Cost of Parenthood: $221,190

By Miss Cellania in Baby & Kids, Money & Finance on Aug 5, 2009 at 3:23 pm

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is apparently concerned with more than raising crops, has announced that the estimated cost of raising a child born in 2008 from birth to age 18 is $221,190. If you adjust for expected inflation before the child reaches adulthood, that figure is $291,570. Your mileage may vary.

The report by USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion notes that family income affects child rearing costs. A family earning less than $56,870 per year can expect to spend a total of $159,870 (in 2008 dollars) on a child from birth through high school. Similarly, parents with an income between $56,870 and $98,470 can expect to spend $221,190; and a family earning more than $98,470 can expect to spend $366,660. In 1960, a middle-income family could have expected to spend $25,230 ($183,509 in 2008 dollars) to raise a child through age seventeen.

When you consider the income levels in these calculations, it doesn’t seem all that bad. Many families spend more than that on a house. Then again, the child’s shelter expense is the biggest item on the total bill, comprising 32% of the total. Link -via J-Walk Blog

(image credit: Flickr user Matt Stratton)


Email This Post
Tweet This Post 
Share This Post on Facebook

Tags: , ,

Neat stuff from the NeatoShop:

  1. SenorMysterioso
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    Thats it? Seems off by a few $100k

  2. Babycakes
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    One, this is why America is in debt and two, thank goodness I’m not having kids (I rather buy a house or something else).

  3. Henderson Nevada
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    Seems like a bargain compared to the 9 Billion thrown away in the Chrysler bail out. Makes one wonder if you can trust Government Accounting on any level for any purpose. I doubt people ever consider the cost of raising a child when they are in the act of conception.

  5. me
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    definitely off a few $100K’s this esimate is presuming public school option and no daycare,right?

  6. Woogie
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    These figures are always complete nonsense. Due to child benefit etc… We’re actually BETTER off with kids than we were without.

    And a lot of the figuring is done including stuff you’d be buying anyway, regardless of children. (Shelter for example.)

  7. Woogie
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 6:21 pm

    Of course the stupid thing is mothers are expected to work and put their kid in daycare, when it’s actually cheaper (not to mention better for the kid) for the government to pay the mother to stay at home and raise their children.

  8. OddNumber
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    @Woogie – Shelter costs are likely not included (even at a very low estimate of $10k/year for housing, that’s $180k over 18 yrs). Perhaps they include some incremental adjustment for the increased housing costs for having a larger home, but definitely not the total. I am also betting food. How is it cheaper for the government to pay for the mother to stay at home? Cheaper for who?

    @Babycakes – How does this show why America is so in debt? What percentage of your income do you think is reasonable to give to your children? According to those stats, the middle class is paying 12-22% of their income in child costs (ignoring taxes). As long as you have a reasonable number of kids then it isn’t an issue.

  9. OddNumber
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    “I am also betting food.” – should have been “I am also betting only food for the child is included”. Sorry for the sloppy post.

  10. ben nguyen
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    Somehow, I think this number is **WAY** too high. I don’t think Adam Carolla’s parents (or mine) spent $1000 a month.

  11. stormie24
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    and here I was thinking I was priceless…:o(

  12. daddymak
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    This is exactly why my wife and I aren’t having kids…That’s a lot of vacations missed.

  13. Miss Cellania
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    I can assure you I’m not spending that much. I don’t have that much! Especially considering I have FOUR kids now.

  14. Flux
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    Also yet-another good reason (to add to my list) as to why I don’t want kids.

    And wouldn’t it be nice if those of us who are childless didn’t have to pay for everyone else’s kids as well? Government programs for preggos… Schools… Its like child support without the benefit of sex first.

  15. OddNumber
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    I wonder if this includes higher education costs and other expenses for 18+ yr olds that are still dependent (ie. living at home or attending college).

  16. Miss Cellania
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    Flux, it is to everyone’s benefit to make sure the next generation is educated. They will be your doctors, nurses, judges, cooks, and taxi drivers some day. And they will pay taxes when you are too old to work.

  17. stormie24
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    well said Miss Cellania!

  18. Vonskippy
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    Seems high. Plus you definitely get a quantity discount. And you don’t have to come up with it in one lump payment. And in most cases, it’s worth every penny.

  19. AJ
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 9:51 pm

    Flux, I believe the tax/etc. you pay for other peoples’ kids (funding schools, etc.) is called the cost of living in a society.

    If I’m mistaken, and you’re espousing a future without children, some sort of intentional extinction model for society, then I apologize.

  20. LisaL
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    Looking forward to having kids! We already bought our house, just need to fill it :D

  21. Christophe
    Aug 5th, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    Kids are priceless

  22. -bob-
    Aug 6th, 2009 at 4:41 am

    Eh, don’t worry so much! The government will just bail out some rich people and then our kids will pay for it all later.

  23. egad
    Aug 6th, 2009 at 6:06 am

    That probably equals the money time lost from work when talking about and to your kids at work when no one wants to hear. Oh and add the “I’m so tired b/c had a baby that I can just wander around the office for 6 months talking about how tiring but wonderful the experience was/is” and there is another chunk of change.

  24. Gail Pink
    Aug 6th, 2009 at 7:59 am

    @ OddNumber: This says “through age 18″ so DOES NOT include college tuotion and related costs, which are about $200,000 now from what I gather. :)

  25. ByrdBrain
    Aug 6th, 2009 at 10:34 am

    To those selfish people that are patting yourself on the back for not having kids, the rest of society thanks you. No, really. The world doesn’t need more people like you. The only people who want you to have children are probably your parents, and if they raised you so poorly as this- well, they deserve no such gratification.

    Die alone in your old age with no one to care for or about you.

    And Flux, I hope you were home schooled. It would explain SO MUCH about your statement about taxes and education.

  26. spil
    Aug 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am

    “To those selfish people that are patting yourself on the back for not having kids, the rest of society thanks you. No, really. The world doesn’t need more people like you.”

    Actually, with overpopulation, having less kids/not having kids is probably better for society. The only problem is that the people who realize this, and who aren’t having kids, are the ones’ whose genes need to be passed on, while Cletus and his 8 kids might not be the best genes to pass on, as they are likely to have more kids, thus increasing overpopulation.

    People aren’t stupid for having kids or smart for not having kids, its really a personal choice, as some people may have some genetic urge to have children stronger than others. Or maybe their genetic urge is weaker than their urge to want to travel the world or have more money/freedom.

    Although society is dependent on continuing by having children to fill the older generations’ place, right now, I believe that the earth is near its carrying capacity, or at least its comfortable carrying capacity.

    As for being selfish for not having kids, it could also be argued that people who have too many kids to support are not only being selfish by taking benefits from the government, but also making their childrens’ lives (thus “the future” of society) of poor quality because they are not able to raise them to be fully funcitoning/healthy/well educated members of society.

    Any way, this is just some comment on a blog, I’m just sharing my thoughts on this, and I hope I don’t sound crazy :)

  27. Kalel
    Aug 6th, 2009 at 11:59 am

    ByrdBrain, don’t be so childish.

  28. ByrdBrain
    Aug 6th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

    Statements like:

    “I rather buy a house or something else”

    “That’s a lot of vacations missed.”

    “And wouldn’t it be nice if those of us who are childless didn’t have to pay for everyone else’s kids as well?”

    Clearly demonstrate that those who flaunt being childless are doing it for the benefit of everyone. /sarcasm
    The people posting *here* have made very materialistic and selfish statements that belie their self-centeredness. Do we need people like that raising children? No, so I’m glad they aren’t. Maybe my “die alone” statement was a little over the top, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

    And I think it’s only fair to bring the wellfare burden of children into the discussion if the people I quoted above were saying “damn, I’m barely making it on my own, I could never afford that!” instead of, “Ha! More money for Buffy and I to jet off to Paris!”

  29. Mytake
    Aug 6th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    The real issue is not how many expenses people have regarding their own children, but rather the hidden costs and socialized expenses related to neglected children from other parents, who often contribute little to society themselves. That is the real question that must be addressed.

  30. Casan
    Aug 6th, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    I’m guessing that ByrdBrain (accurate name, eh?) is a follower of the Quiverfull movement.

    It’s a pity the “troll be gone” doesn’t work against him.

  31. Ermott
    Aug 7th, 2009 at 12:58 am

    when it’s actually cheaper (not to mention better for the kid) for the government to pay the mother to stay at home and raise their children.

    As a person who has chosen NOT to have children, I find this sort of pro-procreatory thinking a bit disturbing. People with children already shift enough of their burdens on those of us who don’t. From maternity leave from work to taking extra time off, to extra credits at tax time, people with children, especially young children get benefits and consideration people like myself can’t begin to take advantage of. They use the kids as an excuse to foist work and office responsibilities onto the rest of us. (Oh, Jan has to go home early today because her baby is sick again, will you make sure that presentation she’s been working on is ready for tomorrow’s meeting? Thanks.)

    If mothers (or fathers) are going to get paid to stay home and look after their OWN kids, I don’t want to have to pay for that. Not even a little bit.

  32. nielo
    Aug 7th, 2009 at 1:07 am

    This is exactly why they need to repeal child labor laws in the U.S. I say put them to work early! I figure from the time their born they already owe mom for nine months room and board.

  33. G
    Aug 7th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    Maybe instead of thinking of “cost of children”, it’s a lifestyle choice really. People who don’t want children or want to spend on children don’t have to have them. That can be a respectable choice. Those who want the children are more than willing to make the adjustments needed to afford them. Which that was our choice, to have children and adjust. Then there are those who seamlessly add children into their lives without sacrificing any prior lifestyle while enriching their kids lives. And sadly there are those who have a ton of kids for freebies and like someone said…they use their kids as excuses to get out of work and everything. I’ve seem far too many treat babies like a tax break and neglect them. Therefore, children cost them nothing. Very sad and to me, is the worst choice possible anyone could take.

  34. huemaurice1
    Aug 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    The cost of a child? Good question, vast problem.
    The life of a child in the USA or in Africa?
    How much money bring back the parents in a life?
    Are they paid exactly salary?
    It is necessary that their bosses made profits.
    Today, they speak of the ‘ tax carbon ‘! Pay for the expired air(sight)!
    A sportsman or a labourer must he(it) be more imposed than an unemployed person?
    Why no tax on them limp with beans?!

  35. ted
    Aug 8th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    huemaurice, was that from the Japanese translator thingie?

    ByrdBrain, people who have children are selfless philanthropists?

    Interesting how the “die alone” argument is a popular argument for child-bearers, but you don’t see that as selfish? You would have children to support you in your dotage, but those who don’t have children are selfish because they can jet off to Paris?

  36. Miss Cellania
    Aug 8th, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    I believe we are all selfish when it comes to making lifestyle choices. What really gets us in trouble is insisting that others should make the same decisions, as if every one of us has a corner on what is best.


Keep track of the comments with Comment RSS

Don't Miss: New Stuff | Bestsellers | The Cute Store
                   Funny T-Shirts

Need a gift? Get unforgettable gifts for:
Geeks | Pranksters | Kids | Hipsters | Shutterbugs
Lijit Search
Old school? Bookmark us! RSS Feed Twitter Facebook Page