Hacker News Reader

Could it be possible that in the 24+ (?) years since you had these children that things have perhaps changed, and your views on the affordability of children are a quarter of a century outdated?

Sure. That's a valid point. Things have changed a lot since my oldest child. But my youngest children are still at home costing me money. My own financial situation has improved, of course. But my recent college grad children step into jobs making 80% of my current salary. And they're not making SV money. So again, I turn the volume down on millenials who complain about the cost of children.

I had my first children when I made less than 1/3 of what I make now and new college grads are making 4/5 of what I make now. And I'm still raising children. You can argue about inflation or whatever you want. I don't buy it.

Just admit that you are not willing to give up anything to accommodate children.

I'm not saying that you should give up anything. Those are your choices. But you do have a choice.

I have neighbors who make $40K and raise children--yes, more than one. Right now. Today. In the U.S. No welfare.

It is within the reach of most everyone on HN to become a middle school math teacher in Kansas and raise a family. Very few make that choice. But they do have the choice.

>You can argue about inflation or whatever you want. I don't buy it.

This is literally ignoring factual evidence. Inflation has happened, there's no denying it. Wages have stagnated since the early 70's with a good portion of the country making less than they did in the 70's, or are making exactly what they made in the 70's. Chances are your "less than 1/3 of what I make now" was probably what you make now, or was at least worth much more than that same salary would be today. The cost of almost everything that's necessary & essential has risen by insane amounts since your children have been born.

Try an inflation calculator: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

How do you figure inflation differences for events happening in the exact same moment, especially when that moment is now?

I don't need an inflation calculator to know how much I am paying this year for braces and glasses and broken bones and Prom and car insurance for a new driver. I know what it took to raise children 20+ years ago. I did it. I know what it takes to raise children right now today. I am doing it.

Yes, "the cost of almost everything that's necessary & essential has risen by insane amounts." So you have to choose to trim things that are less essential. A baby carseat can run $250. A $4 coffee every workday adds up to $800/year.

I'm not insensitive to those who feel overwhelmed by the commitment required to raise children today. I admit that it's a little amusing that some seem to think that the commitment wasn't overwhelming 20 years ago. Maybe it was easier 20 years ago. I honestly don't think so.

Youre mentioning a lot of real luxury goods but these arent the costs OP is referring to I believe. Its more about the necessities in that regard for ensuring their children have a good future: healthcare, private schooling, a college tuition fund, etc. I agree a lot of people in this country spend too much on things they shouldnt, then complain they dont have enough for more of the essentials, but I think in this case the original point is valid: raising children in a metropolitan area is pretty expensive JUST for their necessities.

Please re-read my comment. My children have earned 3+1/2+1/4 college degrees, debt-free. I did not pay for that. They did. I expect at least 2+1/2+3/4 college degrees to follow. They went to public schools (+ 1 private college). They play violin and cello and bass and guitar and percussion and brass. They are insured.

They played youth soccer, and high school sports. They have learned foreign languages. They've worked as janitors and at supermarkets and as research assistants.

I'm not sure what "necessity" they have not enjoyed.

Raising children in metropolitan areas includes raising children in Memphis and Dallas and Boise. It doesn't have to mean San Francisco. And for that matter, who says you have to raise children in a metropolitan area? That is not a necessity.

As I wrote before, it doesn't bother me if you choose not to have children, or if you choose to live in San Francisco, or if you choose to raise children in San Francisco. It just bothers me to see the claim that it is impossible to provide the necessities to children today.

Children are expensive. No doubt. That is true in NYC or the Himalayas. I believe that to raise a child properly will require sacrifices. That is true for a parent who makes $16K or $16MM.

But I reject the claim for the vast majority of people that raising children properly is out of financial reach. When I read that claim from 20-somethings making twice my current salary, I shake my head. I translate that claim to, "I am not willing to give up my current lifestyle to have children." That is a much different statement.

There is nothing that you said that contradicts what I said...

I agree it’s a lot easier to raise kids when you started 20+ years ago when stuff was cheaper and you make them pay their own way through college.

If you have a typical STEM job or better, your employer covers nearly all the cost of healthcare for your family.

You only need private schooling if you are in a city and don't have a stay-at-home parent. Suburban schools are usually OK. You can homeschool.

In most states, you don't need a college tuition fund. For example, a student in my state can get an AA degree for about $5000, and can then upgrade it to a BS degree for an additional $15000. If you birth a kid every 2 years, you'll end up with 2 kids in college at once and the cost will be $10000 per year. That is 1/6 of a typical family income, or about 1/12 of a typical STEM job.

I went to a somewhat poor high school and an extremely prestigious university. My fellow university graduates who are now making lucrative engineer salaries are the ones with teslas and MBPs, and from what I've seen they are not raising children by choice (most of them are not even married or have long term relationships. I'm married but my wife and I decided we want to wait a few years so she can finish her PhD and start her career first. Our goal is to start having children before we are 30). While my wife and I are struggling with the prospect of never owning a family-sized property in our high CoL city because it is so expensive, it's not the main reason we haven't started a family yet. Much bigger are concerns about how it will impact my wife's career, and if she will be forced out of the workforce forever if she takes a few years off until the children are old enough for school.

From my hometown (edit: just to be clear, this is a low-CoL city and my friends mostly 24-27 years old), no one that I know owns a tesla or similar luxury object. A larger percentage of my friends from back home are married compared to my friends from university, but still almost none of them have started families. I can't speak for them all, but the impression I get is that the people who are on track for something that could be considered a career (teaching, for example) are focusing on their careers. Those who didn't end up with a career but did go to college are more or less drowning in college debt. Those who didn't go to college are trying to work their way up to a higher education through part-time community college and what not.

In other words, I agree with your central thesis that this is by choice that the birthrate is declining. In particular, the fact that women now have the choice to start careers and earn money instead of going to college for an "MRS" degree and then starting a family (I know exactly one person in my high school class who wanted to do this, and she does indeed have two beautiful children today). But difficulty getting debt-free for college graduates, and difficulty owning property, are certainly contributing factors, because it provides external pressure on couples that they need to spend more energy+effort on their career. As I understand, raising children requires a considerable amount of energy+effort, so the conflict there should be quite obvious.

I think this is out of touch. I make near $60k outside of Seattle and can barely afford to take care of myself in the slightest of comfort possible. I don't get luxuries, and I haven't been on a vacation since I started my working life. I'm away from home for 12 hours every work day, not by choice. There is no way to responsibly care for even a single child at this income in a non-rural area in 2018. I can't even responsibly get a dog.

I think as a poster said below, your views have probably not been updated for a very long time. The cost of everything essential has gone up since you had your children.

You say, "not a choice." I say, false.

You have chosen to take a job outside of Seattle. Seattle is crazy expensive right now. A $50K job 140 miles away in Yakima might be a better value. Or look 300 miles away in Pullman or Spokane.

Eight hour days, 15 minute commutes, ...

Gonzaga is looking for IT Techs. WSU is hiring into IT like mad right now. May be a pay cut for you. May drop your cost of living 50%. Definitely gives you more time to responsibly care for a child if that is your priority.

BECU is looking for a Security Tech Admin. Banner Furnace and Fuel needs an IT Specialist. Not as prestigious or glamorous as your current job? Well, if that's your priority...

But you have a choice.

I am interested in the experience of your corner of the world. I'm a millenial who "can't afford a child" (but am making a lot more than a ton of households with children are in my area). Is there an email address I can reach you at? I would like to know your and your community's stance of things like how to have stable families, feelings of loneliness or contentment, and whether your children intend to follow the same path and have the same kind/size of family.