Nice retirement vs. having kids

[fuzzykitten99]

I read this, as it was on MSN.com and advertised the 'real cost' of having kids. I thought it would be kind of interesting, just to see what my 2 kids will cost me (monitarily) over the years. I get reading it more and more. It then goes into saying (sounds to me anyway) that women over 40 who want a nice retirement should maybe reconsider having kids because the financial cost may hinder a nice retirement.

WTF?! If you are THAT worried about having a nice retirement, basically more focused on what kids cost rather than the non-monitary returns that you get, that cold, impersonal money could never give you. Plus the fact that you contribute to the continuation of society, and your kids will likely be helping pay for your retirement through taxes.

Tim and I would be living SO nicely if we didn't have kids. But I don't look at the financial part of having them, other than providing the basic needs, which are always met plus some. I would rather have my little Nathan (and Ben too!) and get to have the cute little antics, sweet hugs, and the way he snuggles with me when he crawls into bed with us on weekend mornings, than the extra $5-600/month we spend in caring for him through daycare, diapers, groceries, and fun stuff.

Then it goes into saying that women over 40 may need to look at when their kids are going to start college, and when they themselves will be retiring. Who the hell says parents MUST foot the bill for a college education? What happened to working through college, getting scholarships, financial aid, and student loans? If Nathan or Ben want to go to school, I would certainly look into maybe helping out with books, or part tuition, but not footing the bill entirely.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/Raisekids/P144966.asp?GT1=7924

Whenever you hear stories about women having children later in life -- think TV anchor Joan Lunden's twins or the 66-year-old Romanian woman who conceived a couple of years ago -- the focus is usually on health risks or ethical concerns.

But what about money?

For those of us (ahem) contemplating parenthood at the not-so-tender age of 40, the financial risks can be equally high. Yet you're more likely to be warned about the potential for diabetes or Down syndrome than what will happen to your retirement plans.

Especially if you haven't been terribly aggressive about making those sorts of prudent, future-oriented financial plans to begin with.

Not that I know anyone who fits that description

This is not to say that older women shouldn't be having kids. But if you've postponed starting a family, as my husband and I have, it's vital to do a more detailed cost-benefit analysis of what having a child will mean financially and emotionally.

The older-mom trend
The trend toward women having children later is well-documented. According to the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003 was a record year for births to women between the ages of 40 and 44.


At more than 100,000 babies, it was the largest number of births in that age group recorded in a single year.

It was a 5% increase over the previous year; it also was double the 1981 number of births for mothers in that age group.

Between 2002 and 2003, the birth rate for women ages 35 to 39 also rose by 6%.
Of course, one of the reasons people postpone childrearing is so they can further their careers. But whether that means many of these women, single or married, found themselves in more stable economic circumstances is unclear.

Let's hope so, because having kids is expensive for anyone -- but when you're older, the timing of those expenses can take a toll.

The cost of child rearing
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual report, "Expenditures on Children by Families," in 2004 a two-parent family was likely to spend over six figures to raise one child from birth to age 17.

Obviously you don't shell out all that money at birth; the costs build as your child grows and his or her needs increase. But the numbers are even more daunting when you consider some of the other parental expenses my fellow colleagues and I have written about:


The additional health and lifestyle costs of pregnancy and prenatal preparation are not included in the above estimates. (Read "Raising your quarter-million-dollar baby.")

Dozens of "hidden" new-baby expenses aren't included. (Read "A bouncing baby can bust your budget.")

The cost of a break in one's career isn't included. (Read "Cost of being a stay-at-home mom: $1 million.")

The cost of college tuition is not included. (Use The Baby Center’s calculator to add in college costs.)
Most people see children as a joy, a priceless gift -- and so they are. But those powerful emotions make it hard to weigh what that extra $269,000, deposited into a retirement account -- instead of soccer lessons -- might yield.

Or how the timing of junior's college career might affect the security of your old age.

For example, Anna, one of the Women in Red, is 41 and has a 16-month-old toddler. She will be grappling with tuition costs at the very moment when she and her husband will also be facing retirement.

Given that tuition, fees and other college-related expenses can run you more than $10,000 a year at a public institution and exceed $30,000 at a private one, most older parents will struggle to fund both their child's 529 plan and their own 401(k) at the same time.

The return on investment
But of course, this isn't just a financial decision. In fact, as my husband and I have debated this issue while sitting comfortably on the parental fence, the financial costs have taken a back seat to a much bigger concern for us:

What do you get for this investment?

Raising your own little zygote is of course a blessing and a privilege, but what I've wanted to know is if the emotional and psychological yields are worth it.

While the benefits of marriage, in terms of health, longevity, resistance to depression and even greater wealth, have been demonstrated repeatedly, the effect of children on your quality of life or well-being isn't so clear.

No parental advantage
Like many people, I've assumed that, as you get older, your children become a source of comfort, well worth all the financial and emotional energy you invested over the years.

Not necessarily. Tanya Koropeckyj-Cox, a sociology professor at the University of Florida, published a study in 2003, which found that older parents and people without children enjoy similar levels of well-being in their later years.

Nor do people with children seem to enjoy any greater happiness in their younger years.

A study of 13,017 adults published last month in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, found that parents experience significantly higher levels of depression than nonparents.

And in a now-famous study published in the journal Science, in 2004, when researchers asked 909 women in Texas to record the events of a single day and rate how much they enjoyed various activities, spending time with their kids didn't even crack the top five, which were: sex, socializing, relaxing, praying or meditating and eating.

Gains and losses
It's not that parents don't love or value their children, says Richard Easterlin, professor of economics at the University of Southern California. The trouble is that children are a constant source of stress, particularly financially, and that seems to wipe out the emotional gains for many people.

"If you look at family satisfaction in relation to children, you see a significant positive effect," says Easterlin, referring to the data he has analyzed. "If you look at parental financial satisfaction, you see a significant negative effect.

"So if you look at overall happiness, which is influenced by these two components, they wash each other out."

Yet it's clear that, no matter what children require in terms of time, energy or money, the investment must be "worth it" -- because people keep having them. Which leads me to believe that there is a reward, at least for some people, that goes beyond mere happiness -- perhaps to something you might call fulfillment.

More than money
"People aren't having kids because of some cost-benefit analysis," says Clark Derry-Williams, director of research for Northwest Environment Watch, a research group that focuses on quality of life and sustainability. "We have kids for huge numbers of complicated reasons."

Derry-Williams has made it his specialty to keep up with research in the field of economics and happiness. "In the short term, if you look at the dollar value you lose, it can be substantial -- but at the same time, it's like an ongoing, lifelong investment in happiness," he says.

Perhaps that's why, despite all the reasons why a 40-year-old woman might want to think twice before having a child, she finds herself thinking a third time and deciding she might not want to miss what could be the experience of a lifetime. No matter what the price.

That isn't rational. But the best decisions in life rarely are. As a mother of four wrote recently on the Women in Red blog, "When I balance our budget book each month I fight back tears of frustration and fear at our precarious financial state and lack of progress," she says.
And yet, she adds, it's not about the thousands they've spent on home renovations and two cars and "soccer practice, gymnastics practice, swimming lessons, violin lessons and band practice, all in the same week -- sometimes the same day!" It's about the intangibles:

"…(D)andelion bouquets, seed art, cheering that winning soccer team, watching our daughter perform her first recital, the laughter that seems to make your heart fill until it explodes as our youngest splashes in the pool with his daddy, and that little voice saying, 'Night night mummy. I love you,' as I tuck in our two-year-old each night." (Read the entire conversation, “Kids: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.”)

Remarkably, when I plug those lines into my mental spreadsheet next to the under funded retirement account and the skyrocketing cost of college, that little voice trumps them all. As I keep discovering over and over again in this column, whoever suggested that we humans are economic creatures was dead wrong.

 

[Nienna]

Then it goes into saying that women over 40 may need to look at when their kids are going to start college, and when they themselves will be retiring. Who the hell says parents MUST foot the bill for a college education? What happened to working through college, getting scholarships, financial aid, and student loans? If Nathan or Ben want to go to school, I would certainly look into maybe helping out with books, or part tuition, but not footing the bill entirely.

I agree, Fuzzy. My daddy footed the entire bill for college for us four girls. He paid tuition, books & supplies, gave us a car, and an allowance, too. We still worked part-time jobs for extra spending money, but we pretty much had a free ride.

I am ashamed to say I think I wasted my college experience. Not that I partied it away (AS IF!), but I took it for granted, and wasn't serious about it. If I had had to pay for it, I think I would have gotten more out of it.

Our kids will have to pay for at least part of their college. There is no way we can afford to put all of them through. We will try to help them. Maybe it's mean, but I don't feel sorry for them. I think it will do them good.

 

[Nienna]

Oh, and the other thing... who ever said life was supposed to be all about YOU? They are weighing the cost of having kids v/s the benefits they get from them. What is that all about???? That is one of the most immature things I have ever heard! Certainly kids give you love and pleasure, but a parent should be more focused on what he/she GIVES to the child rather than what they are getting out of it.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Oh, and the other thing... who ever said life was supposed to be all about YOU? They are weighing the cost of having kids v/s the benefits they get from them. What is that all about???? That is one of the most immature things I have ever heard! Certainly kids give you love and pleasure, but a parent should be more focused on what he/she GIVES to the child rather than what they are getting out of it.

i think if someone (or couple) is THAT focused on money-maybe they SHOULD rethink having kids. They are too self-centered or obsessed with money to really enjoy what a child or children can give back. I don't need an article to tell me kids are expensive. DUH! But I look at all the great experiences that I am getting out of it, plus the fact that will (hopefully) get to be a grandma someday.

I think this is what has stirred into me the desire to start a home-daycare, which I am in the process of applying for a license. It takes a few months, and I am not in hurry, though ideally I would like to open up a few weeks after my maternity leave is up.

I have always wanted to be a teacher because I love kids, and like to read to them, play games, and all sorts of stuff. Since being an actual teacher in a school is unlikely until my kids are older, I can be a teacher to the pre-school ages. Tim likes this idea because then I can be a SAHM and bring in money, likely more than I am making now.

 

[Nienna]

i think if someone (or couple) is THAT focused on money-maybe they SHOULD rethink having kids. They are too self-centered or obsessed with money to really enjoy what a child or children can give back. I don't need an article to tell me kids are expensive. DUH! But I look at all the great experiences that I am getting out of it, plus the fact that will (hopefully) get to be a grandma someday.

I think this is what has stirred into me the desire to start a home-daycare, which I am in the process of applying for a license. It takes a few months, and I am not in hurry, though ideally I would like to open up a few weeks after my maternity leave is up.

I have always wanted to be a teacher because I love kids, and like to read to them, play games, and all sorts of stuff. Since being an actual teacher in a school is unlikely until my kids are older, I can be a teacher to the pre-school ages. Tim likes this idea because then I can be a SAHM and bring in money, likely more than I am making now.

I know some women who have done this, and it has worked out really well for them. The only thing they have said is that you have to be REALLY firm about your boundaries. Like the times you will be available, what areas of the house the kids will be allowed in, payment dates, etc. People will try to take advantage, but those women I know who were able to be firm really liked the arrangement.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

I know some women who have done this, and it has worked out really well for them. The only thing they have said is that you have to be REALLY firm about your boundaries. Like the times you will be available, what areas of the house the kids will be allowed in, payment dates, etc. People will try to take advantage, but those women I know who were able to be firm really liked the arrangement.

I will be firm but flexible in certain situations. I am hoping to set up a few PT kids that go to the local elementary school, because I am only 2 blocks away.

As far as where the kids are allowed to go, this is why we are re-doing the basement to make it more liveable and putting the computer/office stuff down there, and turning the den upstairs into a toy/play room. We need egress windows downstairs to be able to have that as a daycare area.

Plus with the food programs and county programs, even with 6 kids with max being 10 including my own), I would be making 1.5-2x my income, even being cheaper than most of the other providers around here. AND...I get to be with my kids more. I won't be taking another infant right away because Ben will count as one, and I don't think I could handle more than one. So when Ben is about 8-9 months, I would look at taking one.

There are a few things that we need to do well before we can take kids, like putting a fence around our pond/garden, which we were going to do anyway, and install a few gates on the deck. We don't need to fence in the yard, but I want to anyway, so the kids can run freely.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Most people see children as a joy, a priceless gift -- and so they are. But those powerful emotions make it hard to weigh what that extra $269,000, deposited into a retirement account -- instead of soccer lessons -- might yield.

oh, this really cracks me up...kids can bring you such joy, but from what it sounds like, they are saying money can bring you the same joy, just from material objects that it can buy.

personally, I would rather spend the money on the kids, and see their faces when Mickey greets them at Disney World, or be able to talk about how much fun they had on the family camping trip, or getting the exact toy/game they wanted for their birthday. Kids and the memories they help create will last longer than all the money in the world will. My memories of my kids will stretch much farther than a few extra dollars in my pocket.

 

[Nienna]

You're preaching to the choir, for me.

 

[Bullypulpit]

My wife and I are a couple of DINKs (Dual Income, No Kids). And that's how we like it. "Be fruitful and multiply..." may be appropriate for agrarian societies with 50%, or higher, infant mortality rate. But it doesn't so much work in modern industrial and post-industrial societies which pay lip service to "family values" and derides the idea of providing support systems to help raise children. You know...subsidized day-care...paid maternity leave...pre and post natal home wellness nursing visits.

All necessary, unless one income is sufficent to meet the needs of the family so one parent can stay home and raise the kids. But, as we all know, that is the exception. And don't even get me started on the people who shouldn't even be allowed to own pets, let alone bear children.

 

[dilloduck]

My wife and I are a couple of DINKs (Dual Income, No Kids). And that's how we like it. "Be fruitful and multiply..." may be appropriate for agrarian societies with 50%, or higher, infant mortality rate. But it doesn't so much work in modern industrial and post-industrial societies which pay lip service to "family values" and derides the idea of providing support systems to help raise children. You know...subsidized day-care...paid maternity leave...pre and post natal home wellness nursing visits.

All necessary, unless one income is sufficent to meet the needs of the family so one parent can stay home and raise the kids. But, as we all know, that is the exception. And don't even get me started on the people who shouldn't even be allowed to own pets, let alone bear children.

So you would have kids if the government would help you pay for them?

 

[Bullypulpit]

So you would have kids if the government would help you pay for them?

Being the selfish sods we are, we don't want kids. Period.

We can afford to have them, but we like spending our money on ourselves.

 

[007]

I have a son... ONE son. Yes, I'm glad I have him. If I could, would I magically make him go away and get all the money back I've spent on him? No. Although I feel like it sometimes.... But, he did not arrive in a "timely" manner. But being a Christain, abortion was completely out of the question. I divorced his mother when he was six and joined the Air Force. I paid child support for fifteen years, even though I also gave cash and presents to him directly. Yes it's been a financial burden, and that is EXACTLY why I only have ONE KID!

I don't think it's fair to bash anyone who has decided to not have kids. It may be for some reason other than money. Maybe they just enjoy their privacy, and/or don't want to drag babies or kids around on adult outings and/or adventures.

I also think that this term "continuation of society", at this point, is irrelevant. There are enough people on this earth already. In fact, there's probably already TO MANY people on this earth. No one should feel that there is some kind of obligation to add to the population. It isn't needed!

 

[Abbey Normal]

I have a son... ONE son. Yes, I'm glad I have him. If I could, would I magically make him go away and get all the money back I've spent on him? No. Although I feel like it sometimes.... But, he did not arrive in a "timely" manner. But being a Christain, abortion was completely out of the question. I divorced his mother when he was six and joined the Air Force. I paid child support for fifteen years, even though I also gave cash and presents to him directly. Yes it's been a financial burden, and that is EXACTLY why I only have ONE KID!

I don't think it's fair to bash anyone who has decided to not have kids. It may be for some reason other than money. Maybe they just enjoy their privacy, and/or don't want to drag babies or kids around on adult outings and/or adventures.

I also think that this term "continuation of society", at this point, is irrelevant. There are enough people on this earth already. In fact, there's probably already TO MANY people on this earth. No one should feel that there is some kind of obligation to add to the population. It isn't needed!

Great post, Pale.

I love my daughter like breathing, and I would give up my life for hers in a hearbeat, but as for the "joy" of having kids? During the teenaged years, I'll take the money, lol.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So you would have kids if the government would help you pay for them?

There is also the simple fact that with industialization and urbanization that the extended family, which provided a very practical and efficient support mechanism for raising children, disintegrated.

 

[dilloduck]

There is also the simple fact that with industialization and urbanization that the extended family, which provided a very practical and efficient support mechanism for raising children, disintegrated.

No need to justify your decision to me. If you don't wanna bring children into this evil world that's fine. Really !

 

[no1tovote4]

There is also the simple fact that with industialization and urbanization that the extended family, which provided a very practical and efficient support mechanism for raising children, disintegrated.

Much of this was caused by the Social Security program which allowed them to simply believe that the extended family was being 'cared for' by the program, that there was no longer a necessity to take in the retirees as had been done in the past. Much wisdom, personal history, and societal strength has been leached from us because of such entitlement. It is easy to regard personal responsibility of caring for others as already taken care of when entitlement has been promoted as your replacement in responsibility. It's the government's job in the mind of many.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Much of this was caused by the Social Security program which allowed them to simply believe that the extended family was being 'cared for' by the program, that there was no longer a necessity to take in the retirees as had been done in the past. Much wisdom, personal history, and societal strength has been leached from us because of such entitlement. It is easy to regard personal responsibility of caring for others as already taken care of when entitlement has been promoted as your replacement in responsibility. It's the government's job in the mind of many.

Much like education. Parent have abrogated the job of teaching their children, with the idea that the schools will do it all. My mother taught me to read before I ever set foot in kindergarten, and we did the same for our daughter. Where has that idea gone?

This expectation that the schools/gov't will take care of it has now extended to letting schools govern the instruction of our children in nutrition, sex education, and morals in general.

 

[007]

Much like education. Parent have abrogated the job of teaching their children, with the idea that the schools will do it all. My mother taught me to read before I ever set foot in kindergarten, and we did the same for our daughter. Where has that idea gone?

This expectation that the schools/gov't will take care of it has now extended to letting schools govern the instruction of our children in nutrition, sex education, and morals in general.

No doubt... and oh what a slam dunk LIBERAL job they're doing of it.

 

[Abbey Normal]

No doubt... and oh what a slam dunk LIBERAL job they're doing of it.

As a wise soul once noted, it's like they are pissing down our backs, and telling us it's raining.