"The government says families in the top-third income bracket will spend $279,450 to raise a child born in 2005 through age 17 -- or about $16,000 a year."
The reason that the government figures are wrong is that, to quote Parenting, Inc. again, they don't include the cost of "maternity clothes, new home purchases and moving expenses, childbirth education and newborn classes, prenatal vitamins and extra fruits and vegetables, of Glider breastfeeding armchairs; of 'babymoon' vacations and bumblee-themed baby showers.
When the Wall Street Journal looked at the suspect government figures in an effort to make them somewhat realistic, it added costs such as sporting equipment and tutoring (which is no longer just for the wealthy-- the average income of a family seeking tutoring for a child is between $50,000 and $70,000) and came up with a total cost of raising a child to age seventeen that rangeed from $800,000 to 1.6 million."
To quote the WSJ directly, "We placed all these expenses on a spectrum, from those that parents and experts say are the most common, up to more unusual -- and costly -- frills. At the lowest end, our estimates came in at about $800,000 (in 2007 dollars) through the age of 17."
So the $800,000 figure is based on a survey of parents to figure out what they most commonly spend on various things.
Very true. Government figures don't include the cost of vacations that parents take before the baby is born (I had to google just to figure out WTF a "babymoon" is). They also leave out the cost of booze to lower the mother-to-be's inhibitions and the cost of the backseat of the car where conception occurred!
Alex, do you have any idea how the bottom 95% live?
"Alex, do you have any idea how the bottom 95% live?"
Statistically or qualitatively?
In all seriousness though, I have no aspirations of living the elite-NYC-preschool lifestyle. That being said, life is about tradeoffs and while some of the expenses might seem patently absurd, others seem like things that anyone might reasonably want for their children: to play sports, go to summer camp, to be able to get a chemistry tutor if they needed one, etc.
That's not to say that all of these expenses are necessary or that your kids can't have just as good of a childhood without them, but at some level enough of these expenses do have merit that there is a tradeoff.
Ever notice how many of the highest performing athletes in the world tend to come from exactly the kind of environments where parents don't have a lot of money to spend on things like sports?
So, maybe it's possible to play sports without spending a ton of money?
My kids play sports but not because I realistically think they are ever going to earn a living at it. It'd be nice if they could get a college scholarship, but even that is a long shot. The main reasons I have them in sports is that it's activity that keeps them fit, it's a social opportunity that allows them to make friends, and it helps them learn an important part of American culture.
There are definitely many low income kids who thrive at Grid iron football. Lots of poor Latin American kids play baseball.
The sports that require alot of money to play are mainly ways for upper class white kids to avoid having to compete against the black kids and still feel like they are good athletes. At least in the US.
Not to mention rowing, cycling, biathlon, triathlon, sailing, equestrian, mountaineering, etc. I don't know the exact numbers offhand, but it seems like the vast majority of elite athletes come from wealthy families and go through colleges like Yale and Stanford. The only sports that have even nominal representation from low-SES backgrounds are made-for-TV sports, but if you look at the overall picture it's not nearly as egalitarian.
That figure is laughable. Whatever survey it came from is also laughable. You are not laughable. But those factoids? Laughable. This is a silly argument.
Good to hear, because frankly I find it terrifying even though I'm still several years from having kids. That said some of the expenses from their infographic don't look entirely unreasonable. A decade worth of footwear might not cost $1000, but I bet it costs at least $800 when you take into account soccer cleats, penny loafers, etc.
Here, let me help you: DON'T buy your child 5 years of babyGap wardrobe. DON'T buy your child a decade's worth of Nike sneakers. DON'T buy your child a $4000 designer handbag, or 4 $1000 handbags once a year. DON'T build a swimming pool in your backyard (they kill more children than guns). DON'T take your child out to $32/person meals twice a month (that's "middle" expensive?). DON'T get bottled water delivery. DON'T buy a $2000 bed from Pottery Barn (that's "low" expensive?). DON'T take your kid on a $10,000 trip to Europe. DON'T spend $11,700 on "child therapy". DON'T buy your kid a $23,000 new car for their 16th birthday. DON'T send your kid to private school.
Whatever jackass made this infographic ought to be smacked upside the head with a dirty diaper.
It's the vacation you take shortly before the baby arrives. The wife and I took one (though I refuse to call it that). For the record, we probably spent about $250 on the whole trip (including fuel, lodging, food, etc).
The reason that the government figures are wrong is that, to quote Parenting, Inc. again, they don't include the cost of "maternity clothes, new home purchases and moving expenses, childbirth education and newborn classes, prenatal vitamins and extra fruits and vegetables, of Glider breastfeeding armchairs; of 'babymoon' vacations and bumblee-themed baby showers.
When the Wall Street Journal looked at the suspect government figures in an effort to make them somewhat realistic, it added costs such as sporting equipment and tutoring (which is no longer just for the wealthy-- the average income of a family seeking tutoring for a child is between $50,000 and $70,000) and came up with a total cost of raising a child to age seventeen that rangeed from $800,000 to 1.6 million."
To quote the WSJ directly, "We placed all these expenses on a spectrum, from those that parents and experts say are the most common, up to more unusual -- and costly -- frills. At the lowest end, our estimates came in at about $800,000 (in 2007 dollars) through the age of 17."
So the $800,000 figure is based on a survey of parents to figure out what they most commonly spend on various things.