Kids are really expensive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that raising children is more than a full-time job.
If mom or dad wants a career, the family needs to hire someone who will prioritize the children since the parents won't.
I've said this before - there are commitments one makes in life. The commitment to 4 years of college comes with assumptions that you aren't going to be working full-time, right?
The commitment to a job comes with assumptions that you aren't working another 2 or 3 jobs on the sides too, right?
How is it that people think that a commitment to parenting allows you to have an uninterrupted career too? It is an intensive 10 years which starts to taper off gradually, then quickly in the next 10 years.

Neither of these are accurate. You clearly don't live in the real world. Many many people work FT during college and many many people work multiple jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went back to work when my kid was 6 months old. I worked 4 nights a week after my partner got home from his day job.
We did coop at age 3 for symbolic fee and then local public school.
DC was never sick, no expensive camps, aftercare, or classes.
My partner filed as HH and I filed single making way below $20k. I didn't really have tax expense after EI credit and saver's credit and I still don't. I was able to take lifetime learner's credit for years.
I was never going to have a career (long story). I invested 20-50% of my earnings into stock market and retired when the child finished elementary school. I received a finance degree when the child was few months old.
The biggest expense for the kid has been food, school PTA, few soccer camps, some travel in US and EU, and $200 a month for health insurance.
I think my kid is very cheap.

My kids were pretty cheap too.
I went back to work PT when youngest entered K which enabled me to pickup the kids afterschool. I gradually ramped up to full time by the time they entered high school.
They probably couldn't have gotten into the G&T programs, competitive middle schools and SHSAT high schools if I outsourced the parenting.
The biggest expenses were preschool, summer camps and activities.
Kids scored 1500+ on SAT, attending really great colleges without college consultant nor expensive test prep (they attended mommy prep which cost $0).

THIS. Hello, fellow NYC Parent! There is always someone on these threads who talks about the opportunity costs of SAHM solely in financial terms. There are so many other things to consider. I returned to full-time work when my kids were in middle school. I was lucky to be able to return to work in the field which I entered as a recent college graduate. I would not trade those years at home with my kids for anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that raising children is more than a full-time job.
If mom or dad wants a career, the family needs to hire someone who will prioritize the children since the parents won't.
I've said this before - there are commitments one makes in life. The commitment to 4 years of college comes with assumptions that you aren't going to be working full-time, right?
The commitment to a job comes with assumptions that you aren't working another 2 or 3 jobs on the sides too, right?
How is it that people think that a commitment to parenting allows you to have an uninterrupted career too? It is an intensive 10 years which starts to taper off gradually, then quickly in the next 10 years.

Neither of these are accurate. You clearly don't live in the real world. Many many people work FT during college and many many people work multiple jobs.

And how healthy and sustainable is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that raising children is more than a full-time job.
If mom or dad wants a career, the family needs to hire someone who will prioritize the children since the parents won't.
I've said this before - there are commitments one makes in life. The commitment to 4 years of college comes with assumptions that you aren't going to be working full-time, right?
The commitment to a job comes with assumptions that you aren't working another 2 or 3 jobs on the sides too, right?
How is it that people think that a commitment to parenting allows you to have an uninterrupted career too? It is an intensive 10 years which starts to taper off gradually, then quickly in the next 10 years.

Neither of these are accurate. You clearly don't live in the real world. Many many people work FT during college and many many people work multiple jobs.

And how healthy and sustainable is that?

When you don’t have a choice, you make it sustainable. I leave the house every day at 6:30 with my kids. I drop them off at the before school program at school and book it to my own school by 7:30. I leave school at 5:30 (I work at my after school’s after care program) and pray that I can make it to their school by 6:00. We get home around 6:45 or so. Dinner, walk/bike ride, baths, reading, bed.

Do I want to do this? No. I wish I didn’t need the money from working the second job but I do so I make this sustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that raising children is more than a full-time job.
If mom or dad wants a career, the family needs to hire someone who will prioritize the children since the parents won't.
I've said this before - there are commitments one makes in life. The commitment to 4 years of college comes with assumptions that you aren't going to be working full-time, right?
The commitment to a job comes with assumptions that you aren't working another 2 or 3 jobs on the sides too, right?
How is it that people think that a commitment to parenting allows you to have an uninterrupted career too? It is an intensive 10 years which starts to taper off gradually, then quickly in the next 10 years.

Neither of these are accurate. You clearly don't live in the real world. Many many people work FT during college and many many people work multiple jobs.

And how healthy and sustainable is that?

I worked basically full time in college (35 hours a week) and went to a private liberal arts college. I finished in 3.5 years. I would not recommend it, but it can be done. I did not have a choice. It was in the 1990s. My loan debt was astronomical. 70k in late 1990s…equivalent to nearly 200k in debt now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep. We're an upper middle class family. I looked at my historical budget and see that my 4 kids cost me an extra $100,000 per year. That's net after tax, so really, we have to earn an extra $150k gross to support them. It was about 70k with just 2 kids.
I had NO idea before I had kids. But now I really understand why people are forgoing having kids. It is a total sacrifice

Such a sacrifice. I wonder if I would feel this way if I lived in a country with a better social safety net.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

I agree with you about how people assume this is the fix, as a policy position. Creating good, affordable childcare is the right decision, it's what we should be working for as a society in order to boost both economic output and birth rates.

But as a woman who chose to SAHM for a couple years when I had a baby (and who didn't have a paltry income when I did so), there is a separate component where I really wanted to be home with my baby. It was a sacrifice but I wanted to make it, and the maternity leave I was offered was barely enough time to recover from the physical toll of childbirth and get past that early newborn stage when everything is a blur. I wanted to stay home and actually enjoy my baby. My DH did not feel the same way at that time (though it's the opposite now -- he'd happily stay home with our 10 yr old now while I want to work and don't feel the need to be home with her all the time).

I say this because it's not just about affordable childcare. Longer parental leave times are actually the centerpiece of other countries' family support policies, and it actually makes it far more feasible to provide affordable childcare because infant care is also way more expensive and labor intensive. If I could have had even a 12 or 18 months parental leave, I wouldn't have left my job. But I had two months and it wasn't enough. I could not imagine going back to work.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went back to work when my kid was 6 months old. I worked 4 nights a week after my partner got home from his day job.
We did coop at age 3 for symbolic fee and then local public school.
DC was never sick, no expensive camps, aftercare, or classes.
My partner filed as HH and I filed single making way below $20k. I didn't really have tax expense after EI credit and saver's credit and I still don't. I was able to take lifetime learner's credit for years.
I was never going to have a career (long story). I invested 20-50% of my earnings into stock market and retired when the child finished elementary school. I received a finance degree when the child was few months old.
The biggest expense for the kid has been food, school PTA, few soccer camps, some travel in US and EU, and $200 a month for health insurance.
I think my kid is very cheap.

My kids were pretty cheap too.
I went back to work PT when youngest entered K which enabled me to pickup the kids afterschool. I gradually ramped up to full time by the time they entered high school.
They probably couldn't have gotten into the G&T programs, competitive middle schools and SHSAT high schools if I outsourced the parenting.
The biggest expenses were preschool, summer camps and activities.
Kids scored 1500+ on SAT, attending really great colleges without college consultant nor expensive test prep (they attended mommy prep which cost $0).

THIS. Hello, fellow NYC Parent! There is always someone on these threads who talks about the opportunity costs of SAHM solely in financial terms. There are so many other things to consider. I returned to full-time work when my kids were in middle school. I was lucky to be able to return to work in the field which I entered as a recent college graduate. I would not trade those years at home with my kids for anything.

+1000

Also, I spent a lot of time in ES/MS/HS driving kids to appointments (therapies/tutoring/etc) that ensured one kid was successful in life. Had we punted on that and just waited, they might not have succeeded in MS/HS/Beyond. Instead they attended a good college (T100), graduated in 4 years (with some bumps in the road) and have been gainfully employed at a great job since graduation (4 years). Had I been trying to work and manage all of that, it wouldn't have worked out well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that raising children is more than a full-time job.
If mom or dad wants a career, the family needs to hire someone who will prioritize the children since the parents won't.
I've said this before - there are commitments one makes in life. The commitment to 4 years of college comes with assumptions that you aren't going to be working full-time, right?
The commitment to a job comes with assumptions that you aren't working another 2 or 3 jobs on the sides too, right?
How is it that people think that a commitment to parenting allows you to have an uninterrupted career too? It is an intensive 10 years which starts to taper off gradually, then quickly in the next 10 years.

Neither of these are accurate. You clearly don't live in the real world. Many many people work FT during college and many many people work multiple jobs.

And how healthy and sustainable is that?

I worked basically full time in college (35 hours a week) and went to a private liberal arts college. I finished in 3.5 years. I would not recommend it, but it can be done. I did not have a choice. It was in the 1990s. My loan debt was astronomical. 70k in late 1990s…equivalent to nearly 200k in debt now.

That was not the best choice. Why not a state University? A student can pay for 75% of that each year with a FT job in the summer/breaks and PT (10-20 hours/week) during the school year. Live at home (if possible) and you can pay for more. Kids need to stop attending college they cannot afford. And setting themselves up for debt.
It's not needed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why we’re seeing an increase of SAHM.

I despise the way some people think the automatic solution to childcare costs is for the mom to stay home, like the assumption is that the woman’s income is so paltry that it couldn’t possibly more than childcare costs!

I agree with you about how people assume this is the fix, as a policy position. Creating good, affordable childcare is the right decision, it's what we should be working for as a society in order to boost both economic output and birth rates.

But as a woman who chose to SAHM for a couple years when I had a baby (and who didn't have a paltry income when I did so), there is a separate component where I really wanted to be home with my baby. It was a sacrifice but I wanted to make it, and the maternity leave I was offered was barely enough time to recover from the physical toll of childbirth and get past that early newborn stage when everything is a blur. I wanted to stay home and actually enjoy my baby. My DH did not feel the same way at that time (though it's the opposite now -- he'd happily stay home with our 10 yr old now while I want to work and don't feel the need to be home with her all the time).

I say this because it's not just about affordable childcare. Longer parental leave times are actually the centerpiece of other countries' family support policies, and it actually makes it far more feasible to provide affordable childcare because infant care is also way more expensive and labor intensive. If I could have had even a 12 or 18 months parental leave, I wouldn't have left my job. But I had two months and it wasn't enough. I could not imagine going back to work.

I’d argue you did have generous maternity leave - through your spouse.

So many of the countries providing long, generous leaves do not have jobs paying the type of salary you likely earn. Most European white collar jobs earn way, way less and the long leaves are a necessity for women to have children. It’s essentially government welfare for women to have children.

My point is that you’re still better off given you were able to stay home and you returned to work.

[Anonymous]

SAHM for the early years seems like the logical decision unless she is making a large salary. Or you’re paying someone about $20 an hour to raise your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of wise women get a license and earn amazing money providing high quality care for other children.

As a self-supporting single mother, I did this. It enabled my child private schools and annual summer camp in New England.

My rates were higher than the most competitive local preschools.

No screens, of course. You can do a morning program to start. Some families want that. I received payments one month in advance, just like schools do. You need written contracts.

Tell us more about this? I've always thought this would be a good way to earn money as a SAHM once your kids are in school full-time but I've never seen it done. How many children did you watch at once?

I was licensed for eight children in Montgomery County. Did it for ten years, and loved each of “my” children. In the beginning I had an assistant, but it wasn’t necessary as the children became older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went back to work when my kid was 6 months old. I worked 4 nights a week after my partner got home from his day job.
We did coop at age 3 for symbolic fee and then local public school.
DC was never sick, no expensive camps, aftercare, or classes.
My partner filed as HH and I filed single making way below $20k. I didn't really have tax expense after EI credit and saver's credit and I still don't. I was able to take lifetime learner's credit for years.
I was never going to have a career (long story). I invested 20-50% of my earnings into stock market and retired when the child finished elementary school. I received a finance degree when the child was few months old.
The biggest expense for the kid has been food, school PTA, few soccer camps, some travel in US and EU, and $200 a month for health insurance.
I think my kid is very cheap.

My kids were pretty cheap too.
I went back to work PT when youngest entered K which enabled me to pickup the kids afterschool. I gradually ramped up to full time by the time they entered high school.
They probably couldn't have gotten into the G&T programs, competitive middle schools and SHSAT high schools if I outsourced the parenting.
The biggest expenses were preschool, summer camps and activities.
Kids scored 1500+ on SAT, attending really great colleges without college consultant nor expensive test prep (they attended mommy prep which cost $0).

THIS. Hello, fellow NYC Parent! There is always someone on these threads who talks about the opportunity costs of SAHM solely in financial terms. There are so many other things to consider. I returned to full-time work when my kids were in middle school. I was lucky to be able to return to work in the field which I entered as a recent college graduate. I would not trade those years at home with my kids for anything.

+1000

Also, I spent a lot of time in ES/MS/HS driving kids to appointments (therapies/tutoring/etc) that ensured one kid was successful in life. Had we punted on that and just waited, they might not have succeeded in MS/HS/Beyond. Instead they attended a good college (T100), graduated in 4 years (with some bumps in the road) and have been gainfully employed at a great job since graduation (4 years). Had I been trying to work and manage all of that, it wouldn't have worked out well.

How do you think that makes parents feel if they have to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SAHM for the early years seems like the logical decision unless she is making a large salary. Or you’re paying someone about $20 an hour to raise your child.

It’s only logical if you’re okay with women not achieving the same career potential as men. And life isn’t all about career but women shouldn’t have to be the ones to sacrifice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAHM for the early years seems like the logical decision unless she is making a large salary. Or you’re paying someone about $20 an hour to raise your child.

It’s only logical if you’re okay with women not achieving the same career potential as men. And life isn’t all about career but women shouldn’t have to be the ones to sacrifice.

Raising a child shouldn’t be a sacrifice. It’s a privilege. Young children need stability, competence and love. It’s unfortunate that so few children get that.

The first three foundational years of life are the most critical years.

What would happen to your house if it had a faulty foundation?