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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interestingly, the daycare two years ago where an unsupervised child choked on a meatball was a Bright Horizons in a Federal office building. Happens ALL. THE. TIME.

Home daycares are licensed in Virginia, by the way. And inspected frequently.

Also in DC. In fact, we skipped a beautiful, expensive center because we found out they were putting babies to sleep with blankets and rice cereal in bottles. So no, you do not always get what you pay for...

[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.

You truly don’t see how not having daycare costs makes it so much easier for you to afford kids than others?

[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.

I agree. They just say "money" because it is easier than talking about things like how they hate kids, how they might have health problems that prevent them from having kids, etc. I don't know anyone who actually didn't have kids because of money. It's just a convenient lie.

You might not know people like this, but many of us do, as I am one of those people not having children because of money. Also, many people don't like talking about money problems either , so you might not aware if someone if heavily indebted or making much less money than you assume they do.

[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.

You truly don’t see how not having daycare costs makes it so much easier for you to afford kids than others?

Many people seem to assume that every husband is a high earner, so every woman is just working part time or not working at all.

[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.

There is a bigger burden on onlines it would seem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband and I have a combined HHI of $250k and it still feels like a reach: between daycare and student loan costs, it doesn’t go very far. Now imagine we made what a standard American household makes. Unless you get free childcare from grandparents or help with your down payment/education, it is not easy to afford it all.

Murica.

I know some people who live in multigenerational households to try to limit expenses but sometimes it can end up being extra burdensome on the parents if the grandparents also need care when the children are young. They are caretakers of children and parents.

[Anonymous]

Op, you aren't that bright. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Just spend a few minutes searching for quality childcare at places you actually feel safe leaving your children and the mystery will be solved.

[Anonymous]

Of course..see the welfare system.

[Anonymous]

It's actually a sign of wealth to have more than two kids, unless you're poor that is

[Anonymous]

How do people not understand that "I can't afford to have kids" doesn't mean "I literally could not pay the bare minimum expenses to keep a child alive?" It means "I can't afford to give a potential child the life and future I believe it deserves."

Yes, of course every single person on this website can "afford" to raise kids. In my EOTR neighborhood people "afford" to raise multiple kids on basically nothing thanks to section 8, SNAP, and WIC, and if they can do it anyone here can too. But that's not a situation most of us would want to put our kids or ourselves into.

Everyone has a line they draw somewhere, a line past which to them it's an acceptable situation to bring life into. For some people that line is just barely above poverty and neglect, for some people that's middling schools in a far out suburb and a horrid commute. For me and my wife we're not willing to bring kids into the world unless we can give them the absolute best life possible - Wilson or better for public schools (or private if possible), opportunities for tutors and travel sports if that's what they desire, summer camps, fully paid college, which means that even though we have a relatively high HHI (~$250K) we "can't afford" kids.

You may say "well that's a ridiculous requirement" but it's just a different place we draw the line than you do. Someone in Ward 8 would probably say the same thing about your line. Someone in Haiti would probably say the same thing about theirs.

[Anonymous]

Because childcare costs more than our mortgage? And because why have kids if you can only afford to feed and clothe them with no extras?

[Anonymous]

Take a look the the median household income and then take a look at the median rent/mortgage and daycare. That should answer your question.

[Anonymous]

Child care costs.

[Anonymous]

the world unless we can give them the absolute best life possible - Wilson or better for public schools (or private if possible), opportunities for tutors and travel sports if that's what they desire, summer camps, fully paid college, which means that even though we have a relatively high HHI (~$250K) we "can't afford" kids.

My question- why do you think those specific things give your kids the best life possible?