Hacker News Reader

Comment by bengale | Hacker News Reader

Who could possible afford 3 children these days?

I have 3 kids. I earn a decent wage but nothing excessive and my wife doesn't work (she looks after the kids). We live in a city, don't own a car and walk or bike most places.

They don't cost that much more if you're willing to be sensible (each kid doesn't need a TV and a games console or even their own bedroom). We're very moderate on how we spend our money - we don't blow thousands at Christmas just to give kids tat they won't play with, we keep clothes and re-use them as the younger kids grow up. We eat at home as a family, don't take extravagant holidays etc etc.

And what part of your budget do the kids take?

Are you asking a person to justify the lives of three other people using only a financial metric?

The value of a person is never purely the financial cost.

I am just curious. Why would anyone ever need to justify himself in the anonymous comment thread?

It's most expensive to have 1 child - then each child after the first is cheaper to raise, especially if they are of similar age. Once you get to 3+ kids it almost makes no difference. But, it depends very heavily on your lifestyle. If you think that every child needs their own bedroom, they all have to go to private schools, they all have to go to Disneyland every year, if you have to pay for healthcare and/or kindergarten, then yeah, the costs are exponential. But if you live in any modern country with good social care(this does not include US) and you think kids can survive without luxuries, then yeah, it's actually completely doable.

In France a large part of childcare is subsidized : kindergarden (the less you earn the less you pay, but there is not enough spots), schools since 3 (free for everybody), good public health centers if you want (PMI). Also prenatal care is free (you don't pay thousands of euros to have a baby.) That result in good numbers for a western country: in comparison with Germany for example, women tend to have more children (2.3) and have them younger with less impact on their career and revenue.

>in comparison with Germany for example, women tend to have more children (2.3) and have them younger with less impact on their career and revenue.

Indeed. Interestingly the differences between western and eastern states of Germany are huge. Childcare and prenatal care are in general much better in the region of former East Germany. Currently we are short on nearly 300,000 places for children in childcare (Kindertagesstätten/Kitas) but only 30,000 of them are in eastern states. The mother's mean age at first birth in those states is younger (27 years vs. 30 years in West Germany). Now the problem is that unemployment rates are higher in eastern Germany.

Some numbers:

>MOTHER'S MEAN AGE AT FIRST BIRTH >France 28.1 years (2010 est.) >Germany 29.2 years (2012 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

>TOTAL FERTILITY RATE >France 2.07 children born/woman (2016 est.) >Germany 1.44 children born/woman (2016 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

Most people.

I have 7 kids, my wife stays at home and homeschools them. We live frugally. Outside of enormous COL areas like San Fran, NYC, LA, etc. it can absolutely be done.

The first couple kids are the most expensive, by the way. And thrift stores are my best friends.

Apparently only the poorest people in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

Very broadly speaking (UK, Sweden at least since I live(d) there and know the rules); more kids = more income if you're living on income support.

So you have linearly increasing support depending on the number of people who depend on you.

There is no such linearity in work- you get paid and you pay whatever you need to pay, the company and the state do not make things easier.

I'm not saying that if you have kids on welfare you're better off- I'm saying that it's an easier cross to bear when you may not be as significantly worse off as you would be if you had a flat income.

I've offended someone with a botnet. Apologies.

If it makes you feel any better I was raised on welfare in the UK and am not insinuating anything negative. This is the reality of living on income support- if it is _not_ then please provide evidence instead of hitting the disagree button needlessly.

Only the very rich or very poor have lots of children now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com