Cost Of Childcare Has Skyrocketed In Last 50 Years: 24/7 Wall Street

24/7 Wall St.:

It cost $25,299 to raise a child from birth to age 18 in 1960. The amount rose to $226,920 last year. This may be one of the reasons many reasons Americans are having fewer children these days.

Adjusted for inflation, the 1960 sum equals about $192,497 compared to $235,996 in 2010, about a 22% increase. Neither number paints a complete picture. Median household income rose 25% between 1960 and 2010. The cost of raising a child is, in comparison to income over the 50-year period, up very modestly.

Read the whole story: 24/7 Wall St.

Comments

[Peter007]

11:20 AM on 06/27/2011

Every new regulation the government passes costs the general public more money. Only the elitists in the Democrat party feel it's their obligation to rule the peasants. The peasants don't know what's good for them. The elitists in the Democrat party need to review French History and their revolution against the French elitists.

[jtabs]

09:34 AM on 06/27/2011

Would be interesting to see if similar situation exits in countries that have national health care systems and subsidized educational systems too. This also would be less of an issue if wages had, at least, kept pace with inflation rather than not as was/is the case.

[butchcliff]

06:39 AM on 06/27/2011

The cost of everything has skyrocketed since the 60s. Brought up 4 children thru the 80s and 90s and just had to deal with it. Poor but proud. They cost but it was worth every penny.

[VoteThemAllOut]

10:38 PM on 06/26/2011

If you choose to have kids then you should pay 100% of the cost, sadly that is NOT the case. Everytime I turn arround, there is a 'push' to increase property taxes for school, there is another 'deduction' for kids, and on and on.

You want kids, I applaud you - Just Don't Ask Everyone Else To Pay For Yor Desires.

[JustinP213]

09:06 AM on 06/27/2011

Exactly. I find it ironic that the people that mostly can't afford to raise their kids continue to have more than most.

[Suresp77]

12:42 PM on 06/27/2011

okay, about the deduction for kids- you know that only goes to a certain income level, right? so, as a family, if you make more than 120k and have 1 child, you get no deduction at all? That's why you need to put away $ for childcare pretax. Otherwise you get sc#$^3d!

[iam99]

07:34 PM on 06/26/2011

It is all alright if wages are INCREASED to keep pace with the insanity. The people deserve it!
See on Russia Today Max Keiser #158 interview with Steve Keen, about 16:00 on to end.
Too much debt? Raise wages!
"Rebunking Economics" & "Rebinking Economics Part !!"
Keep pace.

[CaptainPicard]

07:24 PM on 06/26/2011

While I understand the financial concern, I cant help but think it is a bit sickening to ascribe dollar value to something as priceless as the experience and human growth as raising a child.

[stape45]

07:57 PM on 06/26/2011

There's a major differfence between value and price - especially in a land where virtually everything is done for profit, with little (or no) regard to such things as fairness, value or quality.

[Suresp77]

12:44 PM on 06/27/2011

when you cannot pay for yourself, it becomes the responsible choice to not have a child you cannot afford to feed/ clothe and educate. Otherwise, you cannot provide the child a future and that's the sickening part!

[CaptainPicard]

01:01 PM on 06/27/2011

You need to be clearer than this - what does "pay for yourself' mean? Is it - move out, get a college degree that one can use, along with a job that pays the bills? What if you lose your job a year down the road? Can you account for that? Or if you will get divorced? Or if you will die in an accident or due to illness?

I will grant you the bare minimums - like not living with your parents, being married, having a job at the moment, hopefully a college education that was useful in today's economy - but once this is available to you, the only reason you'd want to wait, provided you're able to have children, biologically speaking, is likely of a selfish/self-centered nature.

I've seen people like this, and now they can't have children... and the whole lot of them, regret the wait.

The second option is to adopt, but that isn't preferable to having your own, at least in my view, and it should be only done if you absolutely cannot have your own children.

When we had our daughter, I wondered why I didn't have her 5 years earlier... and I was 32 at the time. It's the greatest joy of our lives.

[diabloblanco513]

06:15 PM on 06/26/2011

What hasn't skyrocketed in cost ?

[iam99]

07:46 PM on 06/26/2011

Products based upon the ridiculousness of the fiat dollar.
Perhaps, the crop from your backyard garden?

[stape45]

08:00 PM on 06/26/2011

How many people (on average) does that feed?

[graffitijoe]

04:56 PM on 06/26/2011

How does something "skyrocket" in 50 years? Doesn't "skyrocket" imply something going up astonishingly fast?

[offmyrocker]

03:45 PM on 06/26/2011

Best part is Uncle sam gives you taxs breaks to have sex...great country we live in. I say tax them more for using more resources

[econ1]

03:24 PM on 06/26/2011

Kids are free...it's the upkeep that is expensive. Actually, a bit of population control would greatly benefit the planet...probably the single best thing you can do for global warming, world health, pollution reduction, combating hunger etc. is limit oneself to two kids. Having more than two children is really tough on the environment.

[MyResponsibility]

02:18 PM on 06/26/2011

The headline of the article doesn't match the meat of the article.  Cost of rearing a child is up 22% while income is up 25% over the same period of time.  Relative to INCOME, and consequent payment of rearing from said income, the cost of rearing a child is LOWER today than in 1960.

[El Chingaso]

01:34 PM on 06/26/2011

Just another reason...not to reproduce.

[guveqzero]

12:53 PM on 06/26/2011

We are a dying civilization. Bankers are accelerating our demise.

[AyeChart]

09:21 AM on 06/26/2011

Cost of child care has skyrocketed?  

Hmmm...could it be that government regulations have made it much more expensive to provide child care?

Is there any evidence that all the regulations actually improved child care?

Didn't Obama say "My policies will inevitably cause the price of childcare to skyrocket?"  Oh, wait, no, that was the cost of ENERGY.  

Is there a pattern here?  Is it that the more layers of bureaucracy that the government piles on, the higher the cost of goods and services?

[Sunset Pixie]

10:53 AM on 06/26/2011

I'm guessing you didn't bother reading the article. The primary raise in costs is HEALTHCARE related.

That private insurance thing is really working, gug?

[offmyrocker]

03:47 PM on 06/26/2011

SURE thats the reason...would yo like to buy a bridge in NY....

[frank day]

11:16 AM on 06/26/2011

Next time, Read the Article.

[Peter007]

08:58 AM on 06/26/2011

Total BS.
Kids are cheap. Clothes are super cheap. If you go to yard sales, there are plenty of boxs of kids clothes that can be had for a dollar or less. Every birthday and holiday, relatives inundate the kids with useless outfits they think are cute.

Food is cheap too. If your kid is eating everything on their plate, you may be raising an overweight child. Most kids stare at their plate and have to be threaten to place the food in their mouth,
How much is a box of oatmeal? That 's breakfast for 4 for a week.
The reason day care is expensive is because new government regulations have forced the local day care operators out of business and onto the unemployment lines. Expensive licensing and insurance costs have eliminated many women from taking in 3 or 6 kids during the day.
Next , schools are public and free and even community colleges are affordable.

[mady]

10:31 AM on 06/26/2011

I think it's the insurance costs more than anything else. Insurance has skyrocketed in every area, health, home, and auto.

And I know a lot of women who are working just for health care. If a public option comes along, they will quit their job and stay home and take care of their grandchildren. Their children will save money and some one out of work can take grandma's job.

[Hlynn]

10:45 AM on 06/26/2011

There are many ways of cutting costs to raising children, but "new government regulations" have been put in place for the safety of children and are necessary. We want to know the people supervising children don't have criminal records, have safe places with safe equipment, are not taking in too many children to care for well, and care more about the children than raking in money--regulations help with all of that. Insurance costs have increased due to previous lawsuits, fear of lawsuits, and others who are not insured, which is due to lawyers and judges, not "the government".

Complaining about "government regulations" is very PC these days, but there are reasons for regulations. Look what happened with finance and housing due to lack of regulations. Rich people had a field day--and become more rich and powerful--while everyone else pays the price for their fun. And that is why there is so much unemployment--not regulations.

If there is one place we definitely need regulations, it's for the safety of children who are too young to speak for, and advocate for, themselves.

[Peter007]

08:32 AM on 06/27/2011

Its the responsibility of the parent to find a responsible baby sitter. For hundreds , if not thousands of years, young, unskilled girls watched children. Problems arise when a baby sitter is not responsible or makes a mistake. No regulation can prevent most accidents.
As far as criminal records go, Why would it make any difference if the baby sitter had a felony for not paying income taxes, or driving on the suspended list, or got caught shop lifting 10 years ago when they were 17 years old?
There has never been a serious problem with local women taking in kids.In fact, most baby sitting homes are exempt from regulation when they have less than 4 kids.