Skip

Cost of raising a kid to the age of 17? $286,050. USDA report
June 2, 2010 9:05 PM   Subscribe

Got a lazy quarter million? Why not raise a kid to the age of 17. Average cost $286,050.

Each year since the 1960's the USDA has released a study calculating the cost of raising kids.
Things you should know:
- lower income families (incomes under $56kp.a.) still spend $205,600
- rich families (income over $98,120p.a) spend $475,680
- all figures are inflation adjusted, in 2009 dollars the $286,050 becomes $222,360.
- single parent families spend about 25% less.
- housing (the cost of an extra bedroom per child) is the major cost (31%)
- childcare and education (excluding college) is next at 17%
- food is 16%
- each additional child is cheaper.
- since 1960 the cost of kids has risen about 22%
- figures exclude opportunity costs such as lost income and external funding sources such as government paid schooling.

Full report is a 39 page PDF.
posted by bystander (51 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
Why stop the calculations at age 17? Seems to me a lot of them come back home again in their 20s.

I'm looking at you, davis_kids!
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 9:09 PM on June 2, 2010 [3 favorites]


There is no way this is possible. My family makes ca. $25-30k a year and I have four siblings. My parents would have had most of the same expenses whether they had had children or not.
posted by dunkadunc at 9:10 PM on June 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


Why stop the calculations at age 17? Seems to me a lot of them come back home again in their 20s.

1) Sell the family house.

2) Buy a small cottage, townhouse or similar

3) "We'd love to, but we don't have the room."
posted by maxwelton at 9:12 PM on June 2, 2010 [3 favorites]


Now that's just malicious. I thought the point of families was to help each other, not for parents to fritter away the family home.
posted by dunkadunc at 9:15 PM on June 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


Why stop the calculations at age 17? Seems to me a lot of them come back home again in their 20s.

We don't like the way this century is panning out any more than you do, believe me.
posted by pts at 9:15 PM on June 2, 2010 [33 favorites]


...being able to move in with your kids when you're old and Wall Street tanks your 401k? Well it sucks, but, hey, it's better than livin' in your car!

/save me that sofa bed, son!
posted by emjaybee at 9:16 PM on June 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


These calculations, while interesting, don't really influence most people's decisions to have kids.

Also, if it's only gone up in price 22% in 50 years then wow, it's probably actually gone down in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars.
posted by GuyZero at 9:19 PM on June 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


Now that's just malicious. I thought the point of families was to help each other, not for parents to fritter away the family home.

Shows how much you know, friend. In lieu of children, I fully intend to have large stacks of gold coins into which I can dive Scrooge McDuck-style.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:19 PM on June 2, 2010 [11 favorites]


Oh, rats, it's inflation-adjusted.
posted by GuyZero at 9:20 PM on June 2, 2010


The same people who complain that having children is expensive and therefore irrational are the probably the same people who sign prenuptial agreements.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:21 PM on June 2, 2010 [6 favorites]


Hey. A house in my neighborhood costs 3 to 10 children.

Hunh. Here's hoping nobody takes that out of context.
posted by poe at 9:24 PM on June 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


There's a reason he's not called Father Scrooge.

(actually: it's funny how everyone in the Donald Duck Universe seems to reproduce via nephews/nieces.)
posted by dunkadunc at 9:25 PM on June 2, 2010 [6 favorites]


.
posted by special-k at 9:27 PM on June 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


You can substantially decrease your costs by simply refusing to give into the modern notion that kids need separate bedrooms. In most of the world people do with a lot fewer sq/ft per person and the kids seem to do fine. Learn to use the library and the parks and you can also save tons of money.
posted by humanfont at 9:34 PM on June 2, 2010 [5 favorites]


Clearly, the solution is for no one to have kids ever again. Then, we'll be able to spend our money on things that truly matter after we're gone.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 9:37 PM on June 2, 2010


Why not raise a kid to the age of 17.

How long have you got?
posted by pompomtom at 9:39 PM on June 2, 2010


It's probably a good thing my money is locked up in kids. I'd just wind up blowing it otherwise.
posted by mazola at 9:57 PM on June 2, 2010 [5 favorites]


And you can't blow kids. There are laws and stuff.
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:11 PM on June 2, 2010 [6 favorites]


(actually: it's funny how everyone in the Donald Duck Universe seems to reproduce via nephews/nieces.)

You've seen this ridiculously over-detailed Donald Duck family tree, right?
posted by zsazsa at 10:14 PM on June 2, 2010 [11 favorites]


There is no way this is possible. My family makes ca. $25-30k a year and I have four siblings. My parents would have had most of the same expenses whether they had had children or not.

When I had my first kid 9 years ago, there was a slew of articles claiming that it cost $25,000 (or some such insane number) the first year you had a child. I thought, "That can't be true, because most people don't have $25,000."

Not long after that, there was an article in Consumer Reports that actually talked about how they got the figures. In their analysis, as soon as the first baby was born they started charging 1/3 of housing expenses to the baby. So suddenly 1/3 of the mortgage, 1/3 of the utilities, were being lumped into "what it costs the first year you have a baby." That seemed ridiculous to me. We have three kids now, and the same mortgage, but by their calculation 3/5 of our mortgage should now be counted as child-rearing expenses.
posted by not that girl at 10:16 PM on June 2, 2010 [10 favorites]


Oh, in the Consumer Reports article, they also counted health-care expenses even if they were paid by an insurance company. So the $8k it cost for my son's hospital birth would have been counted against him even though we only paid a few hundred out of pocket. There's a way in which that makes sense--it is a cost to somebody that that child was born, as is the increased insurance premium paid by my partner's company--but most of the time when I see these articles, they don't make that distinction. They're just doing a goggle-eyed "OMG people here's something for you to freak out about!"

By that logic, you should also toss in the cost of the child's public school education. I wonder if some of these analyses do?
posted by not that girl at 10:21 PM on June 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


I pay $1k per month for my mortgage. If I didn't have four kids I'd probably pay $800. They eat about $300 a month above what my wife and I would consume. My wife spent $50 on clothes for my daughters at "Savers," a local thrift store. We are paying $200 per month for a Ford E150 that will comfortably hold everyone during road trips to southern Utah. Let's take on 20 percent for other expenses. That comes to $194,000 for all four of them over eighteen years. That's just a very rough estimate.

So tonight my thirteen-year-old got on Craigslist and found a copy of Rockband2 with two controllers for $30 of his lawnmowing money. I drove him to pick it up, and sent the kids to bed.

Around 10:30 I went downstairs to check on everyone and the thirteen-year-old was playing lead, his ten-year-old brother was on bass, and their little nine-year-old sister was on vocals, belting out the lyrics to Eye of the Tiger.

Last night I took my nine-year-old to get ice cream because her grades were perfect. She told me, "I love you dad" and I replied, "Cool. And it only cost me a dollar!" She responded, "Yeah, but this is a lot of ice cream!"

[sappy punchline goes here]
posted by mecran01 at 10:40 PM on June 2, 2010 [46 favorites]


zsazsa: "(actually: it's funny how everyone in the Donald Duck Universe seems to reproduce via nephews/nieces.)

You've seen this ridiculously over-detailed Donald Duck family tree, right?
"

...Is Donald divorced? Am I reading that right? He's got connections to Daisy and some other lady duck.

Things I never knew about Disney comicbook canon...
posted by Gordafarin at 10:52 PM on June 2, 2010


Actually, you can cut out that last $50. Birthday party at Mcdonald's again, Junior.
posted by twoleftfeet at 11:23 PM on June 2, 2010


That's why you gotta get 'em working in the feilds by 13. They pay for themselves!
posted by delmoi at 1:00 AM on June 3, 2010


Thirteen? Hell, unless your kid's got Downs Syndrome or something, you can have them putting concrete into the cocaine supply and then bagging it for distribution by the time they're seven.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:36 AM on June 3, 2010 [4 favorites]


The full report only tells half the story.

Childless adults earn, on average, 15% to 20% more than parents do. Why? They can take high responsibility jobs with longer or less predictable hours than parents generally can; these jobs tend to pay better. They (although this affects women more than men) are far less likely to interrupt their careers for pregnancy and time to raise kids, don't take personal time off for a child's sickness, soccer games and so on . . . consequently they advance more quickly, statistically speaking. This "lost" money isn't a direct expense, so it isn't mentioned . . . but on some level, it is an extra cost for parents. Stick that "extra" money in a CD every year at 3% interest and yikes! It adds up.

The same people who complain that having children is expensive and therefore irrational are the probably the same people who sign prenuptial agreements.

I like a bit of snarky cyncism as much as the next girl, but this comment doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Childless married couples are less likely to divorce than parents. In nearly all studies, childless adults have reported a higher level of day-to-day happiness, personal contentment and career and relationship satisfaction than parents.

Anyone who argues against having kids purely for financial reasons . . . well, maybe it's a good thing that person doesn't have kids. But I think it's fantastic that a report like the one above may make perspective parents pause for a while, until they have a solid grasp of the realities of this immense responsiblity. I know too many people who didn't and have suffered for their irrational decision to do something they weren't prepared to handle well.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 2:26 AM on June 3, 2010 [11 favorites]


Worth every penny.
posted by sciurus at 3:55 AM on June 3, 2010 [12 favorites]


Childless adults earn, on average, 15% to 20% more than parents do. Why? They can take high responsibility jobs with longer or less predictable hours than parents generally can; these jobs tend to pay better. They (although this affects women more than men) are far less likely to interrupt their careers for pregnancy and time to raise kids, don't take personal time off for a child's sickness, soccer games and so on . . . consequently they advance more quickly, statistically speaking. This "lost" money isn't a direct expense, so it isn't mentioned . . . but on some level, it is an extra cost for parents. Stick that "extra" money in a CD every year at 3% interest and yikes! It adds up.

The opposite is true too, however. In many workplaces, raises, promotions and not-being-laid-off go to the family people because they "need it more" and they are more likely to hang around the company racking up seniority. Having a family gives the appearance of being more responsible. If childless adults DO earn more as a cohort, it is just as, of not more, likely that they had the freedom to job shop and to hold out for more money. Not that they have the time to commit to a job with more responsibility; just that they have the lifestyle agility to move around to get the same job somewhere else for more money.

I wonder if the childless cohort counts people with grown children? That would be a huge monkey wrench in the validity of the statistic, skewing it higher.

And, if you count health insurance as part of the compensation package, employees with children automatically make more money. If insurance is free, the more dependents one has, the more compensation they extract from the company. Even if it is only subsidized, rarely is the extra cost for +1 or +family equal to what it actually costs the company to provide that extra insurance to them.

And, looking at it from another perspective, suppose the single, childless employee wants a week off, and the employee with a family wants a week off. Both are for vacations to Florida. All other things being equal, who is going to get the approval? The person with the family. The single person can go "anytime", but the one with the family has to deal with school schedules and their spouse's work schedule. That has value.

If we are going to truly go meta, I wonder if the survey/study counted in the extra tax breaks? The added benefit of subsidized schools? (My neighbor and I both pay the same in property taxes- the neighbor gets it all back, if not moreso, in the form of free schooling for their kid.)

Not that there is anything wrong with any of that- but if we are going to run the numbers, we need to run them all.

(Not disagreeing with DeeX, just using her comment as a jumping off point. I agree, for a variety of reasons, that if the cost of kids dissuades potential parents, everyone is better off.)
posted by gjc at 4:29 AM on June 3, 2010 [3 favorites]


We have three kids now, and the same mortgage, but by their calculation 3/5 of our mortgage should now be counted as child-rearing expenses.

By God, start charging them! I mean, how often did you hear "We're a family and everyone pulls their weight around here!"
posted by DarlingBri at 5:21 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]


You've seen this ridiculously over-detailed Donald Duck family tree, right?

There's a Potcrack McDuck? What the hell?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:46 AM on June 3, 2010


I guess charging the mortgage to the kid makes a little sense if you wouldn't have bought a house if not for the kid. Lousy fucking brat...


(not a parent, thankfully!)
posted by codacorolla at 6:19 AM on June 3, 2010


The real cost of having kids is thinking about them and taking care of them every waking hour, until that ninety minutes before sleep when Hulu invades your consciousness. Even more than the money, I think that's a factor that is hard to explain to the childless.

I suppose if the childless and those with kids were 100 percent convinced of their life choices, they wouldn't have to come to public forums and tell everyone how thankful they are that they didn't make the terrible, soul-draining mistake the other group has.
posted by mecran01 at 7:31 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]


Random anecdote: 'moonMan and I don't have children yet, but we're planning on it. Our only disagreement is on the number of children that we would like. I want 3. He only wants 2, for financial reasons.

His POV does indeed make total sense to me, especially if we keep living in the u-SOFA and our future children decide to attend college here... but...under no circumstances am I showing him this data.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:44 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]


> You can substantially decrease your costs by simply refusing to give into the modern notion that kids need separate bedrooms.

My parents put my brother and I in the same room for a few years. Have you ever stuffed two cats into a pillowcase? That's about how it played out.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:48 AM on June 3, 2010


I'd say the numbers are roughly correct. I can say this because I've paid child support for 12 years. Extrapolating to cover the years before the divorce, and the years until my child turns 17, with a rough inflation adjustment, yup, I'll pay about 1/2 the cited figure.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:51 AM on June 3, 2010


And I don't get a tax deduction...
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:51 AM on June 3, 2010


@gjc, if you want to get into running numbers, the childless should consider the subsidized ride we all get at the expense of younger workers when they retire. Society tends to be better off when there aren't big cohorts of people just hanging around dying. Children are a drain on the economy, but young adults are not. There's a good case to be made for those tax breaks for parents and education being a solid investment.
posted by pjaust at 8:26 AM on June 3, 2010 [2 favorites]


The weird thing is that they calculated it over 17 years. Any expense looks big when you calculate it over that time period. My wife and I will pay $150,000 for food over the next 17 years, even discounting inflation!

Put another way, the claim here is that middle class kids costs $1,402/month. Does that sound right to anybody?
posted by anotherpanacea at 9:13 AM on June 3, 2010


the childless should consider the subsidized ride we all get at the expense of younger workers when they retire. Society tends to be better off when there aren't big cohorts of people just hanging around dying. Children are a drain on the economy, but young adults are not. There's a good case to be made for those tax breaks for parents and education being a solid investment.

Except that you can import young adults from other countries which is a far better deal: someone else pays for their education and you just grab them when they're ready to start actually being productive.

The rational choice for a society is to encourage immigration of childless young adults, and discourage anyone from having children.

Also something about ice floes.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:50 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]


Nope, it doesn't cost near that much. Or at least it doesn't have to. I am raising two kids on my own (with court-ordered child support from their father $67k in arrears, so that right there is the college fund) and we live a middle-class life. I would be in the same-sized house with them as I was in without them. My living/entertainment expenses are increasing as they become less kid-related --- concerts & beer cost more than face-painting and Little League. Health insurance is the one main thing that costs more with kids and there's no getting around it (unless you're among the lucky few who have employer-paid health insurance that's a single/family plan rather than a single/couple/1kid/2kid/etc. plan.)

Most of the increases in child-rearing costs over the years are lifestyle choices. Big houses, tech gadgets, entertainment subscriptions (cable, unlimited text/data), extra/larger cars, dinner out all the time instead of cooking because of longer work hours, etc.

I do plenty of that stuff too, especially the not-cooking. Not making a judgment, just an observation. My kids see the difference between my spending and other parents' spending, and although sometimes they think I'm unreasonably cheap, usually they're in complete agreement with my point of view.

I think they will be better off in the long run.
posted by headnsouth at 9:53 AM on June 3, 2010


The cost per child would go up substantially if parents had to buy carbon credits to offset their kids' environmental footprint.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 10:25 AM on June 3, 2010


Worth every penny.

I'll go further: Best bargain on the planet! The entertainment value alone is incalculable.

(Now you'll say I'm just being deluded into that belief by my selfish genes, right?)
posted by dust of the stars at 10:45 AM on June 3, 2010 [1 favorite]


Put another way, the claim here is that middle class kids costs $1,402/month. Does that sound right to anybody?
I pay about half that in monthly child support, so, yeah, it sounds about right. Now, this kid is more upper-middle class (or maybe lower-upper-middle class) than middle class, and this is in a high-priced area. Then again, child support isn't my only child-related expense, so the figure is actually a little low in my case.
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:52 AM on June 3, 2010


big cohorts of people just hanging around dying

Sounds like my hometown.
I think my grandparents' generation is totally oblivious to the problems young people face these days- they don't know about it and they don't care to know, either. (Example: My grandfather suggested I didn't need money for a car for school, and that I should sleep in lecture halls instead.)
They're the real "Me Generation" - or at least the "Fuck you, I've got mine" generation.
posted by dunkadunc at 11:09 AM on June 3, 2010


Not that there is anything wrong with any of that- but if we are going to run the numbers, we need to run them all.

But yikes, gjc, I've got to disagree with nearly everything you wrote:

The opposite is true too, however. In many workplaces, raises, promotions and not-being-laid-off go to the family people because they "need it more" and they are more likely to hang around the company racking up seniority. Having a family gives the appearance of being more responsible. If childless adults DO earn more as a cohort, it is just as, of not more, likely that they had the freedom to job shop and to hold out for more money. Not that they have the time to commit to a job with more responsibility; just that they have the lifestyle agility to move around to get the same job somewhere else for more money.

Some of this is true, at least in part. I'm sure that some employers see those with family as "more responsible." But I've certainly encountered the opposite more often - employers who'd rather employ childless people (especially childless women), as parents are seen as less dutiful to the workplace, less likely to run off to baseball games and school events. Which is more common? I can't say - I'd imagine that in reality, for most employers, there's no ideology either way. Time to commit to a demanding job is easier for a childless person, but the "lifestyle agility" to move around (kind of the same thing to me, but I get your point) is a huge factor. I've changed employers seven times in fifteen years (but only four different employers.) When I've stayed at the same place, I've generally received decent raises. It's when I've changed employers (or changed back to a former employer) that my salary's really increased. I just went back to a former employer a few months ago, at 30% more than I was making in my previous job. In other words, hanging around and accruing senority may be more the domain of those with kids, but it's not necessarily the best way to make more money. Furthermore, there's no statistical evidence that having kids is any real method to secure one's job - parents and the childless tend to get laid off in fairly equal proportion.

I wonder if the childless cohort counts people with grown children? That would be a huge monkey wrench in the validity of the statistic, skewing it higher.

"Parents" in these studies are people who've had children, whether grown or not. One can take the statistic on face value - those without kids earn much more, on average.

And, if you count health insurance as part of the compensation package, employees with children automatically make more money. If insurance is free, the more dependents one has, the more compensation they extract from the company. Even if it is only subsidized, rarely is the extra cost for +1 or +family equal to what it actually costs the company to provide that extra insurance to them.

But - even in the best-case scenario (one of free insurance, which is rare), there's no net benefit for parents. They're not taking home anything extra; they're simply spared an expense that the childless never had to begin with. And that's the best-case scenario! Few people receive totally free family insurance, and so having kids *does* add to their stack of bills. Additionally, more companies are going towards a cafeteria-style of benefits, where a person with kids may choose free / reduced healthcare for their kids, while childless may choose, I don't know, extra vacation or something like that. This is a more equitable way of dealing with employee compensation, and it came about *because* those without kids were receiving fewer benefits and companies were losing employees because of the inequity.

And, looking at it from another perspective, suppose the single, childless employee wants a week off, and the employee with a family wants a week off. Both are for vacations to Florida. All other things being equal, who is going to get the approval? The person with the family. The single person can go "anytime", but the one with the family has to deal with school schedules and their spouse's work schedule. That has value.

Value? (First of all, everywhere I've worked, those who ask first get the vacation time they want, no matter their situation.) Look at it this way - in the time between January 4th to June 6th (roughly equal to the second semester of schools here), there are 22 weeks. If a parent can only take a vacation during Junior's spring break week, they have no choice. They can only go on holiday 1 of 22 possible weeks. Even if that parent's childless counterpart is prohibited from going on vacation during that one week (which wouldn't always be the case), they can choose from 21 of 22 possible weeks. How does having less than 5% of the vacation time choice of a childless person constitute real value? Both parties, in your scenario, are constrained . . . the parents 21 times as much.

If we are going to truly go meta, I wonder if the survey/study counted in the extra tax breaks? The added benefit of subsidized schools? (My neighbor and I both pay the same in property taxes- the neighbor gets it all back, if not moreso, in the form of free schooling for their kid.)

"Subsidized" schools are great for parents, but again . . . there's no net benefit for parents. They're simply not paying extra for something childless couples wouldn't have to worry about anyway. (And, as I noted again, parents tend to move to areas with higher property taxes, so they do, statistically, pay more.)

Sorry, gjc, but nothing you've mentioned actually shows any net benefit for parents, except the deduction one can take for having a child. For the vast majority parents (in the 10% - 20% tax brackets), this benefit puts from $365 to $730 per year in their pockets - hardly a dent in the cost of raising a child.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 11:20 AM on June 3, 2010 [3 favorites]


That whole mortgage cost allocated to kids isn't so unreasonable. Consider two child-related motivators that typically raise the price of the house you'll buy significantly:

1. How many bedrooms
2. What school district are you in

YOu can say "sure, I have a three bedroom house for $X, and I had a kid and stuck him in the third bedroom, but I still pay $X" -- but arguably your $X was in anticipation of having a kid, or you would be paying $X-y for a house with one less bedroom making you just as happy because you don't need the third bedroom for your kid.

And if you say, "I didn't pay $X in anticipation of the kid", remember -- your kid takes up that room, and prevents you from using it for non-child stuff. From that perspective, it's like the child lops off a room of your home, but you're still paying $X -- so your reduction in value obtained from the house is still there. To receive the same value from the house, you need a bigger one (one more bedroom.)
posted by davejay at 11:42 AM on June 3, 2010


No where in the report do they discuss the gender of the child. That's what I want to know, do girls come at a discount? They don't eat as much and are less likely to destroy stuff (or at least so comparisons between me and my brothers would suggest).
posted by treeshar at 2:10 PM on June 3, 2010


davejay: the thing that sucks is that even childless couples end up competing in the "Good School District" market because that's where everybody else wants to live.... :-(

MrMoonPie: given what I know about the pay in legislative agencies, I'm betting you're closer to the halfa-million figure they specify for high income folks. But that still comes out to 2331/month, which it doesn't sound like you and your ex are paying.

Of course, if you're sending your kids to private school in DC, I could see that and more.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:12 PM on June 3, 2010


That's why we don't have kids yet when most of our married (and a lot who aren't) friends do. There's no way we could afford to raise them properly. We'd be on welfare. Without kids, we aren't living the high life, but we're not living on ramen in the ghetto either. Most of our friends with children are being heavily subsidized by their parents - their parents are their childcare, their parents bought them a house, they work for a parent's company and have a flexible job, etc.

Although I too am skeptical of the stated cost. While kids are a massive financial and emotional investment, I personally lived my whole childhood and part of my college years sharing a bedroom, often wearing thrift store clothes, not eating at restaurants or fast-food places, not going on international vacations and cruises, not seeing movies every weekend, and not riding in brand new cars. And it was fine!

The areas that really stand out to me as expensive are:

1. Schooling. Intertwined with housing, it becomes a critical factor if you live in an area without great public schools. You either move to take advantage of the public school or pay out of your rear end, college-tuition-levels, for private schooling. My parents cared about our education and I know this was a massive expense and sacrifice for them.

2. Healthcare. It's a requirement. It influences your job decisions. And it doesn't stop when your kid is 18. I am watching my parents deal with enormous medical bills from my sibling's very serious illness that she got when she was 20. It's been years and I know it's cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions. And my parents were lucky to have good insurance.
posted by funfetti at 2:33 PM on June 3, 2010


Got a lazy quarter million? Why not raise a kid to the age of 17. Average cost $286,050.

Load.
Of.
Shit.

If I had a lazy quarter million, I could invest it in the stock market and expect to earn at least 9% longterm, netting me $1M gross. Then I could raise two kids, and pocket a half-mil.

OK, yeah: we all know it's a gross simplification, but when you start off talking about economics, it's best to use at least a 12th-grade understanding of economics.

Now, continue pointing out how unrealistic the rest of the math is. Kids cost money, but the cost isn't really calculable in any uniform way.
posted by IAmBroom at 6:08 PM on June 3, 2010


« Older 27 Up, 27 Dow ... Not So Fast There, Buddy   |   Sometime El Toro he win. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post