4 ms·

I submit the cost benefit is closer to neutral with extra washer cycles, setup costs, labor, friction while travelling... This is probably better ROI than "bre

I submit the cost benefit is closer to neutral with extra washer cycles, setup costs, labor, friction while travelling... This is probably better ROI than "breastfeeding saves money" when formula is so cheap and you avoid pumping, washing, and labor while exhausted.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
lukas099 8mo ago
Exclusive breastfeeding (not bottle feeding breastmilk) is less labor than formula. The problem is potential discomfort, and inability for both parents to split the labor more equally.
- caminante 8mo ago
  You raise a good distinction with exclusive breastfeeding and no bottle. That assumes -Always available to breastfeed - mom doesn't work (or at least has tremendous flexibility) -and doesn't need to pump Those are overly idealistic to me and impose overhead costs.
- tshaddox 8mo ago
  “Potential discomfort” undersells it.
  - bombcar 8mo ago
    Spending the time to get the baby to really latch correctly is well worth it, if my wife's experience is anything to go by.
abustamam 8mo ago
I'm not sure where you live but formula is not cheap here. We use disposables while traveling. It's just easier.
- tshaddox 8mo ago
  Is formula more expensive than the portion of the mother’s caloric intake that’s used to produce milk?
  - bombcar 8mo ago
    Very likely. A container of formula runs about $25 and contains 1800 calories (my count may be off). Considering the mother is often trying to lose babyweight I think you can find 1800 calories cheaper. The main thing is that for many, formula is paid for via support programs, but unless you're down on SNAP you don't get diapers AFAIK.
    - abustamam 8mo ago
      Yeah we don't qualify for SNAP (as an aside I'd be curious how many HNers do qualify). My area also has a program called WIC (women infant children) which I'm pretty sure covers diapers but not totally sure.
      - bombcar 8mo ago
        WIC doesn’t cover diapers, only food, and very specific ones at that. It’s easy enough to qualify for both even at HN salaries, you just need to have enough kids.
        abustamam 8mo ago
        I'd posit that it may be simple, but having more kids is certainly not easy!
    - caminante 8mo ago
      No way. This quick math doesn't make sense and seems grossly shortsighted. (1) You have to ingest more than 1800 calories to get 1800 calories of milk. I'm seeing a 1.25x multiplier at a minimum so 2250 cal. (2) That's already close to a full daily calorie intake (3 meals). (3) Kirkland formula is $13 per 2250 calories ($32/5400cal*2250cal). You're not beating $13 per 3 meals unless you're meal prepping. (4) This doesn't even factor in the vitamin loading via formula.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

lukas099 8mo ago

Exclusive breastfeeding (not bottle feeding breastmilk) is less labor than formula. The problem is potential discomfort, and inability for both parents to split the labor more equally.

caminante 8mo ago
You raise a good distinction with exclusive breastfeeding and no bottle. That assumes -Always available to breastfeed - mom doesn't work (or at least has tremendous flexibility) -and doesn't need to pump Those are overly idealistic to me and impose overhead costs.
tshaddox 8mo ago
“Potential discomfort” undersells it.
- bombcar 8mo ago
  Spending the time to get the baby to really latch correctly is well worth it, if my wife's experience is anything to go by.

abustamam 8mo ago

I'm not sure where you live but formula is not cheap here. We use disposables while traveling. It's just easier.

tshaddox 8mo ago
Is formula more expensive than the portion of the mother’s caloric intake that’s used to produce milk?
- bombcar 8mo ago
  Very likely. A container of formula runs about $25 and contains 1800 calories (my count may be off). Considering the mother is often trying to lose babyweight I think you can find 1800 calories cheaper. The main thing is that for many, formula is paid for via support programs, but unless you're down on SNAP you don't get diapers AFAIK.
  - abustamam 8mo ago
    Yeah we don't qualify for SNAP (as an aside I'd be curious how many HNers do qualify). My area also has a program called WIC (women infant children) which I'm pretty sure covers diapers but not totally sure.
    - bombcar 8mo ago
      WIC doesn’t cover diapers, only food, and very specific ones at that. It’s easy enough to qualify for both even at HN salaries, you just need to have enough kids.
      - abustamam 8mo ago
        I'd posit that it may be simple, but having more kids is certainly not easy!
  - caminante 8mo ago
    No way. This quick math doesn't make sense and seems grossly shortsighted. (1) You have to ingest more than 1800 calories to get 1800 calories of milk. I'm seeing a 1.25x multiplier at a minimum so 2250 cal. (2) That's already close to a full daily calorie intake (3 meals). (3) Kirkland formula is $13 per 2250 calories ($32/5400cal*2250cal). You're not beating $13 per 3 meals unless you're meal prepping. (4) This doesn't even factor in the vitamin loading via formula.