I see a paradox here: they're practical when it comes to the cost of raising a child…but impractical when it comes to having a home, IMO. I get foregoing a child or children by choice, because one doesn't want children or more children, and even in order to be able to afford a good house in a nice area. But for a "fully-loaded dream house"??? That, to me, is just irrational thinking mixed with a heavy dose of narcissism, as well as cluelessness as to how Americans especially have got to stop being such energy and space hogs.

Oh, their "quiet sacrifice." Aren't they just the very PICTURE of sacrificial living? Gah.

I too find the tone very strange and off-putting, and I'm not inclined to care one whit about their luxury dream home or the yearnings of her uterus. Self-absorbed and completely narcissistic, but we probably wouldn't be talking about it if it were written in a more likeable style.

(This is just a pet peeve of mine, but I do wish people would stop saying "gifted" when what they mean is "given.")

ETA: In thinking more about this, it occurs to me how seldom THINGS truly satisfy us. The luxury home is surely nice and is probably a lovely, enjoyable thing to have, but those kinds of things can sometimes be a double-edged sword. Relationship is what truly brings soul satisfaction, but it almost seems to me as though the author isn't longing for a third child for relational purposes, but is thinking along the lines of the acquisition of "another little person." I may be totally off base, but I suppose it could also be a possibility. She seems to be searching for something that SHE isn't even sure of. It's rather sad.

Babies outgrow all that hand me down paraphernalia fast.

This is the info for Americans who plan to use public schools.

"The average cost of raising a child born in 2013 up until age 18 for a middle-income family in the U.S. is approximately $245,340 (or $304,480, adjusted for projected inflation), according to the latest annual "Cost of Raising A Child" report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The estimate is 1.8 percent higher than the previous year."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/18/cost-of-raising-a-child_n_5688179.html

Honestly the baby gear and clothes are a very small portion of the cost of raising a child. I bought much of that stuff used and resold it when we were done with it, so that cost was minimal anyway.

But as kids get older used clothing or hand me downs become less feasible--my two are opposite genders. But it wouldn't really matter because they are also opposite shapes and my oldest wears a lot of his clothes out because he plays hard (his record is one week for holes in the jeans). And the grocery bill is a huge chunk of the cost of raising a child. And my oldest plays baseball but my youngest so far has had different interests. That's sports gear and lessons and driving to and from fields. And sometimes hiring babysitters to make logistics work out.

And ultimately for us, a third would be a third college education to pay for.

I think it would be very foolish and short-sighted to have a third child thinking that it wouldn't cost that much more just because you already have baby gear and clothes.

I think the tone probably feels off because we are so used to hearing nothing but emotion when it comes to having children. This woman's tone is pragmatic. And yes, it does cost more money to have another child, especially for someone who actually plans for things like healthcare and education. Having the lifestyle you want (and can afford), for yourself and your EXISTING children is not materialistic.

"The average cost of raising a child born in 2013 up until age 18 for a middle-income family in the U.S. is approximately $245,340 (or$304,480, adjusted for projected inflation), according to the latest annual "Cost of Raising A Child" report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture."

Sorry Maddielee, I posted before I read that you had posted the same data.

The SAT title for this article is "I want another baby and DH does not".

Where there is a will, there's a way.

I think it's a very bad sign for their marriage that she wants a baby so badly and he flat out says no.

All that said, people should always consider the financial impact of their decisions. I see people make lifestyle decisions they can't afford all the time.

I agree there is something very off in the article. I think what irks me is tone that this is some special unique situation which has caused her suffering.

First, I think she needs a "gratitude adjustment"...how about being thankful that she has 2 happy, healthy children, let alone a grand place for them to live. Many couples don't even get that much.

Second, if you've made choices so you can live within your means, that's not noteworthy...that's called being responsible. I can remember my Mom saying to me that she wanted to have more than 2 children, but they decided they'd rather live comfortably with 2 than struggle with more, so that's what they did. No "sacrifice" or "aching uteri" involved. Rather a simple realization that if you want to live within your means, it means (unless you're in the billionaire class) you can't have it all. Plan your finances to fit your current and future needs, make choices based on your priorities and values, pay for what you can afford and don't buy what you can't. Don't run up excess debt and then expect someone or some agency to bail you out. That's not extraordinary...that's not some self-immolating sacrifice...that's how it's done...or at least how it ought to be.

I have an aching foot as I want one of the new Teslas...ain't happening. Oh the sacrifices I have to make!

She needs a "gratitude adjustment".

Very well said, and I think that sums up the article perfectly.

I agree that the tone is off. And I think it is odd and unfortunate to publish that sort of thing when your existing children will doubtless end up reading it at some point.

I think conflict over the number of children to have is pretty common. When we got married dh said he wanted three or four children. I said I wanted one or two. We figured life would work out the difference and it has. Dh and I have always both agreed that the person who doesn't want another child "wins." Because it would be dreadful and unfair to the child to have a child that one parent resents. I know of at least one family where the third child was an "accident" and the father openly says the wife did it on purpose and that that child is "hers." I think he thinks this is funny (he has a very abrasive sense of humor), but it doesn't come across as a joke to me.

I will concede that she does sound like she wants the reader to feel sorry for her and congratulate her at the same time.

She clearly feels that she is superior to others that, in her mind, have made poor life choices.

I find those cost estimates to be kind of ridiculous, although I admit I haven't looked into them that carefully to see where they are arriving at the data. It seems like a big portion goes to "housing" costs, but is it really 30 percent more expensive to house a child than to house a couple? You have to have a house or apartment anyway... I can't believe that it really costs that much to give a kid the basics of what the child actually needs. I see lots of families w/o very much money who I really doubt are spending that much and who are doing a great job raising kids.

Of course, we've decided kids "need" so much stuff now-a-days, so maybe it does cost that much to provide the "basics"

This line is kind of annoying too: "My husband and I purchased our dream home entirely on our own."

Congrats. The majority of the population probably purchases their own housing, so I'm not sure that makes you a special snowflake.

The whole thing reads like someone who got too many "participation" trophies and who is not satisfied with the level of accolades she is getting for her "life beautifully lived."

beaglesdoitbetter, according to the articles I had read childcare is a big chunk of the cost (not applicable to the author of that piece) and groceries are another big chunk. Both of those are not exactly unnecessary stuff IMO. Have you seen the cost of braces?

We have definitely spent unnecessary money on our kids. Ds loves baseball. He has equipment he doesn't "need" and we pay for him to use the batting cages and go to baseball camp. Dd is only five but she pretty much always has one activity we are paying for (swim lessons this summer) and we pay to send her to preschool. All luxuries. But obviously we think it is rational to provide these opportunities and we took that kind of expenditure into account when deciding how many kids to have. I think (I hope?) the difference is that I don't expect anyone to congratulate me or to pity me for making these choices.

Here's a chart with the costs broken down (Canadian). This is for a healthy child, add something like speech therapy and the costs are higher.

crl, I get it and I'm not saying I think parents shouldn't provide any luxuries for their kids... But, I think SOME parents have taken things a bit overboard with what we think of as "necessary" to raise a child.

For this family in the article, a 3rd kid would not add childcare or housing costs (presuming their "dream home" could accommodate one more). But I would bet this particular mother has a lot of "wants" that she considers needs. You don't have to have a "dream home" for your kids to have a playroom and a safe back yard for example.

Maybe if she really wanted a kid that badly, she could give up her annual time share vacation (woe is me) and go camping once in a while...

Maddielee, thank you for that breakdown. It's interesting! The health care column seems really low to me, I think because Canadians have socialized healthcare? Braces alone are more than that and are most often out of pocket. I guess you could argue braces aren't necessary. . . .

Here is a link with a lot of visual breakdowns and some historic comparison.

Beagles, or give up some of the "fully loaded" loads of the dream home. For example, can she really not cook as well on a typical stove versus a $10K gourmet commercial range?

It sounds like she is trying to justify their lifestyle and decision-making to someone whether it is herself, her husband or someone else.
.
There are a lot of couples out there who will never own their dream home because they're spending tens of thousands of dollars on their dream of having just one child.

Four of my nieces (28-32) are married with one or two children. Two have two children, one has her second on the way, one has a newborn and will have another, they all own their own nothing-fancy homes (well they and the bank) from which they won't be moving and all are working moms in their chosen careers. None of them will be having a third child - they all made the decision to have children early in their marriages and now want to get on with raising their families and being a family - whatever that may entail.

beagles - love the comment of *too many "participation" trophies*.

edit to added - the daycare costs are really low compared to what my nieces pay here in B.C.

Oh woe is me! She made choices not sacrifices. If she truly wants to feel "her uterus literally ache" try not being able to conceive the first let alone a third child. She chose to stay in a house that is too big and expensive and not return to work or sell a vacation time share. She did not give up an organ to not have a child! what big sacrifices. Her issues are so beyond first world problems I cannot help but think she should never have been able to have any children! I have to assume she is raising her two to be as selfishly righteous and entitled as she.

I agree the perspective of the article comes off a bit in offputting, self absorbed manner, I'm not going to judge anyone's personal decisions regarding something as personal as how many children. Many people do limit the number of children for financial reasons, in particular if they feel a responsibility to pay for a child's education through college (which could easily top 200 to 400K by the time a child born today is 18). What they do with the excess money (provide for a better retirement, provide more for the rest of the family, spend it on housing upgrades, etc) is up to their own personal choices.

roarah, great point. So many now seem to think that not getting everything you want means "sacrifice" as opposed to making choices!

that yuppy narcissism. Yuck.

It reads like someone came up with storyline that would get the story published.

OR, the author probably have two kids, is happy with two, AND maybe they have greater disposable income compared to others in their family / social circle (and need to stop the 'oh, you're so lucky comments from the jealous types), and / or have gotten pressure to have another child. SO, this creative story is their personal reply and is so strange, that it stops the questions / conversation.

I know first hand that the decision to have children/more children is a delicate one. And I agree with so much that has been said here. Selfishness, self-absorption, pride, and lack of thankfulness, do clearly shine in that article.

We have 4 small children. We found adding the 3rd and then the 4th was not a big jump in money. Yes, they do eat more, but we also finish everything I cook for dinner, instead of leftovers just sitting in the fridge for days and then being tossed out. The food I buy gets eaten - which means my food budget hasn't changed all that much (the rising grocery prices have changed my budget, but it's not due to my children).

The biggest jump we found was in time. We have 4 little faces here that love to be with us, and the greater challenge is to put down the ipad, make my mind stop thinking about other "things", turn off my phone - and engage with the children. Yes, we are tired at the end of the day. Yes, I wish my house was more quiet. Yes, there is always a mess to clean. But we know that these little people will only be in our home for a "short" portion of the span of our life.

I think there was a study awhile back where they asked little kids what their favorite thing or favorite part of the day was - and they said things like "when mommy tucks me in at night"or "when daddy plays ball with me". The highest percentage was of things they did with their parents.

Things will never satisfy.

Having children is a great sacrifice. But it's a sacrifice of ourselves - our bodies, our own wants/needs, and so much more. Yes, it's our money too - but it's so much more. Just like marriage, you are sharing your life with someone, not seeing if the cost/benefit analysis is in your favor.

This lady wants me to feel sorry for her "sacrifice". I just can't.

Why is she selfish?

If her "uterus literally aches" she might want to see a doctor about that.

I don't see the decision to have only two children as selfish. Even if it is to have a nicer house. Because I don't see who she is hurting. I do think the article itself is likely selfish in that she is airing the family's private business for some sort of gain (fame? Sympathy? Payment?). And I think that article might be kind of hurtful to her existing children someday.

As far as the costs of having kids, if you look at the charts I linked, the costs amp up as kids age. And that will be even more dramatically true if you have a stay at home parent because the cost of childcare isn't there at the start but the other costs will still kick in as the kids get older. (My twelve year old probably eats twice as much as he did when he was ten, for example.). And of course if you want to pay for college, that cost multiples with each child. I understand not everyone pays for college, but dh and I consider that our second highest financial priority (adequate savings for our retirement so that we are not a burden on our children is our first).

I am torn on this. I don't see any problem with people looking at their financial situation and seeing that another child (or new car or going back to school, etc.) is a huge expense, and that it isn't in the works for them. People make these decisions every day but now they blog about it.

My colleague just had baby #3 and now has 3 under 4. They did have to buy a new car (used car) because she now has to accommodate three car seats, so that was a real major expense. This is also a boy after two girls, so she does need boy clothing, but she shops garage sales. Child care will be a real expense for baby #3. The oldest girl will go to preschool in the fall. Luckily, all kids are healthy.

I felt the piece had an oddly self-conscious tone -- or to put it bluntly fake emotion. Usually that comes from too many editors at a magazine trying to "fix" something that scares them a bit. OTOH, it's hardly rare for people to feel they can only "afford" (economically or emotionally) two children. For me, it smacks of trying to put yourself out there as courageous through some special, self-congratulatory behavior though it doesn't read as very bright or very real.

A bit like the "anthropologist" who wormed her way into the lives of a certain group of women in NYC and then turned on them, wrote a book, and tried to convince herself she didn't aspire to be one of them.

It is not her choice to have only two children that is selfish it is her lack of understanding that she has in in no way made sacrifices. She wants something, in her case a third child, but is not willing to sacrifice her time, comfort or anything else to have what she wants and than preceded to brag about how wonderful she is for sacrificing her want of another child for want of losing anything she already has. I have a small family but I do not glorify why!

From her tone I feel she wants another baby because when pregnant and as a mom to young children she gets alot of attention. Her tone and attitude leads me to believe it is attention she aches for not another child.

Ha! If any parent in any generation considered the cost of raising a child beforehand most of us wouldn't be here! Not to mention the "oops" babies. And usually it all works out.

We made the decision to stop at 2 children because we felt 3 would stretch everything we hoped to be able to do for them beyond our means and we were quite stretched at times already. It was a conscious decision and from time to time I would wistfully think about having a 3rd - hopefully a girl to go with our 2 boys. We decided to hold at 2. No drama, no if only, a mutual decision. Life was not an endless parade of extravagances because of that decision and we were still stretched from time to time but no one ever missed a meal, either and I think that's largely because we planned, made choices and some' sacrifices' although I hesitate to use that word given the way so many in our world live. Do we deserve a medal for that? Hardly. And neither does this woman even though she's about to break her own arm from patting herself on the back. Ick.

It kind of reads like a humblebrag/ self-entitled whining to me, I think that is why it is so offputting.

Like "Oh, my life is so terrible, I wanted the big house AND the three kids but I only got the two kids because I am just so financially responsible unlike all of my peers who do not understand my suffering because they are just stupid and not responsible like me. My life is SO PERFECT (we even have a riding mower- fully paid off!) but I want you to both admire me and feel sorry for me because it is not so extra perfect."

Wake up lady. There are people out there who would like a third kid but can't have one because they cannot afford FOOD for the two they have, and you are whining you'd have to give up your time share.

Right on, beagles.

This is an article in Elle Decore, a home magazine. If it wasn't about the house, it would be irrelevant content.

That being said, people reserve the right to choose how to spend their money. I have a relative that had a child who still takes a backseat to their "needs". Now that is really wrong.

Her tone was off, but consider the source.

That's a troll post if I ever read one. Nobody is that obnoxious----and if someone were, she'd be smarter than to broadcast it. I think it is the distillation of what is perceived to be wrong with entitled thirty something's.

About the choice of kids or a better house? That is anyone's to make, but privately, please!

As to the cost of raising children......I still have trouble believing how much our three have cost, lol.

Heck ... I'm sometimes surprised how much my CATS cost. ;-)

I had my boys 3 years apart. Working for the same company. The Health insurance policy changed (and I always pay for the more expensive/more coverage one) First child $500 to be born. 3 years later - Second child $4500.

It is a kooky article.

Annie, my relative I mentioned in my post drives a top of the line red Tesla. His DW drives a Mercedes.

Allison, I have no children AND no Tesla! :O

Ah Annie, but if you did have one, you would probably suffer from "range anxiety" and come whining to us about not having enough watts to reach your destination, when your tesla battery gets too cold in the New England winters! Aren't you happy you don't have one now? ;-)

:)

My husband wants a Tesla. I told him he has to keep his Leaf clean for a year, first!

Chispa, I heard via his dad that he has to plan trips around town. Sometimes he can't take his car. One of our neighbors recently purchased one recently, also red.

A friend here has a Tesla. They also have to plan their trips because of the special charging required. Kswl, being near Atlanta, you would probably be ok but the cruising range isn't that far.

Tesla would never make it where I live -- unless you can charge it on propane. I'll stay retarded with my Su.

Speaking of babies, yesterday took DH for a haircut and waited. A young woman came in with a 3 week old in the carrier. The baby was gorgeous, a little girl, so alert and sweet. I could see how the urge would be there always.

The new ones are supposed to have a range of 240 miles which is pretty reasonable. Not good for a trip across country, but not bad for around town.

Sorry late to this - I see it's already veered away from the original topic.

But dang! that's a heavy load of judgement above.

I read it as a bit sad, wistful.

& that 'luxury home' isn't just for her & her husband - it's for their kids as well. File it under 'first world problems...

What is the purpose of the article? Caution? Advice? Promotion?