My suburban friends often play “Mommy-Taxi” shuttling kids between dance lessons, music lessons, school, etc. That is a common reason why one parent becomes a stay-at-home parent, significantly reducing family income. In NYC, it’s very easy for both parents to work full-time because the kids get themselves wherever they need to be with a Metrocard for bus and subway fare.

Real estate here is expensive, either renting or buying, but not having a money sinkhole on four wheels compensates for it.

You can’t beat the low-oost and free entertainment and educational opportunities that are available. It’s also wonderful that the linguistic, cultural, and ethnic diversity of the city exposes kids to all sorts of experiences that kids living in monolithic suburbs will never encounter. It seems to make them grow up as more worldly and tolerant adults.

I know this is a book review, but you seem to always agree with rural life over city life — usually just saying it’s too expensive. But I think you should consider it a little deeper.

In NYC, I don’t need a car, my subway fare is about $80 a month. That means no gas, car insurance, or repairs. Museums are usually free several times during the month, the parks host free concerts, art galleries are usually free and there’s hiking, a wildlife refuge center in queens, the beach in the rockaways, an amusement park, fishing, botanical gardens, zoos, kayaking, and biking — all for free or low cost.

I have friends here who moved from suburbs and said it was far easier to parent. They claim ‘play dates’ happen more organically and impromptu communities spring up among parents who take their kids to the park in the evenings and on weekends. Nanny shares are also common, or babysitting cooperatives among neighbors — where the cost is free.

Also, a city usually promotes smaller living space and consequently means less ’stuff’ to fill it with. My brother and sister in law live in the suburbs and complain about the sheer volume of toys their kids have. In the end, they say the kids play with the same handful of toys day after day and ignore the rest. In an apartment, you’re forced to downsize.

My husband and I live a very comfortable life in NYC and have zero debt, all while earning an unremarkable salary. My friends who make that same salary in the suburbs in Atlanta seem to struggle. Whether it’s their home purchase, filling it up with stuff, or the cost of cars and gadgets, I’m not sure. But regardless, I think there is an enormous benefit to living in the city and wish you would explore it in a post sometime.

Thanks!

The same is true for insurance. As my husband is currently a student, I’m covering both him and our son, and was paying considerably less per month to cover just him. For our insurance plan, at least, a married couple would pay significantly less than a family.

And lastly, I worked my way through college, and though my parents helped me out, I took out a good amount of student loans for undergrad and grad school. My parents always wished that they’d been in the position to pay for me at the time, but they weren’t. They are right now, however, funding their retirement accounts, and I’m pleased that they are able to do so. I would prefer to make my student loan payments and know that they are taken care of for the future than to try to budget for taking care of my own retirement, my child’s education, and my parents into old age. And I want my son to know that he is not responsible for taking care of us monetarily as my husband and I age, too.

If he or she has a talent that doesn’t require college, an orientation toward the trades, or maybe needs some time out in the world to even answer the question, so be it. Better that they find what they’re best at than to be forced into a role they aren’t suited for.

I completely agree with those who say parents can’t plan their kids lives out.

I’m not planning out my kid’s identity. Both my wife and I agree completely that our children WILL have jobs in high school and need to pay for something in college. It may be that we pay tuition and they work for spending money. Or we pay rent while they are in school, they work summers to pay rent — or any number of other permutations. We very solidly believe this.

This education about money will also start earlier. We fully expect to integrate them into the monthly budgeting process when they are old enough, in addition to teaching about spending, saving and giving as they get older.

As for what they do, I don’t care. Both my wife and myself have advanced degrees (and might get more). If my kids want to be a diesel mechanic, scrub floors for a living, get a PhD, run a plumbing business, be a stay at home mom, explore Mars, be a ballet dancer, join the military or go off the grid entirely and live off the land, I’m all for it.

But they will need to support themselves in their endeavors. We’ll support them getting whatever education they see fit, but at some point they need to move on and have their own lives. I just hope that we give them the life skills they need (and allow them to fail a few times while the risk is low) to make it however they see fit.

So based on my experience (which, again, is not necessarily definitive) I’d be less worried that I was doing my kids a disservice by paying for too large a proportion of their college expenses, and more worried about forcing them to get after-school jobs flipping burgers if what they’re really interested in is volunteer work, say, or researching a position paper for the Model UN. Who knows – if you encourage them to figure out what they’re passionate about while they’re still in high school, you might even reduce the chances that they’ll change college majors five times and take six years to graduate.

Many people choose a lifestyle that promotes car wrecks, cancer and heart disease. They overeat, eat junky foods instead of healthy ones, don’t exercise, smoke, drive too fast, don’t wear seatbelts or bike helmets, and so on. By your logic I, a runner of appropriate weight who eats a lot of produce and lean meat, shouldn’t have to subsidize those who don’t.

Getting pregnant is NOT always a choice. Contraception fails. Rape happens. Having the kid… well, that discussion would take us into very touchy territory that is very far from the intended subject. Let’s not go there, eh?

#24 NYC reader wrote:
“There are two choices in health insurance plan coverage: single, and family. A married couple with no children pays exactly the same health insurance premium as the Brady Bunch family with two adults and eight children.”

This is not universally the case in the US. It all depends on what coverage options the employer chooses to offer. Personally I have seen:
- no coverage,
- self only,
- self + spouse,
- self + 1,
- self + kids (ie, not spouse),
- self + family (ie, spouse and kids).
The only option I haven’t seen (either as employee or as employer deciding what plans to offer) is one that specifies the number of kids. And kids but not the employee, now that I think of it.

#24 NYC reader wrote:
Single persons pay a disproportionate amount of their income towards taxes, health insurance, etc. as compared to married couples.

Most married couples pay MORE income tax than they would as unmarried persons. The standard deductions are lower (=aren’t twice that of single persons) and the tax rates are different. Further, tax law treats a married couple’s income as one income. Since you pay more tax on a higher income, a married couple usually pays more. It’s worst if the two earn the same amount. Instead of two incomes taxed at $50,000 each, they’re taxed for a single income of $100,000. The marginal rate is higher and their total tax bill is higher. If the couple earns very different amounts (say $80,000 and $20,000) the effect is less because the high earner is already paying the higher rate.

It all depends on the details of income and this year’s tax rates. For a nice walk through of an example, see http://www.fool.com/taxes/2000/taxes000519.htm.

For that same reason, I will expect my children to work in some form of occupation when they are able to — and I don’t care if that’s something very entrepreneurial (babysitting, lawn care) or just working for someone else (flipping burgers).

These above statements apply if I am making $100K/yr or $1M/yr. Kids who are given everything are being done a disservice by their parents — they are being shielded from the cold, hard world of limited resources and prioritization of needs that comes along from being a responsible adult.

This doesn’t mean that I’m not going to contribute to my children’s education — far from it. But I don’t feel some need to support them through undergrad and grad and PhD and postdoc just because I’ve got the financial resources to — they have to put into some sweat equity, as well.

Also, when do the children get cut off? Are the parents on the hook for undergrad only? What about if the kid changes majors 5 times and makes undergrad the best six years of their life? It seems that there needs to be an incentive for the kids to move on and not going to the parental bank as long as they like just because they can.

It is my opinion that if parents are retiring early (by choice, I mean – I’m not talking about people who retire involuntarily for whatever reason) and their kids are still paying off student loans, then something is wrong. They *are* being a burden on their kids – they’re just doing it indirectly.

Our parents raised us to be responsible young adults and adults, and they did everything they could to make sure we were well prepared for the world in college and beyond. As a result, we were able to get scholarships, loans or jobs needed to help pay for high-quality college education, mostly at state schools.

I didn’t go out-of-state for college like I originally wanted, and my financial situation was half the reason for that. But I don’t feel I lost out at all. So many paths in life were open to me — it’s just that I knew I had to have a plan to pay off any excessive expenses I incurred. And I don’t think that was a problem.

I had six weeks of paid materinity leave, a few days of which I used up early as I needed bed rest just before. Then when that time was up, I went back to working from home 25 hours per week, but took the other 15 as vacation hours.

My boss was happy to have me back working on the key item I was responsible for (I was glad to be back on it too), but it was not a full time job, so this arrangement worked out really well. I was able to be at home for 17 weeks.

The interesting thing was that just at the point where baby started needing more attention during the day through his longer awake periods, it was time to get real help and I went back to work. I never felt ‘rushed’ or cheated out of any of the time. In fact I felt blessed that I was able to work it all out this way.

In case anyone thinks I live a charmed life, it isnt true. Baby #2 came along on a Tuesday and because I wrote the payroll checks for a small company I was back at work on Friday, to make sure we all got paid. It was a very part time basis and because baby slept a lot, he got to come too.

So it all works out and if you can learn to go with the flow in your work schedule, having kids will also go easier for you too. Dont begrudge the moments you dont get; cherish the ones that you do get.

Because you have a choice, you have an obligation to PLAN for that choice. That includes health insurance, child care, education, and everything else this dependent being will require to become a healthy productive adult member of society.

I can’t imagine how some people seem to give less thought and planning to the arrival of a child than to the purchase of a washing machine.

The taxation, insurance, and salary structures in the US are full of subsidies for children and married couples.

Let’s take married couples. Under current US law, if two persons of opposite gender choose to get married, they receive significant financial, legal, and tax benefits not available to unmarried couples of any gender. Having children is not required to receive these benefits. A same-sex couple is not entitled to these financial, legal, and tax benefits, regardless of the individual states’ laws on same-sex marriage, because of the Federal DOMA legislation. Single persons pay a disproportionate amount of their income towards taxes, health insurance, etc. as compared to married couples.

Let’s take families and health insurance. There are two choices in health insurance plan coverage: single, and family. A married couple with no children pays exactly the same health insurance premium as the Brady Bunch family with two adults and eight children. Why should the childless couple subsidize the Brady Bunch’s health insurance?

Some subsidies make sense for the overall good of society. People who choose not to have children pay taxes which go toward the education of other people’s children. Rosa’s suggestion that other people’s children subsidize the social security of those who chose to not have children ignores this fact.

One last thought… the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which is the legislation that required US employers allow up to 12 weeks of leave (paid or unpaid) for pregnancy, health of the employee, or family members, was initiated by a Democratic president and fought tooth and nail by the Republicans. Same story for Social Security. Yet now both are considered sacrosanct benefits by the millions of people and families who benefit, Republican and Democrat alike. Keep that in mind during the current debate over health care in Congress. If health care reform passes, ten years from now we will all be taking it for granted, as we do with Social Security and FMLA.

It’s our kids who will be paying the nonparents social security costs in the future, so maybe they should shoulder some cost now?

I had to quit my job because they wouldn’t give me more than 12 weeks (unpaid) even though, with my problem pregnancy and preemie baby, my 12 weeks were up one week after his due date when I was in no way ready to go back to work. People with surgeries, cancer treatments, and other issue all were given longer leaves while I worked at that company – that attitude that pregnancy is something you choose so there shouldn’t be any support from others is ridiculous. Do you say that to drivers who get in car accidents?

Johanna, I think that helping your kids with college is good, but many of the kids I knew and know now who got the full ride from their parents aren’t really thriving out there. Many didn’t even finish. I plan to save for my kids, but my expectation is that they will provide for some of the cost too to help them actually value their education. I see nothing wrong with raman and free t-shirts…….it worked for me! We’re older parents, so retirement and college may be simultaneous.

Having children is a choice. Why should your choice be subsidized by people who make different choices? Why is your job security more important than that temporary employee’s?

Another aspect to consider: When I lived in England, I saw a segment once on the news about employers who openly refuse to hire any women of childbearing age. (This is, apparently, legal for businesses smaller than a certain size. Similar discrimination probably happens in larger businesses too – they’re just not allowed to talk about it.) The reason is that employers can’t afford to invest the resources necessary to train someone to do the job, only to have to hire a replacement in a few years when the employee goes on maternity leave. How many women who don’t plan on having children have lost out on job opportunities because of policies like that?

This is a rotten deal.
As said above, in the UK you don’t get 2 years fully paid, only 2 years guaranteed return to your job, but in some places your job is only guaranteed for 1 year. But we get more than in the US!
Germany and Sweden have great provisions, in Germany the mother and father get one year to split between them and the father gets another 2 months of his own (probably not all fully paid though).
Sometimes I think the US has a lot more in common with 2nd or 3rd world countries. The COUNTRY is rich but the people in it sure aren’t.

I know I’ve said this before too: If you’re not interested in giving your kids the best shot in life that you can afford to give them (and I know that “best shot in life” doesn’t mean “college” for every child, but for yours it very well might, and you probably won’t know for sure until the child is almost college age anyway), then maybe you should reconsider whether you really ought to be having children.

A child changes everything, especially a baby. They can do nothing on their own, you have to do it all. That’s a recipe for stress, especially if both parents work.

You have to completely change your schedule, which is now dominated by junior. It’s almost paradoxical, but not only do you need to slow down and realize that you may not accomplish all that you plan on a short term basis, but having some sort of loose plan becomes more important than ever because time and energy are limited.

You really have to be more oganized than at any time before having kids. You need a plan that you stick with, but one that makes generous allowances for dealing with crisis and also for kick back time to recharge.

When my wife and I went thru La Maz classes (I’m sure I spelled that wrong) the RN who taught it referred to the first two months after child birth as “baby bootcamp”–that period of time when you’re getting adjusted to the baby and attempting to transition the baby into some sort of routine.

For adoption, you nominate one parent as the primary carer and they get the same deal as maternity leave, the other parent gets the same deal as paternity leave.

Many employers offer better benefits – I’ve worked for a company that offered women a back to work bonus of around £1500 if they returned within the 12 months and stuck it out for a year.