Babies are money-eating monsters.
The world recently crossed a demographic threshold: as of mid 2008 more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities. Despite the Malthusian predictions of the 70s, the population of industrialized nations is decreasing — and the cities are the cause. Cities act as population sinkholes for one simple reason: babies are expensive.
In the city potential parents have a choice to make: would you rather have a child or a million dollars— And the time to enjoy it? While babies are an asset in rural areas, they are an enormous liability in the cities.
When my wife and I started to plan our long-term financial goals, we calculated the earliest possible retirement age if we really focused and lived like spartans. Crunching the numbers we came up with a low boundary of 45 years old. Pretty good, we thought.
My wife, beautiful intelligent woman that she is, looked at the amount necessary to save annually and said to me: “This spreadsheet is the best reason I’ve ever seen not to have a baby.”
The remark about babies costing a million dollars isn’t far off. According to a study done in the 1990s by the US government raising a child from 0 to 18 costs between $170,000 and $250,000. Just one! That’s excluding sending the precious darling to college. And that’s data from nearly two decades ago.
While there may be good reasons to have a baby, your finances are not one of them. So, before you and the little lady decide she no longer needs to take that little pill every night, ask yourself: a child or a million dollars?
Filed in money-eating monsters, retirement, savings One Response so far
Brian on 15 Jan 2010 at 3:33 pm #
Was this written by somebody that doesn’t have kids? Money isn’t everything, in reality money is nothing.