4 ms·

I predict we're not gonna see anything resembling a baby boom until/unless we fix healthcare. It's too expensive, otherwise. Might need subsidized or free child

I predict we're not gonna see anything resembling a baby boom until/unless we fix healthcare. It's too expensive, otherwise. Might need subsidized or free child care, too, before it's even slightly likely. You burn $100k surprisingly fast with even a healthy kid and without splurging a bit (pre-natal care and birth, increased insurance costs afterward, child care or lost wages due to one parent staying home, et c). Throw in our mediocre public pension system and the death of significant retirement benefits at most jobs that used to have them, and if you're having a kid these days and don't make excellent money you're signing up for an unpleasant retirement. Out-of-control housing costs and the current inflation levels just make that deal even less appealing.

blisterpeanuts 5y ago
People who live with or near their parents have a lot more support in terms of child care, ability to go back to work, help with chores (buying/changing diapers etc.). Regarding the question of retirement... my wife and I have raised one kid, who is now 17. We're all on my company's group plan. I haven't seen the kind of expenses you are alluding to. However, university tuition is looming, and that WILL be expensive. Luckily, we have a 429 plan, which after 17 years has grown to be a decent sum. The flip side of retirement is that children provide the parents with support in their old age. My mom, who just turned 95, has near constant attention from my sister who lives nearby. Many others I know are in the same boat - one or more children become their health advocates and protect them, and in some cases support them. Children, in my view, are a net asset, not a liability.
- brimble 5y ago
  > People who live with or near their parents have a lot more support in terms of child care, ability to go back to work, help with chores (buying/changing diapers etc.). Definitely, but lack of mobility comes with its own (monetary and other) costs, in the modern economy especially. > We're all on my company's group plan. I haven't seen the kind of expenses you are alluding to. With most employers, adding your kid(s) to insurance most likely runs a few hundred dollars a month (over what you'd be paying otherwise) in premiums, and for the vast majority of people that'll still come with a large (high-four- or low-five-figures) max-out-of-pocket if something actually goes wrong with any of you. I expect spending ~$25,000 on medical expenses (including the birth and prenatal care, and cost of adding the kid to insurance) by the time a kid's 5 is fairly normal, even if the kid's fairly healthy (it can get so much worse than that if they're not), and that's just one expense. That figure's certainly in line with what I've seen for various friends who've started families in the last few years, ranging from very blue-collar up to other software developers. There are employers who provide way better (very low max-out-of-pocket) insurance and cover most or all of the premium, even for family plans. Most people aren't employed by those employers, though. I live in a city with, I gather, remarkably cheap child care. You're still looking at about $8,000/yr/kid if you don't mind a daycare that's not particularly good. If one partner stays home instead, the cost is much higher, even assuming pretty minimal earning potential. We do have family nearby, luckily, and we lean on them for help with child care all the time, but not for dedicated 5-days-a-week 48ish-weeks-a-year care. I'm sure some people get full-time care from family members who'd not otherwise be working, so it's basically free, but I doubt it's the norm. Admittedly, the worst expenses are front-loaded. Lost income or childcare costs drop a lot when kids start going to school. The initial birth is gonna hit whatever your max-out-of-pocket is with your insurance, which is usually gonna be several thousand, but that's a one-time cost. Unfortunately, a dollar invested the day your kid is born is also worth a lot more than $1 by the time they leave the house, so the fact that it's front loaded isn't exactly a good thing, as far as retirement savings goes.
- Retric 5y ago
  The issue isn’t simply having a kid. A sustainable replacement rate means ~20+% of people need to have 3 kids which is far more difficult. That’s not such an issue right now, but with most developed countries having negative replacement rates it’s likely to become one.

blisterpeanuts 5y ago

People who live with or near their parents have a lot more support in terms of child care, ability to go back to work, help with chores (buying/changing diapers etc.). Regarding the question of retirement... my wife and I have raised one kid, who is now 17. We're all on my company's group plan. I haven't seen the kind of expenses you are alluding to. However, university tuition is looming, and that WILL be expensive. Luckily, we have a 429 plan, which after 17 years has grown to be a decent sum. The flip side of retirement is that children provide the parents with support in their old age. My mom, who just turned 95, has near constant attention from my sister who lives nearby. Many others I know are in the same boat - one or more children become their health advocates and protect them, and in some cases support them. Children, in my view, are a net asset, not a liability.

brimble 5y ago
> People who live with or near their parents have a lot more support in terms of child care, ability to go back to work, help with chores (buying/changing diapers etc.). Definitely, but lack of mobility comes with its own (monetary and other) costs, in the modern economy especially. > We're all on my company's group plan. I haven't seen the kind of expenses you are alluding to. With most employers, adding your kid(s) to insurance most likely runs a few hundred dollars a month (over what you'd be paying otherwise) in premiums, and for the vast majority of people that'll still come with a large (high-four- or low-five-figures) max-out-of-pocket if something actually goes wrong with any of you. I expect spending ~$25,000 on medical expenses (including the birth and prenatal care, and cost of adding the kid to insurance) by the time a kid's 5 is fairly normal, even if the kid's fairly healthy (it can get so much worse than that if they're not), and that's just one expense. That figure's certainly in line with what I've seen for various friends who've started families in the last few years, ranging from very blue-collar up to other software developers. There are employers who provide way better (very low max-out-of-pocket) insurance and cover most or all of the premium, even for family plans. Most people aren't employed by those employers, though. I live in a city with, I gather, remarkably cheap child care. You're still looking at about $8,000/yr/kid if you don't mind a daycare that's not particularly good. If one partner stays home instead, the cost is much higher, even assuming pretty minimal earning potential. We do have family nearby, luckily, and we lean on them for help with child care all the time, but not for dedicated 5-days-a-week 48ish-weeks-a-year care. I'm sure some people get full-time care from family members who'd not otherwise be working, so it's basically free, but I doubt it's the norm. Admittedly, the worst expenses are front-loaded. Lost income or childcare costs drop a lot when kids start going to school. The initial birth is gonna hit whatever your max-out-of-pocket is with your insurance, which is usually gonna be several thousand, but that's a one-time cost. Unfortunately, a dollar invested the day your kid is born is also worth a lot more than $1 by the time they leave the house, so the fact that it's front loaded isn't exactly a good thing, as far as retirement savings goes.
Retric 5y ago
The issue isn’t simply having a kid. A sustainable replacement rate means ~20+% of people need to have 3 kids which is far more difficult. That’s not such an issue right now, but with most developed countries having negative replacement rates it’s likely to become one.