And when you get to the Duggar level, them crotchfruit actually become a revenue source.

Heh. I'm the expensive child.

What doesn't seem to be taken into account is as the number of children increase, the likelihood of having a child with a lifelong disability increases as well; and those numbers are far greater than the numbers that your kid will become a superstar and retroactively pay you back for taking care of them. Also, if you have both a boy and a girl you have to consider the therapy bills when you dress little Johnny up in all his sister's old baby clothes... and then the countless abortions for when they start sexing each other.

I thought everything mentioned in the article was common sense, but then I remembered how stupid people are.

Not when the second and third kids come at the same time.

So what's going on? Two things, according to Mark Lino, who writes the USDA report. First, "if you have X amount of income, with more children the income has to be spread over more children," leaving less for each.

In theory this could shortchange children - except there's no evidence that folks from three-kid families turn out 22% worse than those in the two-kid norm.

And here is where the article betrays it's own retarded logic. What you're saying then is that parents choose to overspend on their first kid, meaning they damn well could make it work on $6k/year, meaning every kid thereafter actually costs as much as the first one, in terms of mandatory expenses.

There are too many people in this world. It's not a "problem" that Americans have fewer children. It's the one thing that is saving us from 40% unemployment. Jobs are not being created, and there is no reason to suspect that the demand for labor is going to return to the US anytime soon. We should be stripping tax credits from the code and removing other child-rearing subsidies so as to do as little as possible to encourage more people in this country. This includes introducing public school tuition, indexed to family income. No, I'm not joking.

Perhaps fears of overpopulation figure in, but since almost 80% of Americans plunge into parenthood - with the big outlay for the first kid that entails, and showing, by adding a person to existing billions, that they don't think the world's too crowded - it's strange that people stop just as the economies of scale improve.

No, a lot of people who think the world is overcrowded have kids anyway. Having one child still reduces your net population footprint. Having two makes you neutral. Having more than two contributes to the problem. And anyway, most people are selfish and want to have lots of children. They just want everyone else to have fewer.

I'm waiting for the after-Christmas sale on babies.

Tommy Moo: So what's going on? Two things, according to Mark Lino, who writes the USDA report. First, "if you have X amount of income, with more children the income has to be spread over more children," leaving less for each.

In theory this could shortchange children - except there's no evidence that folks from three-kid families turn out 22% worse than those in the two-kid norm.

And here is where the article betrays it's own retarded logic. What you're saying then is that parents choose to overspend on their first kid, meaning they damn well could make it work on $6k/year, meaning every kid thereafter actually costs as much as the first one, in terms of mandatory expenses.


Did you also read that housing was the largest overall cost?
This would remain constant (unless you are forced to move because your vagina turned into a clown car)

Didn't work for me. The second is a lot cheaper. The little girl after him not the case. She just won't wear the boys hand-me-downs. They do share a lot toys, even gendered toys. Although when she is cold she will wear one of my sweatshirts like a little dress. 8 years olds are fun, teens not so much.

Tommy Moo: So what's going on? Two things, according to Mark Lino, who writes the USDA report. First, "if you have X amount of income, with more children the income has to be spread over more children," leaving less for each.

In theory this could shortchange children - except there's no evidence that folks from three-kid families turn out 22% worse than those in the two-kid norm.

And here is where the article betrays it's own retarded logic. What you're saying then is that parents choose to overspend on their first kid, meaning they damn well could make it work on $6k/year, meaning every kid thereafter actually costs as much as the first one, in terms of mandatory expenses.

There are too many people in this world. It's not a "problem" that Americans have fewer children. It's the one thing that is saving us from 40% unemployment. Jobs are not being created, and there is no reason to suspect that the demand for labor is going to return to the US anytime soon. We should be stripping tax credits from the code and removing other child-rearing subsidies so as to do as little as possible to encourage more people in this country. This includes introducing public school tuition, indexed to family income. No, I'm not joking.

Maybe we should do like they do in Communist China and make it a law that you can only have 1 child (unless your rich and can buy an exemption) and better yet maybe you could include mandatory serialization as well after the child is born. Oh wait, how about taking it one step further and upon birth you give boys vasectomy and girls a tubal ligation, then when they are older and want to have their one kid they have to get government approval and go to special government medical facility to have the sperm and egg extracted so it can be fertilized in a petri dish and then implanted into the mother womb. That sounds like good steps to becoming a stronger America.

Zero times anything is zero. I can work with that.

(Yeah, I was a kid once. but I got over it.)

I can see it at some level.

Housing: Moving from the apartment/townhouse to multi-bedroom house is a one time deal.
Health Care: Health insurance is "employee + child(ren)" so there is no increase in cost regardless of the number of kids, so there is a savings there in both monthly premium and max deductible/out of pocket
Equipment: Reuse the breastpump, the crib, the bottles, etc

The daycare/babysitter is a little wrong. Sitters do charge more for more kids and daycare centers might offer a discount for multiple children, but at most it's 10% off the second tuition. What happens is you reach a threshold where it's cheaper to have a parent quit working and stay home then pay for daycare, that can easily be at the second child. At that point you can have as many kids as you want.

Of course now you need a larger car since you need to fit three carseats or booster seats into it. Plus now you have three kids needing ear tube surgery or braces and wanting music lessons. Flying across the country to see grandma also just jumped in price.

Tommy Moo: So what's going on? Two things, according to Mark Lino, who writes the USDA report. First, "if you have X amount of income, with more children the income has to be spread over more children," leaving less for each.

In theory this could shortchange children - except there's no evidence that folks from three-kid families turn out 22% worse than those in the two-kid norm.

And here is where the article betrays it's own retarded logic. What you're saying then is that parents choose to overspend on their first kid, meaning they damn well could make it work on $6k/year, meaning every kid thereafter actually costs as much as the first one, in terms of mandatory expenses.

There are too many people in this world. It's not a "problem" that Americans have fewer children. It's the one thing that is saving us from 40% unemployment. Jobs are not being created, and there is no reason to suspect that the demand for labor is going to return to the US anytime soon. We should be stripping tax credits from the code and removing other child-rearing subsidies so as to do as little as possible to encourage more people in this country. This includes introducing public school tuition, indexed to family income. No, I'm not joking.

More kids means more demand for products which means more jobs to create the supply. It also helps keep a growing taxbase for things like social security.

dennysgod: Tommy Moo: So what's going on? Two things, according to Mark Lino, who writes the USDA report. First, "if you have X amount of income, with more children the income has to be spread over more children," leaving less for each.

In theory this could shortchange children - except there's no evidence that folks from three-kid families turn out 22% worse than those in the two-kid norm.

And here is where the article betrays it's own retarded logic. What you're saying then is that parents choose to overspend on their first kid, meaning they damn well could make it work on $6k/year, meaning every kid thereafter actually costs as much as the first one, in terms of mandatory expenses.

There are too many people in this world. It's not a "problem" that Americans have fewer children. It's the one thing that is saving us from 40% unemployment. Jobs are not being created, and there is no reason to suspect that the demand for labor is going to return to the US anytime soon. We should be stripping tax credits from the code and removing other child-rearing subsidies so as to do as little as possible to encourage more people in this country. This includes introducing public school tuition, indexed to family income. No, I'm not joking.

Maybe we should do like they do in Communist China and make it a law that you can only have 1 child (unless your rich and can buy an exemption) and better yet maybe you could include mandatory serialization as well after the child is born. Oh wait, how about taking it one step further and upon birth you give boys vasectomy and girls a tubal ligation, then when they are older and want to have their one kid they have to get government approval and go to special government medical facility to have the sperm and egg extracted so it can be fertilized in a petri dish and then implanted into the mother womb. That sounds like good steps to becoming a stronger America.

There needs to be a "Stupid" button to go along with the "Smart"/"Funny" for posts like this guy's.

Yea their math was a little questionable. Sure the third kid can wear hand me downs but the big expense was housing, which is a constant cost that they seem to suggest diminishes with the more occupants under the roof. All that does is offer you more people to divide the number by but the cost stays the same.

Unless that third kid required you to move or renovate I'm which the cost goes up on number three.

Your call on how many you have but some days I wish people had to pass a class to have kids...

rhino33: they didn't really account for college either. to save up enough for a kid to go to a private school in the US at age 18 takes about $400 a month. this number does not decrease with more kids. for 3 kids, it $1200 a month.

/wife and i are debating a second kid.

Community college for two years not an option? I fully plan on doing that as it would reduce overall costs by 25k, and they still get the piece of paper from a state uni.

mavexe: rhino33: they didn't really account for college either. to save up enough for a kid to go to a private school in the US at age 18 takes about $400 a month. this number does not decrease with more kids. for 3 kids, it $1200 a month.

/wife and i are debating a second kid.

Community college for two years not an option? I fully plan on doing that as it would reduce overall costs by 25k, and they still get the piece of paper from a state uni.

They said private school - I'm not sure the elite schools are big on community college transfers.

That said, nothing wrong with the public ivies, but you'll still pay a lot out of state.

lack of warmth: Didn't work for me. The second is a lot cheaper. The little girl after him not the case. She just won't wear the boys hand-me-downs. They do share a lot toys, even gendered toys. Although when she is cold she will wear one of my sweatshirts like a little dress. 8 years olds are fun, teens not so much.

I know about this.

I'm the middle child, between firstborn (male) and miracle girl (third). *shrug* My life from 1 to 18 was like "Who's that kid playing with our two kids?"

My older brother had a nice electric toy car that was bought before I was born, and my sister had a barbie jeep. Me? "OH well, he can use his brothers or sisters, or he can just use the handdown bicicyle"

Kids grow and understand this, my parents are all now sorry for this, but to me it was more like "Whatever, you're just strangers to me"

rhino33: i've got nothing against state schools or community schools, but i've pledged to pay for 4 years of school for any kids that i have, and i don't want to limit their choices on the fact that "we can't afford it cuz dad didn't save enough"

Why not expect them to foot part of the bill through scholarships?

There are plenty of expensive private schools out there that suck.

rhino33: ph0rk: mavexe: rhino33: they didn't really account for college either. to save up enough for a kid to go to a private school in the US at age 18 takes about $400 a month. this number does not decrease with more kids. for 3 kids, it $1200 a month.

/wife and i are debating a second kid.

Community college for two years not an option? I fully plan on doing that as it would reduce overall costs by 25k, and they still get the piece of paper from a state uni.

They said private school - I'm not sure the elite schools are big on community college transfers.

That said, nothing wrong with the public ivies, but you'll still pay a lot out of state.


i've got nothing against state schools or community schools, but i've pledged to pay for 4 years of school for any kids that i have, and i don't want to limit their choices on the fact that "we can't afford it cuz dad didn't save enough"

One could argue that that should go into your decision process for having a second child.

/I'm kidding
//good luck whatever you decide
///trying for our first

dennysgod: Tommy Moo: So what's going on? Two things, according to Mark Lino, who writes the USDA report. First, "if you have X amount of income, with more children the income has to be spread over more children," leaving less for each.

In theory this could shortchange children - except there's no evidence that folks from three-kid families turn out 22% worse than those in the two-kid norm.

And here is where the article betrays it's own retarded logic. What you're saying then is that parents choose to overspend on their first kid, meaning they damn well could make it work on $6k/year, meaning every kid thereafter actually costs as much as the first one, in terms of mandatory expenses.

There are too many people in this world. It's not a "problem" that Americans have fewer children. It's the one thing that is saving us from 40% unemployment. Jobs are not being created, and there is no reason to suspect that the demand for labor is going to return to the US anytime soon. We should be stripping tax credits from the code and removing other child-rearing subsidies so as to do as little as possible to encourage more people in this country. This includes introducing public school tuition, indexed to family income. No, I'm not joking.

Maybe we should do like they do in Communist China and make it a law that you can only have 1 child (unless your rich and can buy an exemption) and better yet maybe you could include mandatory serialization as well after the child is born. Oh wait, how about taking it one step further and upon birth you give boys vasectomy and girls a tubal ligation, then when they are older and want to have their one kid they have to get government approval and go to special government medical facility to have the sperm and egg extracted so it can be fertilized in a petri dish and then implanted into the mother womb. That sounds like good steps to becoming a stronger America.

Typical. When you can't argue with someone because their points are too strong, you conflate their position into a cartoon of itself and then attack that phantom. What you have just done here will be saved and written in dictionaries as the most quintessential strawman in the history of the internet.

No longer subsidizing something is not the same thing as outlawing it.

So dote on the first born.
Tolerate the second.
Ignore the fark out of the third.

rhino33: ph0rk: mavexe: rhino33: they didn't really account for college either. to save up enough for a kid to go to a private school in the US at age 18 takes about $400 a month. this number does not decrease with more kids. for 3 kids, it $1200 a month.

/wife and i are debating a second kid.

Community college for two years not an option? I fully plan on doing that as it would reduce overall costs by 25k, and they still get the piece of paper from a state uni.

They said private school - I'm not sure the elite schools are big on community college transfers.

That said, nothing wrong with the public ivies, but you'll still pay a lot out of state.


i've got nothing against state schools or community schools, but i've pledged to pay for 4 years of school for any kids that i have, and i don't want to limit their choices on the fact that "we can't afford it cuz dad didn't save enough"

Could I recommend you rephrase it to "I pledge to provide a scholarship to any child of mine who maintains the minimum requirements"? That way your kids know it's not a free ride, they need to met a minimum GPA, etc.

maq0r: lack of warmth: Didn't work for me. The second is a lot cheaper. The little girl after him not the case. She just won't wear the boys hand-me-downs. They do share a lot toys, even gendered toys. Although when she is cold she will wear one of my sweatshirts like a little dress. 8 years olds are fun, teens not so much.

I know about this.

I'm the middle child, between firstborn (male) and miracle girl (third). *shrug* My life from 1 to 18 was like "Who's that kid playing with our two kids?"

My older brother had a nice electric toy car that was bought before I was born, and my sister had a barbie jeep. Me? "OH well, he can use his brothers or sisters, or he can just use the handdown bicicyle"

Kids grow and understand this, my parents are all now sorry for this, but to me it was more like "Whatever, you're just strangers to me"

I don't ignore the middle kid. We do stuff just for him all the time like the other two. The thing is after the first boy we learned how to be thrifty. As the second boy started out growing his handed down crib I decided to build the boys beds myself out of basic stud wood (2x4's and 2x6's). They liked them and for the price I don't care if they draw on them nor could they be broken. When the oldest started getting big I took his bed using the same wood to and turned it into a full size bed. The girl has the only store bought bed in the house. Things like that. The middle kid I am really close to, he is my flavor of crazy. We had discussions without talking when mom had trouble with him and he is autistic.

Wow, feel like the article missed the point on this one. Having three kids is still more expensive and still impractical. The major factor never taken into account was the loss of a second income. If a family has three kids spaced two years apart, that's six years the mother is not developing a stable career. By then, returning the workforce and finding a stable career becomes much more difficult. As well, the constants are obvious - housing, car, and food. Food simply because you're not buying a constant increment of product for each child.

/having kids... hell no.

LaraAmber: Could I recommend you rephrase it to "I pledge to provide a scholarship to any child of mine who maintains the minimum requirements"? That way your kids know it's not a free ride, they need to met a minimum GPA, etc.

Or better yet, don't promise anything. The expectation is that your kids will get into great schools and that financial aid will cover most or all of it. Tell them that they might have to have to work a little in college, but it isn't that big a deal. That way they will try as hard as they can. When they get 3-4 admission letters and their top choice can only cover 2/3 of the tuition while a secondary choice is a full ride, mom and dad can swoop in and pay the extra because of how hard the kid worked. My parents did it for me and my kids (who are only 4 and 6) are being walked down the same path.

Tommy Moo: So what's going on? Two things, according to Mark Lino, who writes the USDA report. First, "if you have X amount of income, with more children the income has to be spread over more children," leaving less for each.

In theory this could shortchange children - except there's no evidence that folks from three-kid families turn out 22% worse than those in the two-kid norm.

And here is where the article betrays it's own retarded logic. What you're saying then is that parents choose to overspend on their first kid, meaning they damn well could make it work on $6k/year, meaning every kid thereafter actually costs as much as the first one, in terms of mandatory expenses.

There are too many people in this world. It's not a "problem" that Americans have fewer children. It's the one thing that is saving us from 40% unemployment. Jobs are not being created, and there is no reason to suspect that the demand for labor is going to return to the US anytime soon. We should be stripping tax credits from the code and removing other child-rearing subsidies so as to do as little as possible to encourage more people in this country. This includes introducing public school tuition, indexed to family income. No, I'm not joking.

People in the first world produce more than they consume.

Second child cost me 4 years in which I NEVER got a full night's uninterrupted sleep. And you want me to sign up for the chance to do THAT again?

/As a baby/toddler, he probably took 15 years off my life expectancy.
//ex-wife checked out and refused to deal with him

rhino33: LaraAmber: rhino33: ph0rk: mavexe: rhino33: they didn't really account for college either. to save up enough for a kid to go to a private school in the US at age 18 takes about $400 a month. this number does not decrease with more kids. for 3 kids, it $1200 a month.

/wife and i are debating a second kid.

Community college for two years not an option? I fully plan on doing that as it would reduce overall costs by 25k, and they still get the piece of paper from a state uni.

They said private school - I'm not sure the elite schools are big on community college transfers.

That said, nothing wrong with the public ivies, but you'll still pay a lot out of state.


i've got nothing against state schools or community schools, but i've pledged to pay for 4 years of school for any kids that i have, and i don't want to limit their choices on the fact that "we can't afford it cuz dad didn't save enough"

Could I recommend you rephrase it to "I pledge to provide a scholarship to any child of mine who maintains the minimum requirements"? That way your kids know it's not a free ride, they need to met a minimum GPA, etc.

oh yeah, i thought that went without saying. if they don't earn it, they don't get access to the college fund. but it's up to me as a parent to make sure they earn it.

When it comes to teenagers, nothing goes "without saying". You might think "if you have the grades and stay out of trouble" they think "you owe me because I'm special!" you think "take classes that translate to real world knowledge/work skills" they think "I can take whatever I want, of course you should pay for The Simpsons: A Study in Television Culture"

/Just had a coworker whose step-daughter dropped the "I don't need to move out and find a job until I'm 25" and was confused when both parents looked at her like she was nuts.
//Another coworker got the "Mom, you OWE me a car."

I am so sick of articles like this because I think they perpetuate the idea that more kids is more fulfilling, or whatever. Maybe it is for some folks. "A house with more life in it," , and talk of how since there are more kids, they can just play with each other rather than be entertained. Most of my friends have between 2-5 kids. I hear a lot of "ohhhh, poor L--, an only child, he must be so lonely!", crap like that. Yeah, maybe he doesn't get as much kid time, but he gets to go to more places, gets more lessons (he's learning the banjo and jujitsu), and gets WAY more with us than most of the kids I know. We also have the confidence that we can afford college, where the one friend I know who has 5 kids, pins every hope on football scholarships (their dad played, so it's assumed they will be similarly talented). We hope like hell he will get scholarships, but if he doesn't get a full-ride, we know we can pick up the slack. Since it's just the 3 of us, we have a small house to keep expenses down and save much more that people who need 4+ bedrooms.

I love kids, I wanted to have more of them...but fate intervened and today, I can't say I'm not glad. We don't make a ton of money... I'd much rather have the fundage to give my one kid every opportunity than stress over being able to do the minimum for more.

Obvious
/and hot
//there is an XKCD for everything (thanks Randall)

rogue_L_chick: I am so sick of articles like this because I think they perpetuate the idea that more kids is more fulfilling, or whatever. Maybe it is for some folks. "A house with more life in it," , and talk of how since there are more kids, they can just play with each other rather than be entertained. Most of my friends have between 2-5 kids. I hear a lot of "ohhhh, poor L--, an only child, he must be so lonely!", crap like that. Yeah, maybe he doesn't get as much kid time, but he gets to go to more places, gets more lessons (he's learning the banjo and jujitsu), and gets WAY more with us than most of the kids I know. We also have the confidence that we can afford college, where the one friend I know who has 5 kids, pins every hope on football scholarships (their dad played, so it's assumed they will be similarly talented). We hope like hell he will get scholarships, but if he doesn't get a full-ride, we know we can pick up the slack. Since it's just the 3 of us, we have a small house to keep expenses down and save much more that people who need 4+ bedrooms.

Yep I only have one. He has a ton of "brothers" and "sisters", they are all the other kids at his daycare that he sees every single day that he's known since practically birth. I had a sibling, but with her being 4 years older than me, she never wanted to play with me. My self-esteem would have been better off with me being an only child. Siblings are overrated.

rogue_L_chick: I am so sick of articles like this because I think they perpetuate the idea that more kids is more fulfilling, or whatever. Maybe it is for some folks. "A house with more life in it," , and talk of how since there are more kids, they can just play with each other rather than be entertained. Most of my friends have between 2-5 kids. I hear a lot of "ohhhh, poor L--, an only child, he must be so lonely!", crap like that. Yeah, maybe he doesn't get as much kid time, but he gets to go to more places, gets more lessons (he's learning the banjo and jujitsu), and gets WAY more with us than most of the kids I know. We also have the confidence that we can afford college, where the one friend I know who has 5 kids, pins every hope on football scholarships (their
dad played, so it's assumed they will be similarly talented). We hope like hell he will get scholarships, but if he doesn't get a full-ride, we know we can pick up the slack. Since it's just the 3 of us, we have a small house to keep expenses down and save much more that people who need 4+ bedrooms.

I love kids, I wanted to have more of them...but fate intervened and today, I can't say I'm not glad. We don't make a ton of money... I'd much rather have the fundage to give my one kid every opportunity than stress over being able to do the minimum for more.

As an only child, I hated it. I wish I had a real-life talking toy instead of yet another Barbie or whatever present it was. Visiting grandma I bet was more fun with siblings. But what do I know? That's just my opinion on things.

tag fail, sorry!

It could be even simpler than economy of scale, it's statistics.

With 2 kids, it's roughly even odds that you have one of each gender. By the third kid, you are guaranteed to have hand-me-downs for at least one of the kids. (this leaves twins/triplets out of the mix, which the article/study also seems to do)

Some families will have hand-me-downs for the second kid, hence the small reduction in price for #2. All 3-child families will have hand-me-downs for at least one kid, possibly two, so the average price per kid significantly falls.

rogue_L_chick: Julieahni:
As an only child, I hated it. I wish I had a real-life talking toy instead of yet another Barbie or whatever present it was. Visiting grandma I bet was more fun with siblings. But what do I know? That's just my opinion on things.

I was afraid of that when the issue of "no more kids" came up. I wanted to avoid that sort of lonliness in my kid...I had a brother close in age growing up, so I felt kinda sorry that he would miss out on that. My BF was an only child...he painted a different picture. He and his parents were a unit, they all did stuff together. He had friends, of course, (who often got to come on family trips as well, especially
theme parks, so no one has to ride alone), but he maintains that he wouldn't have been as close as he is to his folks if it wasn't for being an only child, less of the us vs. them mentality.

So, I think it can work, as long as you don't have lazy parents that lead to lonely, understimulated kids.

My parents weren't lazy. Heck, I have four of them. They're all great. But, I would have rather had a sibling growing up. It's as simple as that.

lack of warmth: maq0r: lack of warmth: Didn't work for me. The second is a lot cheaper. The little girl after him not the case. She just won't wear the boys hand-me-downs. They do share a lot toys, even gendered toys. Although when she is cold she will wear one of my sweatshirts like a little dress. 8 years olds are fun, teens not so much.

I know about this.

I'm the middle child, between firstborn (male) and miracle girl (third). *shrug* My life from 1 to 18 was like "Who's that kid playing with our two kids?"

My older brother had a nice electric toy car that was bought before I was born, and my sister had a barbie jeep. Me? "OH well, he can use his brothers or sisters, or he can just use the handdown bicicyle"

Kids grow and understand this, my parents are all now sorry for this, but to me it was more like "Whatever, you're just strangers to me"

I don't ignore the middle kid. We do stuff just for him all the time like the other two. The thing is after the first boy we learned how to be thrifty. As the second boy started out growing his handed down crib I decided to build the boys beds myself out of basic stud wood (2x4's and 2x6's). They liked them and for the price I don't care if they draw on them nor could they be broken. When the oldest started getting big I took his bed using the same wood to and turned it into a full size bed. The girl has the only store bought bed in the house. Things like that. The middle kid I am really close to, he is my flavor of crazy. We had discussions without talking when mom had trouble with him and he is autistic.

Just telling my CSB I guess. Sharing that kids do pickup when there's a preference, and THERE IS A preference as much as some parents refuse to acknowledge it.

Please, people, have more kids. Most Western countries are below replacement rate, and I need a bunch of future wage earners around to pay for my health care after I retire!

Cheapest kid ever

Yeah, the world only has 7 billion+ people in it. We need more. Like, lots more. Till every city is like Tokyo or New York. Then we can all live in that cool, dystopian future portrayed in "Blade Runner" and "The Fifth Element."