8 ms·

Children are becoming a luxury good in a lot of cities.

Pulcinella 8y ago
Seriously. I wouldnt use the term “luxury good” to describe a child, but having kids is far too expensive. My wife and I want to have more, but we can barely afford one. The hospital bills even with insurance are ridiculous, paid parental leave in this country is practically non-existent, and daycare is expensive (to the point where it is often cheaper to have one parent work and one stay home with the kids than to have both parents work and place the children in daycare). Housing for families is also incredibly expensive and can be hard to find. My city is building apartments like crazy but the vast majority are one and two bedroom luxury apartments, not three or four bedroom units than can accommodate families. Our housing market has also completely rebounded so houses are too expensive.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  This is the real reason fertility rates are dropping. Children are unaffordable in many places in the country and as work requires more out of all of us with stagnated wages, we don't have the time, money, or required health insurance to participate in raising a child. I'm late 20's and I want a child, but I just can't see myself ever being able to afford one. It's certainly a luxury to responsibly have a child.
  - jdhn 8y ago
    >We don't have the time, money, or required health insurance to participate in raising a child. What would happen if 2 out of 3 of these issues were solved, or at least greatly reduced? In Europe they have much more generous maternal/paternal benefits, as well as universal healthcare. Yet despite this, their birthrates are even lower than ours.
    - Pulcinella 8y ago
      I can’t speak for anyone but ourselves, but we would have more children if we have paid parental leave and universal healthcare (also free college tuition). Financial reasons are why we can’t have more kids.
      - burfog 8y ago
        It's a value choice you are making, and "financial reasons" probably have little to do with it. The money issue is an excuse. Europe generally has the paid parental leave and universal healthcare. Some parts even have the free college tuition. Where are the kids? People who focus on families don't need paid parental leave. There is a full-time parent permanently at home. Not that everybody needs to go to college, but that is often cheap if you start with a community college AA degree and then transfer to a state school. Most people don't have much of a healthcare problem.
        toasterlovin 8y ago
        > that is often cheap if you start with a community college AA degree and then transfer to a state school And, you know, make your kids get a fucking job and pay for their own education.
  - masklinn 8y ago
    > This is the real reason fertility rates are dropping. One of them at least, children are also fairly disruptive and a huge responsibility if you assume you're actually becoming responsible for the education and upbringing of a human being. Generally speaking mainland europe has low hospital bills, paid parental leave, subsidised daycare and education, but the fertility rates are still extremely low, and children are still horrendously expensive.
  - freeopinion 8y ago
    Your opinion is almost certainly clouded by your particular circumstances. I will counter it with my own clouded opinion shaped by my particular circumstances. Children are not unaffordable. They require sacrifice. In my culture (within the U.S.) it is common to have 4+ children, often in single-income, middle-class homes. Raising 4-6 children on an income of $60K doesn't attract any attention at all. To read posts like the gp that claim they can't afford a single child seems ridiculous from my perspective. I grant that my perspective is ignorant of their specific circumstances. But my wife and I welcomed our first two children while we were starving college students making < $20K/year. I don't own a Tesla. My children have worked to pay for their college debt free (as did I). I don't have a home in the Hamptons. I don't live in California. I've never been to Europe. My kids haven't gone to Stanford. But I have the most amazing children in the world. I wouldn't trade any of them for a Tesla. Or a MBP. Or equity in whatever startup you are slaving away at. I am glad there is Tesla in the world, and people with MBPs. I don't think my choices are necessarily better than your choices. I don't regret my choices, and I flatly reject most claims by people that they don't have a choice.
    - Ancalagon 8y ago
      Youre mentioning a lot of real luxury goods but these arent the costs OP is referring to I believe. Its more about the necessities in that regard for ensuring their children have a good future: healthcare, private schooling, a college tuition fund, etc. I agree a lot of people in this country spend too much on things they shouldnt, then complain they dont have enough for more of the essentials, but I think in this case the original point is valid: raising children in a metropolitan area is pretty expensive JUST for their necessities.
      - freeopinion 8y ago
        Please re-read my comment. My children have earned 3+1/2+1/4 college degrees, debt-free. I did not pay for that. They did. I expect at least 2+1/2+3/4 college degrees to follow. They went to public schools (+ 1 private college). They play violin and cello and bass and guitar and percussion and brass. They are insured. They played youth soccer, and high school sports. They have learned foreign languages. They've worked as janitors and at supermarkets and as research assistants. I'm not sure what "necessity" they have not enjoyed. Raising children in metropolitan areas includes raising children in Memphis and Dallas and Boise. It doesn't have to mean San Francisco. And for that matter, who says you have to raise children in a metropolitan area? That is not a necessity. As I wrote before, it doesn't bother me if you choose not to have children, or if you choose to live in San Francisco, or if you choose to raise children in San Francisco. It just bothers me to see the claim that it is impossible to provide the necessities to children today. Children are expensive. No doubt. That is true in NYC or the Himalayas. I believe that to raise a child properly will require sacrifices. That is true for a parent who makes $16K or $16MM. But I reject the claim for the vast majority of people that raising children properly is out of financial reach. When I read that claim from 20-somethings making twice my current salary, I shake my head. I translate that claim to, "I am not willing to give up my current lifestyle to have children." That is a much different statement.
eaandkw 8y ago
I think that this is a false argument. Just look at the poorer nations or even poorer populations. They tend to have plenty of children. Kids are expensive, that is true, but I think that most people arguing that it is too expensive to have children actually mean that they are not willing to change their lifestyle or standard of living to have kids.
- thrav 8y ago
  I agree. Everyone wants to live a certain kind of lifestyle, and kids aren’t worth the sacrifice for many. Without fail, the people I see having kids are all people who grew up with an economic head start, and further distanced themselves with extremely high paying jobs (private equity, hedge fund, commercial real estate, VC, big tech). I don’t know anyone with kids where the husband is not killing it financially, and they all still complain about having limited money. This is true in the Bay Area, where I live now, and back in Texas (Dallas, Austin, San Antonio), where I’m from.
  - sorenn111 8y ago
    Your story is so anecdotal and influenced by the people you know that it is practically irrelevant. Not trying to jump down your throat, but "people I see" and "I don't know anyone" renders your statement useless.
  - kitsunesoba 8y ago
    What if it’s not an unwillingness to sacrifice, but an unwillingness to take on risk and uncertainty that increases with financial success? We now have an entire generation that has been saddled with crippling debt and has been given little to nothing in the way of tools to escape. Many of them saw something similar happen to their own parents, watching them struggle to keep the boat floating as they grew up. Is it really so strange that this group would approach having children with great caution and only commit once they acquire some level of assurance of reliable and reasonably strain-free access to resources? This is especially true for those who’ve “made it” to some extent and have managed to procure freedom from debt — they’re going to do everything in their power to avoid winding up in those circumstances a second time. I don’t know, to me the attitude reads as more calculated and responsible than anything else.
EduardoBautista 8y ago
Then why are children far more common in families with lower incomes?
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  There are plenty of safety nets when you're low income if you take advantage of the available benefits. Your children will be taken care of with medicaid/medicare, you'll receive food stamps, housing assistance. If you're not low income, you're on your own, which can be really tough for people in a middle income range slightly above being able to get those safety nets.
- manfredo 8y ago
  I think it's because the proportional cost of children actually increases as you move up the income ladder. Probably only starts to reverse once you hit the mid-high hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kids are cheaper for poorer families, because they dedicate less resources towards kids. If someone lives in a place where housing is cheap and don't expect anything beyond public primary and secondary school then another kid only really costs some extra groceries and clothes. By comparison if someone expects to give their kid a private education, subsidize their college education, and afford to house them comfortably in an expensive neighborhood, then kids can be incredibly expensive. Lower income people often trend towards the former, higher income people towards the latter. Of course there are exceptions - some lower income people dedicate great resources towards their kids, some wealthier families don't.
  - masklinn 8y ago
    > I think it's because the proportional cost of children actually increases as you move up the income ladder. The opportunity cost as well. Having and raising a child means there are things you can't do because you have to raise/take care of the child. > If someone lives in a place where housing is cheap and don't expect anything beyond public primary and secondary school then another kid only really costs some extra groceries and clothes. At the end of the day, even for people with low COL raising a child to adulthood is still on the order of tens of thousands of dollars. Planning might also be a factor there, it's likely more present higher up the income ladder, meaning the wealthier segments see the kind of costs associated middle/long term and go "maybe not yet".

Seriously. I wouldnt use the term “luxury good” to describe a child, but having kids is far too expensive. My wife and I want to have more, but we can barely afford one. The hospital bills even with insurance are ridiculous, paid parental leave in this country is practically non-existent, and daycare is expensive (to the point where it is often cheaper to have one parent work and one stay home with the kids than to have both parents work and place the children in daycare). Housing for families is also incredibly expensive and can be hard to find. My city is building apartments like crazy but the vast majority are one and two bedroom luxury apartments, not three or four bedroom units than can accommodate families. Our housing market has also completely rebounded so houses are too expensive.

prolikewh0a 8y ago
This is the real reason fertility rates are dropping. Children are unaffordable in many places in the country and as work requires more out of all of us with stagnated wages, we don't have the time, money, or required health insurance to participate in raising a child. I'm late 20's and I want a child, but I just can't see myself ever being able to afford one. It's certainly a luxury to responsibly have a child.
- jdhn 8y ago
  >We don't have the time, money, or required health insurance to participate in raising a child. What would happen if 2 out of 3 of these issues were solved, or at least greatly reduced? In Europe they have much more generous maternal/paternal benefits, as well as universal healthcare. Yet despite this, their birthrates are even lower than ours.
  - Pulcinella 8y ago
    I can’t speak for anyone but ourselves, but we would have more children if we have paid parental leave and universal healthcare (also free college tuition). Financial reasons are why we can’t have more kids.
    - burfog 8y ago
      It's a value choice you are making, and "financial reasons" probably have little to do with it. The money issue is an excuse. Europe generally has the paid parental leave and universal healthcare. Some parts even have the free college tuition. Where are the kids? People who focus on families don't need paid parental leave. There is a full-time parent permanently at home. Not that everybody needs to go to college, but that is often cheap if you start with a community college AA degree and then transfer to a state school. Most people don't have much of a healthcare problem.
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        > that is often cheap if you start with a community college AA degree and then transfer to a state school And, you know, make your kids get a fucking job and pay for their own education.
- masklinn 8y ago
  > This is the real reason fertility rates are dropping. One of them at least, children are also fairly disruptive and a huge responsibility if you assume you're actually becoming responsible for the education and upbringing of a human being. Generally speaking mainland europe has low hospital bills, paid parental leave, subsidised daycare and education, but the fertility rates are still extremely low, and children are still horrendously expensive.
- freeopinion 8y ago
  Your opinion is almost certainly clouded by your particular circumstances. I will counter it with my own clouded opinion shaped by my particular circumstances. Children are not unaffordable. They require sacrifice. In my culture (within the U.S.) it is common to have 4+ children, often in single-income, middle-class homes. Raising 4-6 children on an income of $60K doesn't attract any attention at all. To read posts like the gp that claim they can't afford a single child seems ridiculous from my perspective. I grant that my perspective is ignorant of their specific circumstances. But my wife and I welcomed our first two children while we were starving college students making < $20K/year. I don't own a Tesla. My children have worked to pay for their college debt free (as did I). I don't have a home in the Hamptons. I don't live in California. I've never been to Europe. My kids haven't gone to Stanford. But I have the most amazing children in the world. I wouldn't trade any of them for a Tesla. Or a MBP. Or equity in whatever startup you are slaving away at. I am glad there is Tesla in the world, and people with MBPs. I don't think my choices are necessarily better than your choices. I don't regret my choices, and I flatly reject most claims by people that they don't have a choice.
  - Ancalagon 8y ago
    Youre mentioning a lot of real luxury goods but these arent the costs OP is referring to I believe. Its more about the necessities in that regard for ensuring their children have a good future: healthcare, private schooling, a college tuition fund, etc. I agree a lot of people in this country spend too much on things they shouldnt, then complain they dont have enough for more of the essentials, but I think in this case the original point is valid: raising children in a metropolitan area is pretty expensive JUST for their necessities.
    - freeopinion 8y ago
      Please re-read my comment. My children have earned 3+1/2+1/4 college degrees, debt-free. I did not pay for that. They did. I expect at least 2+1/2+3/4 college degrees to follow. They went to public schools (+ 1 private college). They play violin and cello and bass and guitar and percussion and brass. They are insured. They played youth soccer, and high school sports. They have learned foreign languages. They've worked as janitors and at supermarkets and as research assistants. I'm not sure what "necessity" they have not enjoyed. Raising children in metropolitan areas includes raising children in Memphis and Dallas and Boise. It doesn't have to mean San Francisco. And for that matter, who says you have to raise children in a metropolitan area? That is not a necessity. As I wrote before, it doesn't bother me if you choose not to have children, or if you choose to live in San Francisco, or if you choose to raise children in San Francisco. It just bothers me to see the claim that it is impossible to provide the necessities to children today. Children are expensive. No doubt. That is true in NYC or the Himalayas. I believe that to raise a child properly will require sacrifices. That is true for a parent who makes $16K or $16MM. But I reject the claim for the vast majority of people that raising children properly is out of financial reach. When I read that claim from 20-somethings making twice my current salary, I shake my head. I translate that claim to, "I am not willing to give up my current lifestyle to have children." That is a much different statement.

eaandkw 8y ago

I think that this is a false argument. Just look at the poorer nations or even poorer populations. They tend to have plenty of children. Kids are expensive, that is true, but I think that most people arguing that it is too expensive to have children actually mean that they are not willing to change their lifestyle or standard of living to have kids.

thrav 8y ago
I agree. Everyone wants to live a certain kind of lifestyle, and kids aren’t worth the sacrifice for many. Without fail, the people I see having kids are all people who grew up with an economic head start, and further distanced themselves with extremely high paying jobs (private equity, hedge fund, commercial real estate, VC, big tech). I don’t know anyone with kids where the husband is not killing it financially, and they all still complain about having limited money. This is true in the Bay Area, where I live now, and back in Texas (Dallas, Austin, San Antonio), where I’m from.
- sorenn111 8y ago
  Your story is so anecdotal and influenced by the people you know that it is practically irrelevant. Not trying to jump down your throat, but "people I see" and "I don't know anyone" renders your statement useless.
- kitsunesoba 8y ago
  What if it’s not an unwillingness to sacrifice, but an unwillingness to take on risk and uncertainty that increases with financial success? We now have an entire generation that has been saddled with crippling debt and has been given little to nothing in the way of tools to escape. Many of them saw something similar happen to their own parents, watching them struggle to keep the boat floating as they grew up. Is it really so strange that this group would approach having children with great caution and only commit once they acquire some level of assurance of reliable and reasonably strain-free access to resources? This is especially true for those who’ve “made it” to some extent and have managed to procure freedom from debt — they’re going to do everything in their power to avoid winding up in those circumstances a second time. I don’t know, to me the attitude reads as more calculated and responsible than anything else.

EduardoBautista 8y ago

Then why are children far more common in families with lower incomes?

prolikewh0a 8y ago
There are plenty of safety nets when you're low income if you take advantage of the available benefits. Your children will be taken care of with medicaid/medicare, you'll receive food stamps, housing assistance. If you're not low income, you're on your own, which can be really tough for people in a middle income range slightly above being able to get those safety nets.
manfredo 8y ago
I think it's because the proportional cost of children actually increases as you move up the income ladder. Probably only starts to reverse once you hit the mid-high hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kids are cheaper for poorer families, because they dedicate less resources towards kids. If someone lives in a place where housing is cheap and don't expect anything beyond public primary and secondary school then another kid only really costs some extra groceries and clothes. By comparison if someone expects to give their kid a private education, subsidize their college education, and afford to house them comfortably in an expensive neighborhood, then kids can be incredibly expensive. Lower income people often trend towards the former, higher income people towards the latter. Of course there are exceptions - some lower income people dedicate great resources towards their kids, some wealthier families don't.
- masklinn 8y ago
  > I think it's because the proportional cost of children actually increases as you move up the income ladder. The opportunity cost as well. Having and raising a child means there are things you can't do because you have to raise/take care of the child. > If someone lives in a place where housing is cheap and don't expect anything beyond public primary and secondary school then another kid only really costs some extra groceries and clothes. At the end of the day, even for people with low COL raising a child to adulthood is still on the order of tens of thousands of dollars. Planning might also be a factor there, it's likely more present higher up the income ladder, meaning the wealthier segments see the kind of costs associated middle/long term and go "maybe not yet".