Middle-Income Family Spends $221,000 To Raise Baby: Report

ST. LOUIS — It's no secret that raising children can be expensive, but how about nearly a quarter of a million dollars expensive?

A government report released Tuesday says a middle-income family with a child born last year will spend about $221,000 raising that child through age 17.

The report by the USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion identified housing as the largest single expense, followed by food and child care/education costs. The $221,000 in expenses rises to about $292,000 when adjusted for inflation.

USDA economist Mark Lino, who co-authored the report with Andrea Carlson, often hears people say children cost a lot when the annual findings are issued.

"I tell them children also have many benefits, so you have to keep that in mind," he said.

Families with more income spend more money on child-related costs, the report said. A two-parent family that earns less than $57,000 annually will spend about $160,000 on a child from birth through high school. Those with an income between $57,000 and $99,000 spend about $221,000 and those with higher incomes are expected to spend roughly $367,000 through age 17.

Most single-parent households in the U.S. make less than $57,000 and are expected to spend about 7 percent less on child-rearing costs compared to two-parent households in that same income group, according to the report.

Costs of raising a child are highest in the urban northeast and lowest in the urban south and rural areas.

The USDA report helps courts and states determine child-support guidelines and foster care payments. It does not address costs specifically related to childbearing and paying for college.

One of the largest changes over time has been the increase in costs related to care for young children.

The report was first issued in 1960, when such costs were largely negligible, but with more working families turning to outside help with child care, it has grown to be a significant expense for many families. The report does not give total costs related to early child care.

A mother of three, Raben Andrews of St. Louis, said the government figures sounded right to her. "Well, that's not half of it," joked the 42-year-old public school teacher. "I still have to put the little buggers through college."

____

Expenditures on Children by Families report: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov

Comments

[DFL]

05:43 PM on 08/05/2009

It's been going up ever since reagan started the GOP war on the middle class, and they wonder why there's so many abortions? before reagan we had families where the dad worked and mom stayed home to take care of the kids.

[bluevase]

04:05 PM on 08/05/2009

One of the best experiences of my life has been raising a child -- and watching her become a beautiful, intelligent, caring, talented woman. Worth every penny -- and more. Family. That's all I care about. What else could possibly be important?

[noaxe397]

04:05 PM on 08/05/2009

WOW! I'm glad my health care plan covers vasectomies!! I'm making the appointment now.

[RealityThinks]

03:45 PM on 08/05/2009

yes - leave the baby having to the religous fanati.cs - it's working great in Europe

[Crass Innuendo]

02:42 PM on 08/05/2009

It only costs that much if you're not Octomom, who's not paying for any of her 14 whelps.

[johnashman]

12:06 PM on 08/05/2009

Those numbers are ridiculous. It doesn't cost close to that for most people. They're talking $1000 per month. They including housing to inflate the price. Everyone has to have housing! Are they adding in the costs of refrigeration, cars, air conditioning too? C'mon. What is the *marginal* cost? Far less. And people should raise their own kids. It is less expensive for most people to have one of the parents stay at home and be smart about their money. Putting kids in day care isn't 'raising' your chid.

[foxbat]

12:25 PM on 08/05/2009

True, everyone does need housing, but you need more square footage with more people. Thus a couple without kids might be able to work a 700 sq. ft house on their own with one bathroom. Add two kids and you need more space for living/bath/storage. Utilities are higher the more folks you stick in a particular sq. ft. Even things like the size of fridge increase with the number of people you put in a dwelling. When they are younger, the marginal cost for many things is smaller, but as they get older, those costs get expensive although even the youngest of kids come with all those "start-up" costs like extra beds, extra dressers, clothes that need to be replaced every 6 months or less. Kids' healthcare, especially in the first 12 years of life, is also more expensive than most middle-age adults.

You're right about the fact of people raisng their own kids, if they can swing it. Unfortunately, some people live in dire straights and even if the benefit to the family to having the family work was a net $200 a month, for some people that could be the difference between being solvent and going in debt. Our family's lucky enough to be able to have a stay-at-home parent, but I have friends who are in that situation that I listed above and they really struggle with balancing family and finances so as not to be a burden on other people.

[johnashman]

01:26 PM on 08/05/2009

I agree, but a lot of these costs are because we have the money and we like to spend it. I bet that, short of a medical issue, you could raise a child very nicely for 1/4 that amount. My parents never spent a lot of money on us. Food was their big expense because I could slug down a lot as a teenager. And yanking my wisdom teeth. One broken arm. I'd be shocked if they spent over $50K adjusted for inflation. And we gave back a lot of work, you couldn't hire anybody to do that much work for $50K.

I think there is an ulterior motive in order to show the need for more welfare. Don't you think?

[Dusty Campbell]

10:17 PM on 08/05/2009

amen! only i worked for a while, but my wife got cabin fever, so she works nights part time, so we always have a parent here with our kids, it doesnt cost us that much to raise our family, we do fun family activities like riding bikes or swimming when we dont have extra money for movies or shopping.
doing things as a family in fairly inexpensive, the point is to spend time together anyways.

[DragonflyChase]

07:28 PM on 09/01/2009

oh really? do you home skool 'em too in your communist family values compound?

[Ramirez]

11:59 AM on 08/05/2009

Children are a hassle at times, but when they're finally grown and out of the house you realize that raising them was the greatest thing you ever did.

[Crass Innuendo]

02:41 PM on 08/05/2009

I wonder if Barbara Bush thinks that way, too?

...

Probably.

[xrepublican]

11:23 AM on 08/05/2009

It's a LOT cheper if you actually raise your own kids.

Those 'higher income' families paying others to be home with their children should do the math. You can SAVE money by actually having a parent do the work. Try doing without the BMW and huge house (which you're never home in anyway) and you might end up pleasantly surprised.

Too many families fam out childrearing to the cheapest possible help - people they wouldn;t let in thier houses under any other circumstances - and then wonder why their kids turn out the way they do.
If they spent some time home and saw how many 'nannies' - most untrained and unskilled - actually dealt with their kids they'd be horrified. Schools might also be in far better shape if parents did the basics with their kids - taught them to behave, spent some time reading to them and generally paid attention to them.

I've seen the results up close and personal for 18 years - those that SHOULD be doing the best job with their children, those who are college educated, the ones without real financial issues are NOT home - and the end result is horrible.

Those that HAVE to work two jobs simply to stay above water get NO real help from a nation that does not believe in national child care or pre-school. Head Start here now serves 1/3 of the number they served a decade ago - and that was a pathetically small percentage of

[foxbat]

10:37 AM on 08/05/2009

I respect folks' right to not have kids, but let's make sure that we don't demonize everyone that decided to have kids. Some of us are more than happy to make the sacrifce to have kids ... money is not everything to our family. We take good care of our kids, we pay for all of their expenses and luxuries with no burden to anyone else, we also take care of our own obligations and retirement, we also make decent donations to charity, and we've raised our kids to be productive members of society who appreciate the freedoms that they have in this country and also the responsibility that they have to help those around them. We know that there's a lot that we could be doing with that money, but for us, our kids are our Ferrari.

[verdulo]

09:14 AM on 08/06/2009

Are you really paying the FULL cost of having children? No, you probably get a tax break and they get free schooling and all sorts of other perks. So don't tell me that they are not a burden on anyone else. Sure, you raised them well so they can be productive, but there's already enough productive people in the world. Many millions of eager, smart young people are out there ready to work and no opportunities for them. Put THEM to work before you brag about how great your kids are.

[Mari X]

09:11 AM on 08/05/2009

There's a downside to having planned children, too. With half the marriages in the USA ending in divorce, there are no guarantees that the most carefully planned kids won't end up in single parent households. Grow-ups can change their minds.

I'll never forget my first ex-husband, with whom I had a happily planned daughter, telling me "My wife and I have chosen to remain childless." Our daughter was 13 at the time and he was on his second matrimonial endeavor. He just didn't want to keep paying child support (actually, he got out of it for about the first 12 years of her life) .

That couple is very well off, financially. I am stone broke now. My advice to would-be mothers: Don't even think about breeding unless you- alone- are completely financially independent, regardless of your marital status..

[steppenwolfsayshi]

08:32 AM on 08/05/2009

I think this is a barrier to many people having children. Half of the children born in the US are accidents, and that's really bad for society. Those children are more likely to be raise by single mothers, raised poor, abused or become criminals. Something should be done to lower the cost of children so that our next generation is made of mostly people raised by loving parents that wanted them. That sounds awful and I think single monthers do a great job!! but every first world country is struggling with similar problems in inticing people to have children. Without young people, society can't function normally.

[verdulo]

09:05 AM on 08/06/2009

We in the USA are building walls to keep people out. So why do we need to be encouraged to make more people?? There are already enough people more than willing to have babies, we need to stop the people who don't want children or can't take care of them from having them.
The cost of having children is so great because there are so many of us. The more children we have, the more crowded we will get. The more crowded we are, the more expensive it will be to have kids.

[CoconutLime]

06:05 AM on 08/05/2009

I am glad that my wife and I decided to never have children. Just costs too much IMO. Solution for us? I got a no-needle, no-scalpel vasectomy. It was relatively pain free and I was up and about the next day. It's not good for a woman to get her tubes tied.

[NeoStar9]

09:34 AM on 08/05/2009

So you're the only one made any kind of massive sacrifice? *shakes head*.

[Ramirez]

11:57 AM on 08/05/2009

Good for you. You will have a bigger house and more money to buy stuff for it.

[DFL]

05:45 PM on 08/05/2009

Condoms are cheaper than diapers.

[Tom95134]

03:46 AM on 08/05/2009

That should make people think twice about birth control. Now I wonder if you can get the Catholic Church or the other right to lifers to underwrite part of this expense. Mmmm, sorry, I forgot. Right-to-lifers are only concerned up to the point where the baby pops out into this world. Then they don't care anymore.and it's left up to the parent(s).

[angryliberal]

01:58 AM on 08/05/2009

I'd rather get a pet.

[jerrypl]

01:06 AM on 08/05/2009

That is why these young kids are spoiled brats, who don't know how to play, create, and make do on their own. Their parents have forgotten how to be adults.

http://eye-on-washington.blogspot.com

[alreadybad]

02:11 PM on 08/05/2009

Right jerrypl. You can tell a kid today to go outside and play and they will ask you "play what?" These kids do not even have the creativity to make up a game.