way because they never had to. I envy them, but that's also what I want for my kids. I hope they feel like they have the combination of roots and opportunity here to consider sticking around, even without a crew of local cousins and grandparents.

[Anonymous]

Poor people have children all the time. It's fascinating.

Once you have children, you make it work. You have to. Really, you have to and there are no alternatives.

[Anonymous]

I have not read all the responses.

But, I think childfree people are too-frequently asked about kids, and in giving a response, may be trying to politely end the conversation.

"Can't afford it" generally means not a priority, or they want to soften the answer without giving an appearance of casting shade on your decision to have kids (such as, they could afford kids and could have them, but they prefer freedom for careers and vacations). Or maybe they are trying but experiencing infertility or have other financial challenges they don't want to discuss (ivf costs, student loans, housing).

With childcare as expensive as it is, it realy has to be a huge priority these days. While with baby boomers, it was easy to fit childcare into a budget.

Also with social media ripping the veneer of many things, many can now see much more than cute baby photos that it is a lot of hours and work to be a parent. People should only do it if they really want to, and also not stretch themselves too thin (in time or money) by having more kids than they can manage, whether that is 1, 2, 0, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op sounds like a troll.

This is a troll post for sure. Thinking everyone can "make $150k by their 30s". Should we just not have teachers, professors, physical therapists, nurses in DC? There are plenty of professional jobs that don't make $150k.

Understand your point but, as a woman, I purposely didn’t go into a a more flexible but lower paying field like physical therapy, speech therapy, social work etc. I know MANY women who did this, banking on getting married to someone making multiple times their salaries, and then ultimately staying at home with their kids before maybe going back to work. at 22, I didn’t see the ROI- those low paying fields, while extremely noble and possibly fulfilling, require grad school and very little opportunity to make decent money long term. I was thinking along the lines of “I want to get married at some point, but what happens if I don’t? What career would I need to support myself adequately, and has more possibilities for making decent money?”

That’s fine, but if no one went into speech therapy your brat would never learn how to enunciate properly. Guess it’s good some people are more selfless.

I don’t think people go into OT or ST because they’re selfless. I think they’re possibly interested in it and probably are attracted to the flexibility of it, being that these are female dominated girls. It’s just a gamble in the sense that it’s generally low paying and you need to bank on marrying a significantly higher earner to have a middle class life in any HCOL area.

That said, I have a child in speech therapy and occupational therapy. The therapists charge 125 and 170 dollars for 45 minutes, respectively, and they don’t accept insurance. So maybe they’re not doing too poorly.

But yes, generally I think it’s silly to choose a low paying career out of “selflessness” and I think it’s equally silly to assume that’s why people choose these fields.

Whatever. Point is they’re not materialistically driven and money-oriented like you. And you have the temerity to sneer at them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor people have children all the time. It's fascinating.

Once you have children, you make it work. You have to. Really, you have to and there are no alternatives.

What’s your point? Many kids of poor people have terrible life outcomes…I might say most do.

Again, I don’t think the standard is just keeping the kid alive.

I mean, a dog is really cheap as well if you feed them from the 40 pound Alpo bag, don’t take them to the vet and just put them down if any medical problem requiring any real $$$s occurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor people have children all the time. It's fascinating.

Once you have children, you make it work. You have to. Really, you have to and there are no alternatives.

What’s your point? Many kids of poor people have terrible life outcomes…I might say most do.

Again, I don’t think the standard is just keeping the kid alive.

I mean, a dog is really cheap as well if you feed them from the 40 pound Alpo bag, don’t take them to the vet and just put them down if any medical problem requiring any real $$$s occurs.

Ah, you just reminded me of something else. If you're not poor then you have to pay for any medical issues your child has as well as take time off from work multiple times a week if therapists or other specialists required. No way to really plan for these circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've heard the "I can't afford children" from many couples without children. These couples are in their 30s which is an age at which you've worked enough to have a decently paying career, so it's weird. I was making around 50K before I had my children and stayed home and my husband didn't hit 150k until a couples of years later, so we're pretty average in our area. We're planning to send our kids to public school when they're older and enroll them in cheaper activities, but it looks like everyone around us is holding out for private schools which can be incredibly expensive. Have these lifestyle expectations made children "unaffordable" or there's something else I'm missing?

A couple making a combined $100k in this area can easily afford one child. The FT daycare years will be uncomfortable, but public K12 will ease some of the crunch. Gently used cars. Whole family dresses in clothes from JCP, Kohl’s, even Target and does low budget driving vacations. The kid does CC, then transfers to state flagship.

Many people would not have one child. I would not: I have seen too many only children have to deal with parents in old age. It was 0 or 2 for me. I would never have one.

That’s a weird reason not to want one child. Even if you have two kids, there’s no guarantee that they will both live near you their whole lives. My brother-in-law has traveled all over the country for jobs while his sister has remained near their parents.

[Anonymous]

I don't know anyone who didn't have kids because of money. They just say that to say something.
I have two and both have been very cheap to raise. The biggest expense is food right now.
The older one can pick up and watch the younger one because of the age difference. We never upgraded our home or a car because of the kids.
I worked around my DP work hours, so no need for daycare. Public school started at 4 for both. I was not going to have a career anyway as I moved here later in life.
My current job allows kids to be there, feeds them, and lets parents go home early if they wish to do so.
The kids are almost never sick and don't have expensive hobbies or wants.
Travel is usually paid for relatives because they invite the kids. EU travel is also cheap because of relatives.
Three different sets of local relatives take the kids weekly.
Kids are cheap or we are lucky. We are lucky- we have a village.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know anyone who didn't have kids because of money. They just say that to say something.
I have two and both have been very cheap to raise. The biggest expense is food right now.
The older one can pick up and watch the younger one because of the age difference. We never upgraded our home or a car because of the kids.
I worked around my DP work hours, so no need for daycare. Public school started at 4 for both. I was not going to have a career anyway as I moved here later in life.
My current job allows kids to be there, feeds them, and lets parents go home early if they wish to do so.
The kids are almost never sick and don't have expensive hobbies or wants.
Travel is usually paid for relatives because they invite the kids. EU travel is also cheap because of relatives.
Three different sets of local relatives take the kids weekly.
Kids are cheap or we are lucky. We are lucky- we have a village.

So let’s recap:

- kids don’t participate in any travel sports or the arts/music or whatever…their choice, not at all influenced by parents having no $$$s for it;

- kids get to travel a bunch because I mooch off my wealthy relatives…note to everybody, get wealthy relatives;

- kids don’t get sick…make sure your kids don’t get sick or get hit by a car tomorrow;

- live in a crappy little house and drive a crappy car;

About sum it up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know anyone who didn't have kids because of money. They just say that to say something.
I have two and both have been very cheap to raise. The biggest expense is food right now.
The older one can pick up and watch the younger one because of the age difference. We never upgraded our home or a car because of the kids.
I worked around my DP work hours, so no need for daycare. Public school started at 4 for both. I was not going to have a career anyway as I moved here later in life.
My current job allows kids to be there, feeds them, and lets parents go home early if they wish to do so.
The kids are almost never sick and don't have expensive hobbies or wants.
Travel is usually paid for relatives because they invite the kids. EU travel is also cheap because of relatives.
Three different sets of local relatives take the kids weekly.
Kids are cheap or we are lucky. We are lucky- we have a village.

So let’s recap:

- kids don’t participate in any travel sports or the arts/music or whatever…their choice, not at all influenced by parents having no $$$s for it;

- kids get to travel a bunch because I mooch off my wealthy relatives…note to everybody, get wealthy relatives;

- kids don’t get sick…make sure your kids don’t get sick or get hit by a car tomorrow;

- live in a crappy little house and drive a crappy car;

About sum it up?

Jealous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know anyone who didn't have kids because of money. They just say that to say something.
I have two and both have been very cheap to raise. The biggest expense is food right now.
The older one can pick up and watch the younger one because of the age difference. We never upgraded our home or a car because of the kids.
I worked around my DP work hours, so no need for daycare. Public school started at 4 for both. I was not going to have a career anyway as I moved here later in life.
My current job allows kids to be there, feeds them, and lets parents go home early if they wish to do so.
The kids are almost never sick and don't have expensive hobbies or wants.
Travel is usually paid for relatives because they invite the kids. EU travel is also cheap because of relatives.
Three different sets of local relatives take the kids weekly.
Kids are cheap or we are lucky. We are lucky- we have a village.

So let’s recap:

- kids don’t participate in any travel sports or the arts/music or whatever…their choice, not at all influenced by parents having no $$$s for it;

- kids get to travel a bunch because I mooch off my wealthy relatives…note to everybody, get wealthy relatives;

- kids don’t get sick…make sure your kids don’t get sick or get hit by a car tomorrow;

- live in a crappy little house and drive a crappy car;

About sum it up?

Jealous?

Not at all…it’s just funny when people describe a crappy lifestyle and then say “see it’s easy to afford kids”.