Yeah, these come out all the time. If we were to wait to have kids until we could afford them, we'd never have them.

Clearly, its as simple as applying for state assistance to get most of that taken care of.

/mindset of lower class america having 4-5 kids

So thats about $312,563.04 CND - oh well, I'm still happy as a pig in S**T that i had twin girls last year... :)

Simple solution: Have a bunch of kids, get divorced and make the guy pay for it for the rest of his life through child support. Seems to be working for my ex.

You mean I can have my very only child to love and cuddle and do my housework for only $33 a day?! I'd be a fool not to!

No, really. I'd be a fool to let scary lifetime costs scare me into not doing one of the most important things in the world to me - having a child. But yes, I would like to get my shit in order first. That's always a good idea.

@Skin Art Squared: Yes, because you certainly had nothing at all to do with her "having a bunch of kids", right? I mean, you and she didn't have sex ... oh, wait, yeah, that was your penis.

@pattiesmart: When the money starts actually going towards the kids, I'll stop complaining. As long as she's using it to take vacations, spend 5 nights a week at the club, and buy clothes for herself, I'll keep bitching.

My problem with the child support system is that the entire thing is flawed and designed to fail. There is no accountability on the other side whatsoever. Only the requirement that I MUST send HER the money. It's not a "sex" issue, it's an adult responsibility and accountability issue.

Not really sure how they come up with those numbers, probably looking at only buying new name-brand stuff all the time. There is no way our two kids cost even half of their estimate for one.

The only way they could come close to costing that much is if you factor in housing. My wife and I could be renting a place for $500-600 cheaper if we only needed one bedroom but we would probably get a two bedroom anyways so the savings would really only be $200-300 per month.

Apart from housing kids can be pretty cheap if you buy used stuff for them or even borrow clothes from other friends for awhile while they are small. A lot of the costs get offset at the end of the year on your taxes anyways.

I always tell people if you put off having kids until you're ready, you'll always find a reason. Not enough money, not enough xyz. If you really want kids and your life is relatively stable, just go for it. Things alwawys have a way of working out and it's so worth the cost.

Besides, we don't want to have a real life Idiocracy on our hands do we? :)

@jscott73: rtfa, ok the housing thing is supposed to be 1/3 the cost, it seems like it's closer to 2/3 the cost and that is rather ingenious since people without kids can easily spend the same on housing if they want a larger house and people with kids can easily save on housing if they downsize and learn to live in smaller spaces.

Obviously the headline would be less sensational without this expense and the true cost of ownership would be substantially smaller if you're already living in, or planning to live, in a house big enough for kids and just include the extras like clothing, food and a few toys.

I think the article assumes the child would be utilizing the public school system, but I think it's important to note that the article also says that higher income families will spend more - so perhaps the higher cost can be partially attributed to a private school education, or better food, or better resources like tutoring, prep courses, etc.

@Skin Art Squared: Is it still (or has it ever) been unconditionally the man that must pay the woman, even in joint custody cases?

Okay, so what's a middle-income family? How much would they be making? My thought when seeing the amount was "that's all?" Has anyone here been nickled and dimed at their kids' school(s) for activities and stuff? Hahaha! Sheesh... they need to factor that crap in there, too.

If my husband and I waited until we could "afford" to have children, we wouldn't have had our sons. We never needed any handouts, government or otherwise. But, I'm glad we didn't wait.

Also, they SHOULD include the price of college (or technical school, etc.). We fully plan on paying for a college for both sons. They have 4 years on us... after that, we can negotiate for continuing education. LOL!

@Skin Art Squared: The kids are being taken care of though, right? She may have an active social life, but she's still feeding and clothing them. There is no way to tell whether that's your money or her own unless you just believe that her life should stop completely since she has children. If the care for your children is somehow lacking, you have a legitimate complaint, but if your gripe is simply the fact that she's spending money on herself as well as your children well you'll have to forgive my lack of concern.

@Diet-Orange-Soda: I'm not sure about every state, but the ones that I'm familiar with, yes. Joint custody means nothing. Man pays.

@TinkishDelight: Well, she's not exactly sending me a balance sheet every month, but when the kids are constantly asking me for more money to buy their own clothes and for school events, I have to lean towards the idea that she is blowing my child support on herself.

@Maglet: There's no real way of calculating what every parent is "forced" to pay for obligatory bake sales. And the cost of college varies greatly, to the extent of tens of thousands of dollars, so you could easily spend much less if you didn't pay for your child's college. This is why they didn't include it, I think.

I think news articles like this are good for the public to see and should be printed up more often. We could do with less people in this world. People seem to have this idea that they MUST reproduce. We're not exactly an endangered species any more. We can't feed or house the people we have on this planet, there's no need for any more.

Maybe some government intervention is needed to limit the number of offspring people are allowed to produce. I welcome the idea. Too many damn people on this Earth already.

@pythonkid: Yeah, poor people only have children so they can get welfare. They never want to have children for the same reasons that middle class and wealthy people do.

@pecan 3.14159265:

Of course, there's no way to calculate it, but they can make up a number. Just like they did here.

@Skin Art Squared:

Maybe we should enact a one child policy like China or even better; start killing off the old and disabled. I mean really, what good are they? It's like you said, there's no need for any more people, let's sterilize everyone. Why don't you start with yourself?

@cunnij98: I totally agree. Anyone over 60 should be neutralized. Anyone born with a defect of any kind should be put down.

And I've already sterilized myself. How about you?

@emona: The point of the article is not "dont have kids" its more of "here is what to expect. so get ready for it, else neither you nor the kid will have fun".

@NatalieErin:

Not what I was saying. Poor people aren't worried about having too many kids, because they know the state will take care of them.

@NatalieErin: Then why do middle class and wealthy people usually stop at 2?

I'm not saying poor people only have kids because they want welfare, but if you know that by *not* using birth control you have a chance at some government money... why bother?

@cunnij98: Yeah, but sterilizing everyone is an overkill. Also, for it to be effective, we need to have some sort of qualifying criteria on who is allowed to have kids and how many of them.

People with superior genetic materials should be allowed kids. Other low lives, not so much.

@MostlyHarmless: Or possibly a complete ban on traditional reproduction. Only allow lab created new humans, on a per-order basis. This way we eliminate all defects right in the lab, solve over-population, and the customer gets exactly what they want. There would be no more unwanted children and no more need for orphanages or welfare.

Sounds like a solid plan to me. And I'm being completely serious.

@pb5000: As my grandfather used to say, you never really have enough money to start a family.

So, how much to instead build a robot that can sass-talk, stay out all hours, and hog the telephone?

@samurailynn:
@pythonkid: Can either of you cite any actual proof that poor people have more children or are careless with their birth control because of government assistance? Did the birthrate go up when AFDC was instituted? Do you even have any evidence that poor people have more children than middle class people in the first place?

@samurailynn: And then there are people who think that birth control is the work of the devil and then breed like bunnies, and then go on and on about how birth is a miracle and its a god's blessing that they have even more mouths to feed now.

@Applekid: And sends you off to an old age home when you become "too much of a liability".

@Skin Art Squared: Are you sure? Or are they just not getting every single thing they ask for, so they hit up on daddy because they know he's a sucker?

@NatalieErin: There actually is very strong evidence that poor people have more children than middle class or richer people: it's called the demographic-economic paradox. However, you're right that it's not because of government assistance, because the correlation between being poor and having lots of children is strongest in REALLY poor places like parts of Africa, where there isn't really government welfare. It's somewhat controversial what the causes are.

@Diet-Orange-Soda: No, it's not. I know plenty of women who don't have custody of the kids and have to pay the father, who does.

Considering day care costs run about $10,000 a year, I can easily see how the other costs (medical, clothes, food, diapers) raise the total to $13,000. Even after they start school, there are costs for after school care and summer care. Once those necessary costs have past, clothing, food and other entertainment costs go up as the child gets older. I can definitely see these sums to be pretty valid.

@pattiesmart:

Well, let's see.... in the last 6 months they've asked for money for: new clothes, school activities, dental work, eyeglasses, drivers license fees, and toys. So you tell me... which part of my child support payments are being used for these things? Isn't that what "child support" is supposed to be for? Supporting the child?

And so, if I cut them off because "daddy's a sucker", where are they going to get their clothes, dental work, and eyeglasses from? Mommy? Mommy doesn't have any money. She spent it all at the club again. These words straight from the kid's mouths.

Yeah, I guess I am a sucker. I married the evil bitch in the first place.

@johnva: A lot of it is also because in "really poor places" the children help keep the home, they can work outside the home, etc.

People who own farms tend to have lots of children because bodies to work the farm are good.

@johnva: "It's somewhat controversial what the causes are."

Why is it controversial? Seems pretty obvious to me. They're poor and the only entertainment they can afford is to screw non-stop like freakin' bunny rabbits.

@Jevia:

I pay $8000 per kid per year for daycare and I have two kids. That $16000 right there before you add in clothes, food, entertainment, housing, transportation.

And then people tell me they only cost more the older they get. YIKES!

In an unrelated topic, are half-sized kidneys more expensive or less on the black market?

@gover57: Cheaper by the dozen, not the pair. Get busy.
/joke!

@Skin Art Squared: More likely, it's just that breeding continually is the "natural" thing to do, and it's actually being wealthy that leads to reduced reproduction, rather than being poor that leads to increased reproduction. Wealthier people have better access to effective contraception, are less likely to be highly religious (many religions encourage people to breed as much as possible in order to create more followers), and tend to be more educated. Also, wealthier women tend to have more control over their reproductive decisions than they do in poorer places, as wealthier societies tend to respect women's rights more. Finally, in rich societies having children can be a huge financial cost, as illustrated by this story. In poor places, they can either be a benefit (extra workers + extra status) or not a huge financial drain at any rate.

@Skin Art Squared: Bet those "outrageously priced" condoms seem quite the bargain now, huh?

@johnva: It has a lot to do with education. The more educated someone is, the less likely they are to have lots of children. We need to have better and more comprehensive sex ed taught, and we should let teenagers have access to birth control through their school, or local health department.

@Skin Art Squared: My that's an incredibly ignorant and offensive statement.

Yeah, well, it can be cheaper with certain frugal activities, like only buying infants and little kids clothes at the many good resale shops available in most urban/suburban areas.

I get sick of other moms in playgroups whining about how "oh geez I just spent $250 in outfits for the kids at the Gap and they're growing out of them already!" Boo-frickety-hoo. I could get the same number of outfits for $5 at the Children's Orchard $5 fill-a-bag sale at the time (the bag size varies by store, and the one in Henderson, NV was pretty damned generous).

Works for toys too. There's a place here in Austin that sells giant bags of used Lego - and I mean the real stuff - for $25. The bag I got my kid last Christmas had easily at least $100 worth if paid for new.

Kids can be expensive, and absolutely health care costs are INSANE (my endless sympathy goes out to parents struggling with an ill child and the financial burden on top of it all), but a lot of people could be saving in lots of simple ways and choose not to. I'll grant that the cloth diaper thing is more complicated, but c'mon...$20 onesies at boutique shops when resale has the same ones for 99 cents?

(Now let's see if this posts, been trying all morning)

@Skin Art Squared: Talk to a judge? Make a case up? I mean, if you actually HAVE a case.

@MostlyHarmless: Government sanctioned eugenics, FTW!

@Skin Art Squared: Just want to say that your experience sounds entirely plausible to me. I know a lot of people with similar stories (it happened to my dad, with my mom...we WERE taken care of, but nowhere near to the tune of how much money my dad was paying out, especially when you include the "extras" he was paying for too).

I do agree that child support should carry a lot more oversight/accountability, and should only be spent on things that are actually for supporting the child (regardless of whether it's the mom or the dad that is receiving the child support). The courts should have some sort of system where the parent receiving the child support has to account for their spending on the children (this would be pretty easy to do if they just set up a separate court-supervised bank account with separate debit card and checks for spending the childrens' support money). The money should have to be accounted for periodically, and anything that isn't being spent on the children should be held in trust for them for college, etc.

In your case, it sounds like you might need to go back to court or something to get it clarified who pays for the school fees, medical expenses, clothes, etc.