We were going to put off having a 2nd if I hadn't gotten a promotion this summer. We both work in the schools and did not get a raise for this year so we could not see being able to pay for 2 in day care. Now we are planning on starting to try this spring and keeping our fingers crossed that our raises come through for next year because even with the promotion it will be tight.

I wouldn't have tried to get pregnant yet if I didn't think we could afford it. It is still scary because it is going to majorly increase our expenses and we are comfortable now with little worries so it will bring on a lot of stress but I figure you are never totally fearless about having kids. It has surprised/scared me how much my energy is tapped and it is hard to keep up with work.

I'll leave the vasectomy comment alone, for now :)

If we all waited till we "could afford a baby" I think the human race would become extinct. Of course being able to afford a baby is relative, some people are unwilling to live without the weekly mani/pedi, facials, deep tissue massages, fancy cars, highend vacations and the McMansion (with house cleaners and lawn care). That's their choice. Others are worried about child care costs, food, diapers and making ends meet and they still find a way to pinch their pennies and have a baby. That's fine too.

We put off having our first child until we'd reached certain financial and professional goals (so much saved for retirement, so much in savings, etc.) I started really wanting a child about two years before we actually started trying, so that we could reach those goals first. I think it was a good idea.

With our second, part of the reason that we wanted kids close together (ideally, 18 months apart) was so that I could get to be home with them until they both started preschool, but I'd still minimize my time out of the work force. So, while money was not a direct factor, it did play a role. Of course, as I've mentioned here before, our plans didn't work and it ended up taking me until DD1 was 3 before I had DD2.

As far as a third goes, finances play a huge part in the fact that there will not be another child. Paying for another round of IVF seems impossibly decadent, when we have two children already here to whom those resources could be dedicated.

And Sunflower, you'll get your energy back in a month or two. Hang in there.

We have put having baby number two on the back burner indefinitely. We simply do not have the money. We've been lucky that my husband has been able to stay home with our son for the past two years, but he (hubby) is going back to school and son will be going to some kind of day care/pre-school. We do want another child, but won't have money for two kids in day care.

BTW, my husband and I are both in our 30s and I have a fairly high salary. But, that salary is our sole source of income and another baby just doesn't fit in there.

Yes, it is disappointing, but I do feel like a good parent by waiting. This may stir the pot, but I think it is pretty selfish to consiously have children that you knowingly can't afford.

At any rate, to each his own, I guess!

Since Jezebel hasn't said it yet (a bit surprised she hasn't), I will say it for her.

Unless you are economically independent, you would be a fool to start a family or add another child in the current economy.

"it is just to point out that the connection between money and kids seems, historically anyway, to be pretty loose."

Um....what?

Ignoring your dismissal of decades of social science research and commonly accepted economic/fertility theory and data, the report you reference is rife with methodological hiccups and draws some fairly flimsy conclusions, no doubt meant to further this institutes agenda (however noble) of getting more funding for contraception for the less wealthy.

In other words, this is not an academic study, it's a policy advocacy tool dressed as "research".

I was hoping to have a child with my husband about a year after we married. Unfortunately, we could barely make ends meet with the children he already had so we put it off. And now, we could afford it but it won't be happening.

Money wasn't an issue for no. 1 -- I knew we wanted to have kids, I knew we "should" be able to afford it with two good jobs, so I just figured we'd make it work somehow. Might have become an issue if we'd had to go to IVF, but luckily, we didn't.

It was more of a factor for no. 2, because the costs were much more real -- and we had been through several moves and company shutdowns for DH. So committing to double daycare, double college, etc. while also realizing that we couldn't depend on those two professional salaries always being there, well, that was tough.

But the real driving factors for no. 2 were quality of life issues for both us and the kids -- in short, would we have the time, patience, and energy to give to a second kid the way we did to one? The finances came in only as an aspect of that, i.e., with one we knew we could pay for college fully, with two we might not be able to do the whole thing, so would that be fair to our first? In the end, the whole thing was a leap of faith; we just had to trust that we'd figure out a way to make it work. And that's pretty much true for everything, not just money.

We thought about finances when we had kids - it was a big step down. My wife quit her job, which cut our income in half, and having kids costs money. We should have had a little funeral ceremony for the nice house, restaurant dinners, decent clothes, furniture without holes, travel and retirement savings that ended back then. It was the right decision but I do miss some things from the old life sometimes.

The loss if the income was a much bigger hit than the actual expenses associated with the children. More kids wouldn't have added much on the expense side but would have extended the years without the second income.

@laura: so true. re: leap of faith. It goes with everything.
@sunflower: when I was pregnant with no. 1, I'd go to work, come home, make dinner, eat mine, finish DH's, then go to bed (um, 6:30?). DH was stunned, but that went away before second trimester, I think.

Finances were sort of an issue, I guess, but we never thought about it much. When I was pregnant with no.1, we talked about whether or not I'd go back to work or what. Ended up I got laid off in 9th month, so no worries. I got a great severance, then almost a year of unemployment. When that ran out, things were tight til DH got a new job. Then when I was ready for no.2, we talked and decided on it. Finances weren't an issue - we figured we'd done all the right things (had substantial savings, no debt except house, rental properties that were fine, saved an awful lot, etc), it would all work out. I've worked, and not worked, and we're okay. We're not having no. 3 (altho I'd want a discussion) - because we're each one of three and DH adamantly does not want to create a middle child (altho, with our second child, he would not turn out like the other middles, I'm sure).
It's sort of a finances thing - DH is so against it, we don't talk about it, and the way our house is, well, we'd need to move for that other bedroom. So finances come into it for that, but if we wanted the third, we'd do it.

If you wait til everything's in order, you'd probably be retired.
Economies come and go, sometimes up and sometimes down - over a 20 year span, everything will happen, so waiting til the economy is better, well, not the best thing. My parents were both born during the depression, so well, ya know. Of course I did hear a statistic that fewer babies were born in 1935 than any other year in the 1900s.

There will be ups and downs, so delaying a baby cause it's 'irresponsible' given the current economy - well, if that were the case, no one would ever have kids.

"If you wait til everything's in order, you'd probably be retired."

atlmom, that is SO true. I fretted SO much over no. 2 -- we had just moved back, I was beginning to reestablish myself in my career, was going up for/had just made partner, DH had a new job, daycare costs in this area were ridiculous, etc. There was so much to worry about, and my fret voice kept telling me to wait for a "better" time. But I was almost 40, and I realized that with my history, waiting another year may well make the decision for me. That realization is what pushed me to take the leap -- sometimes, refusing to decide is a decision in and of itself.

There's a fine line between preparing for everything (man plans, g-d laughs) and seeing how the wind blows.
I could have killed my dad when he would ask how wedding plans were going, and I'd give him highlights and he'd say: what are you worrying about? As if it were no big deal. Well, ya know, if I didn't do it, it wouldn't get done (and it was spoken by a man who had everything always taken care of by my mom) - so it was a big deal, given that I kind of wanted a band and flowers and food at the wedding.

BUT sometimes, as was said so profoundly by Laura, you just have to take the leap. I have friends who are very religious Jews, and they have six kids, and the mom says: no, we're not saving for college - they will all go, and we will all do what we can, but we can't save for college, there are other pressing needs, so be it. G-d will provide. There is no question that their children are in Jewish Day School, but they can't prepare for everything. So be it.

Target-rich environment today, that's for sure. :-)

1. The Guttmacher study - has some interesting "flaws" in my opinion, not the least of which is that it's limited to women with household incomes less than $75K per year. That's not a good study nationwide because of the disparity in incomes. In Maryland, the study included the lower 50% of the population (the median income, just reported, is a little over $70K) In places like Mississippi, under $75K means "just about everybody" - but then the cost of living is substantially lower there. So you don't get a representative sample of people with equivalent standards of living across the country.

2."the connection between money and kids seems, historically anyway, to be pretty loose." What color is the sky on the planet where you live? My parents were very conscious of money and family size. It was a big factor for them. My mother almost always worked outside of the house, as did OVER 50% OF THE MARRIED WOMEN WITH SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN IN THE 1950's.

3. mle5261: "This may stir the pot, but I think it is pretty selfish to consciously have children that you knowingly can't afford." I agree with the statement, but remember that different people have different definitions of "afford." We've had people post on this blog and OB over the years that it was so important for them to be able to afford the McMansion, travel to Europe every year, the best private schools, etc. and they wouldn't have kids if it compromised that. Others are perfectly happy with the lower-middle class lifestyle.

We have stopped trying for kid #2 until our finances improve. Our salaries have been frozen. At this point kid #1 will be in kidnergarten (at least) before the second, so we will avoid two in day care. But all the other costs, including buying a house, which is a huge goal I'd like to acheive before another baby, are definitely playing into the family planning. And we are both ok with only having one, if that's what it comes down to.

remember, most people live on an income under, say, $30k. And some of them have 3 or more kids. People do what they have to do - and their standard of living might not be what YOU would like, but it works for them.

Altmom I'm not sure I understand-- your friends have 6 kids in Jewsih Day School, yet aren't saving up for college? How much does Day School cost? I ask because it's at least $20k per year per student in my neighborhood. since I can't afford that, I have my kids in public school and I'm putting lots of money away in saving for college, etc. I always assumed folks that coudl afford Day school could also afford to save up for college.

Maybe I'm doing things the wrong way!

College savings for the kids? Dang, that's another thing I forgot to do. Should we pay off our school loans first, or what?

@sunflower: when I was pregnant with no. 1, I'd go to work, come home, make dinner, eat mine, finish DH's, then go to bed (um, 6:30?). DH was stunned, but that went away before second trimester, I think

Glad I am not the only one!

I think people have totally different ideas about what they need to afford kids. My husband's family seems to think it was selfish that we were waiting to reach certain goals whereas some of my friends are like but you are so young and don't you want your career to be further along blah blah blah. I don't see what is so noble though about them all still being single and doing constant happy hours and wasting money on rent but to each her own.

capitolhillmom: i don't know what it costs for them. They used to not charge tuition at all - had a suggested contribution. They changed that a few years ago. Actually, their oldest is 13 and is in another city for school, now, they don't think the schools in ATL are good for him.
So, I don't know what they're paying - the youngest two are in the preschool that their organization runs, so that's 'only' four kids in school. And the dad's a rabbi, so I don't know if there's a sliding scale for that, or what. i'm sure they're not paying the complete and total costs for all of them, but I don't know.

Again, their thoughts are that they need to give their kids this particular education, whatever the cost. And that by the time college comes along, something will happen. Again, g-d will provide. The kids will go to college, and that's that, however it's done.

We have a budget. A third child would be a budget buster. I know that's not a "fun" answer, but it's the truth.

remember, most people live on an income under, say, $30k.

Posted by: atlmom1234 | September 25, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Depends on what you mean by "people"...
households or individuals - but median household income is approx. $51K

I suspect some of those getting vasectomies were planning on it anyway, but are doing it right now in case they lose their health insurance.

Okay, it's time for a hit-and-run post - in other words, after reading what follows, I'm expecting all sorts of folks to start jumping up and down, frothing at the mouth, and having fits about how irresponsible... And I won't be back today.

Infertility. Fertility treatments didn't work for me. Gave up trying and worked on accepting our childless status would be permanent. Both my kids were *complete* surprises. And the timing was *horrible*.

First was born 8 and a half months after I'd started a new job in a different state from where we were living when I was laid off. Minimal/almost no maternity benefits because I hadn't been at the new job a year yet. And because we'd always felt *very* strongly that our kids should have a full-time parent raising them, DH quit his job and followed me across the country when we discovered we'd somehow magickally finally conceived. We went from two incomes to one, and from a state with a low cost of living (MO) to one of the most expensive regions in one of the highest cost of living states (CA, S.F. Bay Area).

Five years later, I was waddling into bankrupcy court seven months pregnant with my second. I think we got out of having our rental property (in MO) foreclosed, but I never checked the paperwork to find out whether the bankrupcy completed first, and whether or not the foreclosure was completed.

I value my kids above all else, and I have no regrets! So, let the self-rightous pontifications begin!

(See ya Monday)

I married my wife in October (both of us were college dropouts), lost my vision in November (went completely blind) and as a result lost my job.

By Christmas that year we were expecting #1. College tuition for the baby? Hahaha! We lived in the lowest rent district in the city and were more concerned about scraping up rent money, paying for insulin and car repairs on our 15 year old Vega.

By the time my daughter was born, I was re-employed, but the credit cards were maxed and the medical bills hadn't even begun to pour in. I remember holding my newborn in the delivery room and thinking, how the hell am I going to make this work out. Will society take my child away because I can't afford her?

When #2 was born, I thought the same thing. How am I gonna do this? I'm functionally illiterate and can't even independently fill out the form for the birth certificate.

2 years later, out popped #3, a boy this time, we had just barely paid off the bills for #2, but despite delivery complications, hence more expenses, my thoughts were more on the line of, How will I be able to do a boy, I can't even play catch. How can a dad be considered a good father if he can't even play catch with his own son?

Then came #4. By then I just shrugged my shoulders and was more concerned about making enough room in the house for a new baby. Keep the crib in the living room? Clear out my sock drawer?

Despite the huge economic squeeze made on parents over the past 2 decades, - skyrocketing helth insurance, childcare and tuition costs, we still manage to keep our heads above water and send our oldest to college without ever having to save a dime.

And every Sunday on our way to church we pass the old rundown apartment complex where it all began, makes me surely appreciate all the things we have today, which kinda, sorta brings me to my point which Atlmom has already eluded. I think that the decision to make more babies has more to do with religious values than the current economic status of the country. Though it seems that the trend to have 3 for the "perfect family size" has replaced 2, I personally don't know of any family that isn't a devoted Christian (namely Catholic & Mormans, but certainly not exclusively), Jew or Muslim that has mor than 3 kids. Does that mean secularism is somehow anti-child? Hmmm... Deserves a discussion I think.

Great perspective Wacky, speaks volumes on the strength of you marriage. My mom and dad had a 1 bedroom apt with a baby crib and kids bed in the living room (2 kids at that time), no car and they were working opposite shift work. I came along when things were a bit easier. This pales in comparison to loosing your vision - but it puts things in perspective and teaches me that not having a maid or having to ease up on eating out is a minor bump in the road.

BTW, write down how much it cost to pay for #2 and #3, my parents can't remember how they paid for my brother. Granted it's been 47 years, but we joke that he might be repossessed.

Finances are a huge part of our family planning. For my personal sanity, I need to know that I can pay for diapers, keep the lights on and not go into debt. Having a newborn is stressful enough without wondering if you are bankrupting yourself.

"Does that mean secularism is somehow anti-child? Hmmm... Deserves a discussion I think."

For better or worse, secularism is correlated with wealth/education (i.e. the wealthier, more educated you are, the less likely you are to be devoutly religious). In parallel, though Brian denies it, the wealthier you are the fewer children you are likely to have.

Secularism isn't anti-child. Wealth is anti-child (in the sense that its a more practical strategy to devote more resources to fewer kids). Wealth just happens to coincide with a higher incidence of secularism.

Slightly off topic: does anyone remember a poem in a comment that was posted on this blog a while ago called (I think) the Power of Two? It was on the topic of having a second child. It was a beautiful poem, and I'm looking for it to share with a friend. Thanks in advance to anyone who might remember when it was posted...

On the other hand, I remember an article (NY Times, I think) about two years ago, right before the economic bubble burst, about how wealthy families are having three or four kids, some of them motivated partly by the desire to show off the fact that they can afford them.

And now for something--un--not really different.

For your noontime entertainment (hey it is lunchtime in New Orleans), the Songster just handed me a new song.

To the tune of the 59th Street Bridge Song
aka Feelin' Groovy

Slow down, don’t suck too fast
Don’t want a bottle, it will give you gas
Just kickin' down the calories
Lookin' for milk and
Feeding with boobies

Hello Lansinoh
Whatcha knowin?
You;ve come to help keep my milk a- flowin'
Glad you fixed that rash for me
Doo Bee Doo Doo,
Feeding with boobies____________

Got no bottles to do
No milk to steep
I pull down my blouse and you’re ready to eat
Let the morningtime drop all its petals on me...
Life, I love you,
Feeding with boobies____________________

Whacky,

Best of luck. I admire your positive attitude and everything you have overcome!

My husband and I married when we were a little older (45/32), so felt comfortable starting our family. We just didn't know it would start IMMEDIATELY after we began trying. Nor did we know that we would have TWINS!! My first thought was concern for their health in the pregnancy. My second, almost immediate, thought, was for the finances: daycare and college. We have seriously rearranged our lives and work schedules, but have so far made it work. What doesn't kill us, makes us stronger, I guess ... Although the jury is still out on what the outcome will be for us!!

Wealth just happens to coincide with a higher incidence of secularism.

Posted by: 06902 | September 25, 2009 1:13 PM

I don't know - the most religious, orthodox synagogues in Judaism seem to never have a problem raising money, where my shul has a leaky roof and toilets, needs a new hallway, needs more space...needs...um...lots of stuff...and they don't know where any of the money's coming from.

I love the heated discussion on this issue. For all the stay-at-home-moms, I suggest trying the Shop dot com Shop Star program. It's a great way to stay with the kids and make a little money selling what you love.

Luv,

~Kat
Full-time MOM & Shop.com Shop Star
Twitter: katluvsshoes
Facebook: katrinarusso

It's less about money and more about stability, love, resourcefulness, and the ability to adapt, and survive. I once saw an interview with Sidney Poitier who explained that he had been raised in poverty in the Bahamas. He father was a dirt farmer. At the age of 15, he was sent to live in Miami with his brother, in a sense to seek his fortune. And he did, and look how it turned out. And in the interview, he praised his family for giving him the confidence and foundation to do all that he has done. So what if his family could not afford him on paper?

Which brings me to another point that we rarely think about in American society. We are so focused on the money issue, that we often don't consider if we have the emotional wherewithal to sustain a family with children. Are our marriages stable? Are we stable? Can we handle the work? Are we strong enough to ride out the uncertainties that come with children. These questions are every bit as important as money. In a perfect world, both issues should be considered. But sometimes, for folks who are really resourcesful, stable, and have a great ethic and ability to keep a family together (Like WW) money is not the limiting factor. And for others, their kids will be screwed up no matter how much money they have.

OK Fred and Frieda. That made me snort my coffee. Thank you.

I personally don't know of any family that isn't a devoted Christian (namely Catholic & Mormans, but certainly not exclusively), Jew or Muslim that has mor than 3 kids.

Maybe you should amend that to say "that has more than 3 kids on purpose" - I have, unfortunately, watched too much trash tv in my lifetime to think that only religious families have a lot of kids. (turn on Jerry Springer any day for proof)

Don't know about religion-children.

I agree that it seems a big issue sometimes, but my uncles, rather atheists, had 4 and 5 children respectively and my parents "only" had 3 because of medical issues. Basically my mom was told to look forwards to becoming a Gran when she was 29 as a way of telling her "no more children".

I (neither atheist no very religious) will probably have to accept that I will only have 3 children like my parents. After three caesarians my Ob/Gyn strongly wanrs against more pregnancies, but I (and husband) would quite like 1, perhaps 2 more (ok, only I am really thinking 2 more, husband just one more).

In Scandinavia we tend not to think too much about the economy of having children (yes, of course to some extent, but not like over here), as we pay for all the basics through taxes according to ability, so medical bills, school and university is not an economical issue to worry about.

Here in Mexico, however, money is very much a consideration for many people, and yes, we will be paying a fortune in kindergarden/school fees here, but then, there are always less expensive alternatives, so that wouldn't stop me from having another child. More pressing for us is the annual trip to Europe, which for me really is non-negotiable as its the one time a year I see my family and friends, and yes... a family of five is a lot more expensive to fly over than a family of three.

I can perfectly appreciate thinking economy in relation to having children, but I think the snag is the risk that you can't have them once you feel you are economically ready.

We waited a few years after we moved in together, for the sake of settling in as a couple, economically, and for me to pass the worst culture shock, but then we went for it. As a part-time university teacher I have no maternity leave, so we figured we could cover me not working for one semester with my husbands salary.

Here they say that the babies arrive with a sandwich, and firstborn's sandwich was a new job for my husband that doubled his salary. Secondborn's sandwich was a bonus for my husband that covered the dowmpayment for a bigger apartment (1 twin-bed and two baby-bed in one small bedroom was very crowded). Thirdborn's sandwich, we will see.

Fred and Frieda, count another snort-take from me as well! Thanks for the laugh!

Okay, back to the subject at hand. We had originally wanted three kids, but we changed our minds and I got "spayed" after our second child was born. One of the reasons for this in our case was financial concerns. We're squarely in the working-class category, and finances are tight. We live a down-to-the-basics lifestyle (growing our own veggies, buying kids' clothes at yard sales, playing board games or classic video games like Nintendo or Sega, and movie nights at home on the weekends), but we have a great time, and the kids don't feel deprived at all. I've told them that we have a roof over our heads, food on the table, clothes on our backs, and the utilities are paid for-if you've got that, then you've got everything that's truly necessary. They're almost five years apart, so we won't have to worry about two in college at the same time, but we still strongly encourage them to work hard and study in school-anything that helps their chances of getting scholarships certainly won't hurt!

I do plan on going back to work someday, but I would prefer it be something I can do from home so I can still be there for them after school. (Studies have proved that the most likely time for teenagers to get drunk, drugged, or pregnant is during the hours between school letting out and the parents coming home-more than a little scary!)

KatLuvsShoes, thanks for the tip on that-also, may I suggest setting up an Etsy page for those of us who are artistically inclined or "crafty" people as well? My sister has one that she sells her artwork and sculpture on, and since I dabble in jewelry making and knitting (this winter I plan to add quilting and making clothes to that as well), she said I should consider it as a work-from-home option when both kids are in school.

Have a great weekend, everybody!

Hey Guys,

That one even made my wife laugh! She is doing just fine! Our youngest is now an "adult" or at least he is 18 now!

Fred

In the larger scheme of things children born in low birth periods mature into job markets that are looking for workers, and depending on their capabilities can sometimes ride a tide of prosperity based on their relative scarcity.

While you might delay a wanted child for job/money reasons you can't delay the march of time biology-wise. So I think go-head and have that second or third child that you always planned on. Just because we're in a tight spot today doesn't mean we'll be in tight spots forever.

In fact, I'm betting that the President is planning his re-election effort based on the notion that he'll be riding a tide of economic boom in a few years.