5 ms·

I have 4 kids. Running my own business helps because of the flexibility. But the costs of living is something i did not expected to be so high. 3k per month for

I have 4 kids. Running my own business helps because of the flexibility. But the costs of living is something i did not expected to be so high. 3k per month for daycare/afterschool. Memberships, food, clothing, electronics etc. expensive housing, insurances. We easily spend 8,10k per month without saving anything. Nevertheless I love to have kids. Best investment ever.

wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
Thats not the kids. Thats your lifestyle. There are people with kids living in the jungle on tubers and pigs.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  > There are people with kids living in the jungle on tubers and pigs. Famously easy to switch to this when you live in an HMO in Statesville, State USA or a housing development in Suburbiton, Townshire UK.
  - wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
    They said they spend 10k a month for their kids. I lived in the bay area before. My rent was like 2.5k. 10k outflow a month is fucking insane. Its absolutely indefensibly out of touch spoiled beyond imagination. You could hire a chef and a maid to cook your kids organic bullshit every day, fly around the entire world once a month and still come under 10k. Whatever they are doing to spend that much needs to be reconsidered. Insurance, tennis practice, private school, whatever it is. 80% of it needs to be cut, and put into savings or invested at regular intervals. Its just plain irresponsible, and to complain about the cost of kids while waving numbers like that around would piss off 90% of families in the US living well under that outflow.
    - anotherhue 3y ago
      Nanny here in NY is $30/h. If you work full time (and commute) you'll need about 10 hours a day. 30x10x5x4 is 6000, then add food (formula is insanely expensive), diapers, clothes, basic medical and you're easily up to 7k/m before they've taken their first steps.
      - effingwewt 3y ago
        Nanny!=daycare. There are many families in the US, in NY, that make less than 10k/year.
        anotherhue 3y ago
        I don't quite know what point you're making. There is some state coverage but the income limits are low (50-70 for 1-2 kids) https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/ccap/help.php#CCAP-income https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/ccap/help.php#CCAP-in... Daycare outside of that is incredibly pricey, and if you're as 'blessed' as we were with a multiples pregnancy then the nanny quickly becomes cheaper. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/nyregion/child-care-nyc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/nyregion/child-care-nyc.h... Which is to say, if you make less than 67 you get sizeable benefit, but if you earn more you are likely net negative (but child positive) until you pass about 100k. That's a scary gap.
        effingwewt 3y ago
        I'm getting at the fact that you pay more for an at-home nanny than many families- who also have kids, make in a year. You are in a ridiculously privileged state to be able to simply afford that and you act as though it's impossible to get by without it. Regular daycare costs multiples less than an at-home nanny, just as public school is far cheaper than private+tutors. So again my point is that these are not necessary expenses but chosen. And that I know right now people doing skilled and licensed labor-intensive jobs for less than 30/hr.
        anotherhue 3y ago
    - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
      I am sure it's quite a high figure (I don't know how high; I suspect not as outrageously high as it might seem). But your reply was not any more of a practical solution. I was trying to centre it on a more realistic observation that money outgoings are connected to much less easily fixable lifestyle circumstances.
      - wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
        its absolutely fixable. the issue is ideology and habit, expectation. rigid. difficult to change. look how much disagreement im getting for even suggesting someone should be spending less than 10k a month on 4 kids. These are resistant responses from people who dont even exhibit the behaviour.
        holoduke 3y ago
        I assume you don't live in one of the tech/finance hubs anywhere in the world. Because really, 10k a month is nothing really special. no fancy car, no fancy house. Just a lot of fixed costs. And for your information. Our daycare is only 2.5 days a week. I take care of my kids 1.5 weekdays and my wife 1 day. Can you imagine daycare a full 5 days a week? that's 2 times more expensive.
        wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
        I did live in the bay area for a few years. It is expensive but 10k is too much. The generous explanation is you got rich and just gradually went out of touch. Now I grew up not that long ago. I am still in my twenties and I did grow up in a major city. But I might be able to provide some perspective. I grew up without a computer except for old donated beaters. Free. For fun we ran around outside, and hit ant piles with sticks. We ate beans and hotdogs, and old clothes from yard sales. There were injuries. Scrapes and bruises. There was not a single moment me or my siblings were concerned about wealth or costs or feeling poor. We just had an amazing time playing. Balls, sticks, junk, broken bikes, old hammers, string, nails, grocery bags, old books, half used art supplies. Children do not care about quality. They dont care about nice clothes. They dont care about formal education. They just crave stimulation. Quality stimulation does not come from money. I dont even know that it can be bought. When I look back and think about what I would change, I wouldnt add daycare. I wouldnt add nice food or clothes or technology, or tennis teams or memberships. I wish I could have seen my dad everyday. I wish my step dad became better friends with me and showed me coding years before he got cancer and died. Money is just not what kids need.
    - Balgair 3y ago
      Honestly, 10k/mo for four kids is on the cheaper side for the Bay. Just in daycare alone, they should be at ~8k/mo for four (~$500/wk/kid, daycares can't do bulk discounts). I have friends in TN that are at ~1k/wk. per kid with a ~2.5 year waiting lists. Daycare isn't well tied local cost of living in the US. Also, rent for one person isn't rent for a family of six, it should be a bit higher for the extra space. And $2.5k per month is, nationally speaking, really high for one person! Wow. I had no idea it was that bad in the Bay these days.
      - wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
        10k is not on the cheap side. lentils and potatos, my friend. lentils and potatos.
        Balgair 3y ago
        Okay, now I'm curious. How would you go about raising four kids in the Bay? Not super detailed, but you know, just a sketch. Daycare? Food costs? Housing? Health Insurance? Those kinds of big ticket items. I'd love to know how to get my costs down more.
        seec 3y ago
        From his previous post, this guy is clearly a young know-it-all that comes from either a poor or stingy family. The reality is that he truly has no clue, he just thinks he knows better and he clearly has pretty low standards. I would say he is the kind that shouldn't have kids because they would probably suffer but he will have them nonetheless and he will rationalise all the corner cutting as something normal even though there is a price paid, he just doesn't know it yet or prefer to deny it.
lm28469 3y ago
We traded one parent working and multi generational housing for this (which had other issues of course). Instead of having someone staying at home and raising their kid(s) now you have to work to pay someone else to raise your kid(s), and very often that entire new pay check gets siphoned. If your couple is composed of two min wage worker you can't eve match the previous system in any way (quality of life, education, stimulation, &c.). Couple that with the fact that most people leave their hometown to work in big cities and you got the perfect mix of time/money and social network issues That's my mom's job, she takes care of kids, parents drop them as 6am and picks them up at 7pm+. I've talked to these kids, they're miserable, they spend twice as much time with my parents than with theirs, and theirs are so exhausted after work they don't even take care of them once they pick them up (micro waved food and netflix on the daily) (I'm not saying that applies to you, your comment just made me think about that)
- seec 3y ago
  Yep, that's pretty much it. This new system pushed by bourgeois feminist for their own benefit is strictly worse than what we had before for 90% of the population. Funniest thing is that if you give them enough time most women would tell you that they would rather just had kids if they could have found the husband with the means for it. But the current propaganda is very strong and you cannot say anything at the risk of passing for the biggest asshole. Yet I'm pretty sure that if you offered the previous women deal to men, many would take it in a heartbeat. Instead, we have to listen to insufferable people lecture us on the "meaning" of work, wich hilariously for many women, literally translate into taking care of other people's kids, just for much longer (for example in France they represent up to 80% of the teachers). This double working parent nonsense is really big bullshit, there is very little benefit for anyone but very few ultra privileged...

wegfawefgawefg 3y ago

Thats not the kids. Thats your lifestyle. There are people with kids living in the jungle on tubers and pigs.

bemusedthrow75 3y ago
> There are people with kids living in the jungle on tubers and pigs. Famously easy to switch to this when you live in an HMO in Statesville, State USA or a housing development in Suburbiton, Townshire UK.
- wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
  They said they spend 10k a month for their kids. I lived in the bay area before. My rent was like 2.5k. 10k outflow a month is fucking insane. Its absolutely indefensibly out of touch spoiled beyond imagination. You could hire a chef and a maid to cook your kids organic bullshit every day, fly around the entire world once a month and still come under 10k. Whatever they are doing to spend that much needs to be reconsidered. Insurance, tennis practice, private school, whatever it is. 80% of it needs to be cut, and put into savings or invested at regular intervals. Its just plain irresponsible, and to complain about the cost of kids while waving numbers like that around would piss off 90% of families in the US living well under that outflow.
  - anotherhue 3y ago
    Nanny here in NY is $30/h. If you work full time (and commute) you'll need about 10 hours a day. 30x10x5x4 is 6000, then add food (formula is insanely expensive), diapers, clothes, basic medical and you're easily up to 7k/m before they've taken their first steps.
    - effingwewt 3y ago
      Nanny!=daycare. There are many families in the US, in NY, that make less than 10k/year.
      - anotherhue 3y ago
        I don't quite know what point you're making. There is some state coverage but the income limits are low (50-70 for 1-2 kids) https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/ccap/help.php#CCAP-income https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/ccap/help.php#CCAP-in... Daycare outside of that is incredibly pricey, and if you're as 'blessed' as we were with a multiples pregnancy then the nanny quickly becomes cheaper. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/nyregion/child-care-nyc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/nyregion/child-care-nyc.h... Which is to say, if you make less than 67 you get sizeable benefit, but if you earn more you are likely net negative (but child positive) until you pass about 100k. That's a scary gap.
        effingwewt 3y ago
        I'm getting at the fact that you pay more for an at-home nanny than many families- who also have kids, make in a year. You are in a ridiculously privileged state to be able to simply afford that and you act as though it's impossible to get by without it. Regular daycare costs multiples less than an at-home nanny, just as public school is far cheaper than private+tutors. So again my point is that these are not necessary expenses but chosen. And that I know right now people doing skilled and licensed labor-intensive jobs for less than 30/hr.
        anotherhue 3y ago
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    I am sure it's quite a high figure (I don't know how high; I suspect not as outrageously high as it might seem). But your reply was not any more of a practical solution. I was trying to centre it on a more realistic observation that money outgoings are connected to much less easily fixable lifestyle circumstances.
    - wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
      its absolutely fixable. the issue is ideology and habit, expectation. rigid. difficult to change. look how much disagreement im getting for even suggesting someone should be spending less than 10k a month on 4 kids. These are resistant responses from people who dont even exhibit the behaviour.
      - holoduke 3y ago
        I assume you don't live in one of the tech/finance hubs anywhere in the world. Because really, 10k a month is nothing really special. no fancy car, no fancy house. Just a lot of fixed costs. And for your information. Our daycare is only 2.5 days a week. I take care of my kids 1.5 weekdays and my wife 1 day. Can you imagine daycare a full 5 days a week? that's 2 times more expensive.
        wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
        I did live in the bay area for a few years. It is expensive but 10k is too much. The generous explanation is you got rich and just gradually went out of touch. Now I grew up not that long ago. I am still in my twenties and I did grow up in a major city. But I might be able to provide some perspective. I grew up without a computer except for old donated beaters. Free. For fun we ran around outside, and hit ant piles with sticks. We ate beans and hotdogs, and old clothes from yard sales. There were injuries. Scrapes and bruises. There was not a single moment me or my siblings were concerned about wealth or costs or feeling poor. We just had an amazing time playing. Balls, sticks, junk, broken bikes, old hammers, string, nails, grocery bags, old books, half used art supplies. Children do not care about quality. They dont care about nice clothes. They dont care about formal education. They just crave stimulation. Quality stimulation does not come from money. I dont even know that it can be bought. When I look back and think about what I would change, I wouldnt add daycare. I wouldnt add nice food or clothes or technology, or tennis teams or memberships. I wish I could have seen my dad everyday. I wish my step dad became better friends with me and showed me coding years before he got cancer and died. Money is just not what kids need.
  - Balgair 3y ago
    Honestly, 10k/mo for four kids is on the cheaper side for the Bay. Just in daycare alone, they should be at ~8k/mo for four (~$500/wk/kid, daycares can't do bulk discounts). I have friends in TN that are at ~1k/wk. per kid with a ~2.5 year waiting lists. Daycare isn't well tied local cost of living in the US. Also, rent for one person isn't rent for a family of six, it should be a bit higher for the extra space. And $2.5k per month is, nationally speaking, really high for one person! Wow. I had no idea it was that bad in the Bay these days.
    - wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
      10k is not on the cheap side. lentils and potatos, my friend. lentils and potatos.
      - Balgair 3y ago
        Okay, now I'm curious. How would you go about raising four kids in the Bay? Not super detailed, but you know, just a sketch. Daycare? Food costs? Housing? Health Insurance? Those kinds of big ticket items. I'd love to know how to get my costs down more.
        seec 3y ago
        From his previous post, this guy is clearly a young know-it-all that comes from either a poor or stingy family. The reality is that he truly has no clue, he just thinks he knows better and he clearly has pretty low standards. I would say he is the kind that shouldn't have kids because they would probably suffer but he will have them nonetheless and he will rationalise all the corner cutting as something normal even though there is a price paid, he just doesn't know it yet or prefer to deny it.

lm28469 3y ago

We traded one parent working and multi generational housing for this (which had other issues of course). Instead of having someone staying at home and raising their kid(s) now you have to work to pay someone else to raise your kid(s), and very often that entire new pay check gets siphoned. If your couple is composed of two min wage worker you can't eve match the previous system in any way (quality of life, education, stimulation, &c.). Couple that with the fact that most people leave their hometown to work in big cities and you got the perfect mix of time/money and social network issues That's my mom's job, she takes care of kids, parents drop them as 6am and picks them up at 7pm+. I've talked to these kids, they're miserable, they spend twice as much time with my parents than with theirs, and theirs are so exhausted after work they don't even take care of them once they pick them up (micro waved food and netflix on the daily) (I'm not saying that applies to you, your comment just made me think about that)

seec 3y ago
Yep, that's pretty much it. This new system pushed by bourgeois feminist for their own benefit is strictly worse than what we had before for 90% of the population. Funniest thing is that if you give them enough time most women would tell you that they would rather just had kids if they could have found the husband with the means for it. But the current propaganda is very strong and you cannot say anything at the risk of passing for the biggest asshole. Yet I'm pretty sure that if you offered the previous women deal to men, many would take it in a heartbeat. Instead, we have to listen to insufferable people lecture us on the "meaning" of work, wich hilariously for many women, literally translate into taking care of other people's kids, just for much longer (for example in France they represent up to 80% of the teachers). This double working parent nonsense is really big bullshit, there is very little benefit for anyone but very few ultra privileged...