my posts on this thread have been consistent... its up to other people if they want to have kids... its certainly not up to the OP to dissuade people from not having them... and my point is that they used the phrase ''questionable reasons' for having kids and i countered that there are 'questionable reasons' for NOT having kids... but it would never mean i'd try and dissuade someone from doing so just because i have them?
actually i have no idea why you were even debating that with me
so are mine. also respecting choice for all. and i think anyone can say what they like, whether anyone takes someone else's opinion/persuasion to heart is an entirely different matter ...and most definitely not on my agenda.
i was not 'debating' anything with you, i was merely asking you a question. as in, no matter what reasonable or lame-ass reason...or 'questionable reason' anyone may find for not wanting children that simply if that's how someone thinks/feels...dontcha think it's a good idea that those with such beliefs/reasons/whatever shouldn't reproduce? just as those who are so inclined to reproduce? i think more than anything, as i've said a few times...it's good to CHOOSE, either....and not leave it up to fate or lack of BC to make the decision for ya is all.
btw - for those mentioning for many there is 'no choice'...yes, yes there is. even if one cannot have a biological child, they can still adopt! it's still 'being a parent'...and raising a child no matter what!
anyhoo, i had postd my personal choice/opinion on the matter and was enjoying the few posts of other people's 'whys' for having, or not having, children. i was not at any time trying to get into a 'debate'.....people's life choices are always of interest to me.
btw - for those mentioning for many there is 'no choice'...yes, yes there is. even if one cannot have a biological child, they can still adopt! it's still 'being a parent'...and raising a child no matter what!
this was my first thought, however, when I gave it more thought, adoption can be prohibitably expensive and difficult to do. people on waiting lists to adopt from within the US may never have their name come up, and even when it does, legal issues can arise. to adopt from abroad is a means around these issues, however, it can be CRAZY expensive. I heard one adoptive parent cite a number like $45,000 (don't quote me on that and I'm sure it's highly variable) plus the trip to china/russia/guatemala,etc. Furthermore, singles and gays may be prevented from adopting in a number of countries.
this was my first thought, however, when I gave it more thought, adoption can be prohibitably expensive and difficult to do. people on waiting lists to adopt from within the US may never have their name come up, and even when it does, legal issues can arise. to adopt from abroad is a means around these issues, however, it can be CRAZY expensive. I heard one adoptive parent cite a number like $45,000 (don't quote me on that and I'm sure it's highly variable) plus the trip to china/russia/guatemala,etc. Furthermore, singles and gays may be prevented from adopting in a number of countries.
adoption can be prohibitably expensive and difficult to do. people on waiting lists to adopt from within the US may never have their name come up, and even when it does, legal issues can arise. to adopt from abroad is a means around these issues, however, it can be CRAZY expensive. I heard one adoptive parent cite a number like $45,000 (don't quote me on that and I'm sure it's highly variable) plus the trip to china/russia/guatemala,etc. Furthermore, singles and gays may be prevented from adopting in a number of countries.
exactly.
i was just adding that the ability to procreate is a pretty cool thing and it's something not everyone gets to experience...i wasn't talking about 'being a parent'.
That's all besides the point. I said it originally and I just meant, the poster said she couldn't so I was hoping people would be a little considerate instead of just jumping on her back. (Smilie because I don't feel like arguing. )
so are mine. also respecting choice for all. and i think anyone can say what they like, whether anyone takes someone else's opinion/persuasion to heart is an entirely different matter ...and most definitely not on my agenda.
i was not 'debating' anything with you, i was merely asking you a question. as in, no matter what reasonable or lame-ass reason...or 'questionable reason' anyone may find for not wanting children that simply if that's how someone thinks/feels...dontcha think it's a good idea that those with such beliefs/reasons/whatever shouldn't reproduce? just as those who are so inclined to reproduce? i think more than anything, as i've said a few times...it's good to CHOOSE, either....and not leave it up to fate or lack of BC to make the decision for ya is all.
btw - for those mentioning for many there is 'no choice'...yes, yes there is. even if one cannot have a biological child, they can still adopt! it's still 'being a parent'...and raising a child no matter what!
anyhoo, i had postd my personal choice/opinion on the matter and was enjoying the few posts of other people's 'whys' for having, or not having, children. i was not at any time trying to get into a 'debate'.....people's life choices are always of interest to me.
i agree with everything you said... life's too short and i'm in a great mood.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
So people have or don’t have kids for many different reasons. I know a lot of people on here have kids who are the WORLD to them. That’s a done deal, nothing I can do about it except wish you happiness, fulfillment and the strength to get through the trying times.
But, why did you have kids? Did much thought go into to it? My mom used to pressure me into having kids, saying “Everything will work itself out. You have to have kids.” That never really sat right with me.
I’ve chosen not to have children for several different reasons.
-Money. Kids cost a lot.
-If dogs are work, I don’t even want to think about the effort a child requires.
-I like a lot of time to myself. Kids come with friends and their parents, sleepovers, parent-teacher conferences and just a lot of activity that would take away from my alone time.
-My family genes are fucked up, as are my husband’s. We don’t need that bullshit continued.
-Kids are loud! I like them fine in their place, like when they’re playing at the zoo – they’re delightful. But, as soon as some brat comes screaming into my place of work I think, “Holy shit! I think my fallopian tubes just tied themselves!” :eek:
There’s a website I love that examines people’s reasons for breeding and gives answers to each of those reasons. Some good food for thought.
Need a teaser to click?
Here’s one of my faves. Reason given: Want to see a little me Real Reason Self-absorption. Lack of ego gratification. Suggested Alternatives Order custom-made, life-like doll. Create a gratifying life of your own
For those who have decided NOT to have children, please share your reasons. For those who do have children, I'm really not looking for you defend yourself. But, you might take some time to think about the reasons you chose to breed.
Thanks!
Here's why I'm not having children (not to offend those that do have children):
The Cost of Kids November 12, 2007, 12:10AM EST text size: TT
Is Raising Kids a Fool's Game?
Parenting is fulfilling, but the financial burden can be overwhelming—and then there's the crimp it puts in your leisure time
by Karyn McCormack
Like many parents, I'm suffering from sticker shock. It's not just the $375 monthly tuition for preschool. (And that's for just three hours, two days a week; five full days would cost me $1,000.) Little things add up, like the school's solicitation to donate to their school in Africa and monthly dues for Scholastic Book Club (how could you say no?). The school even put a price tag on potty training: If my daughter, who will turn 3 in December, was not able to use the toilet by herself by the end of September, I'd be charged $100 a month until she achieved this milestone. (She did it, whew!)
I know preschool is paying off when I hear her spell her name and see her progress in other skills (she has become quite the negotiator). And you can't put a price tag on the appreciation for life that I've gained from her. In the end, all of the sweat and tears (and dwindling cash flow) must be worth it, right?
In her 1994 book Pricing the Priceless Child (Princeton University Press), Princeton University sociology professor Viviana Zelizer describes how in the 19th century, children were "economic assets" that contributed to farm work and other important tasks. Then, during the early 20th century, the U.S. established laws removing many children from hard labor, sparking the "rise of the economically useless and emotionally priceless child," Zelizer says.
"As children have become less of an economic issue and people have fewer children and wait longer to have them, children have become precious, not in a economic sense but in an emotional sense," says Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families & Work Institute, a nonprofit research organization in New York and author of Ask the Children (William Morrow, 1999). "Having children is a meaningful thing to do in life—it's not just passing on a legacy."
A Future Investment?
Parents are invested in children emotionally by being more involved in their lives, Galinsky says. There's also hope that children will return the care when their parents are older and need assistance. "There's much more interdependence now," she says. "You're investing in your own future relationship."
All of that sounds nice, but what's it going to cost me? The Agriculture Dept.'s latest survey found that households in the top-third income bracket (with average pretax income of $118,200) will spend $289,380 by their child's 18th birthday—or about $17,000 a year (in 2006 dollars).
Parents' largest expense is housing, which makes up roughly a third of expenditures, given that it costs more for a larger home in a town with good schools. In terms of growth, the outlays for child care and education have climbed from just 1% of overall expenses in 1960 (when the USDA started tracking these costs) to 10% in 2006. In 1960 education costs averaged around $362 per year (out of total expenses of $25,229 for middle income families). Health care is also sucking up more of parents' hard-earned cash given that premiums and co-payments have been rising, says USDA economist Mark Fino.
Indeed, the USDA survey is probably understating the cost of raising kids. Considering extras like sports equipment, summer camps, private school, Disney vacations, and a full-time nanny, raising a child through age 17 could cost $1 million or more. Some parents throw extravagant birthday parties and won't hesitate to buy their kids the latest video games and cell phones and splurge on Spanish and painting lessons.
The College Killer
Perhaps these big spenders aren't worried about the soaring cost of college—usually the biggest expense of all and one that's left out of the USDA's price tag (along with all other expenses after age 17). According to reports from the College Board, a private four-year college runs an average of $23,712 per year (up 6.3% from the 2006/07 school year), while a public four-year college costs $6,185 (up 6.6% from last year). The "good news," says the College Board, "is more than $130 billion in financial aid is available."
Then, after college, many parents are welcoming their children back home until they find a job. In fact, 25% of employed parents have kids aged 18 to 29 living in their home at least half the time. Parents contribute $2,200 annually (on average, in 2001 dollars) to children aged 18 to 34, according to a 2003 University of Pennsylvania study. This transition to adulthood "is a very risky period," says Arlene Skolnick, a visiting scholar at New York University and research scholar at Counsel on Contemporary Families.
"It's a period when people can fall into the cracks," Skolnick says, especially if they don't acquire high-level skills to earn at least a middle-class salary to survive on their own. (Whereas after World War II, high school graduates could usually find a decent job and achieve a middle-class life.) Children that earn a bachelor's degree stand to earn over 60% more than those with only a high school diploma, the College Board says. Over a lifetime, the gap in earning potential between a high school diploma and a B.A. is more than $800,000, it says.
Along with college, the USDA report doesn't count "indirect" costs such as leaving the workforce to care for a child. "Studies have estimated that indirect costs, such as foregone earnings, oftentimes exceed direct costs, especially if one parent has to drop out of the workforce," says Fino at the USDA. "Many parents forgo promotions to spend more time with their children."
On top of all that, growth in wages for U.S. workers has been minuscule or stagnant, while inflation has crept higher. Average hourly earnings rose just 0.7% last year after declining in 2005 and 2004, versus the peak annual growth rate of 4.1% for 1972, according to the Labor Dept. Meanwhile, prices for food, energy, and other goods keep rising, as measured by the 3.2% rise in the consumer price index last year.
A Lifestyle Choice
It's costs such as these that make 28-year-old Bahar Zaker in Syracuse, N.Y., want to put off having kids, maybe forever. "We can't imagine how we would manage the costs of kids," says Zaker, who has been married for three years to a philosophy professor and is finishing her thesis on French surrealist art at the University of California. One big hurdle for her is the price of education, and she questions whether it pays off. "The costs of education are going up, and you're not always sure the value of the education is going up with them," she says. But she also admits that not having kids is a lifestyle choice. "We both like to travel," she says.
As more young folks like Zaker delay or don't have children, birth rates in Japan, Russia, South Korea, all of Europe, and parts of Asia have fallen below the 2.1 children per woman needed for population growth. Many industrialized countries such as France have introduced or increased economic incentives such as tax breaks, longer maternity leaves, and cash bonuses to get women to have children.
These programs have had mixed results. One reason they may not work comes from Phillip Longman in his book The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It (Perseus Books Group, 2004). Now that "children no longer provide any economic benefit to their parents, but are rather costly impediments to material success, people well adapted to this new environment will tend not to reproduce," Longman writes. "And many others who are not so successful will imitate them, and for good reason." Families might choose to have only one child so they can afford to splurge on one while maintaining their own comforts of living (um, that would be me).
The U.S., on the other hand, still has a birth rate of 2 and a growing population, thanks to immigrants, who on average have higher birth rates (particularly among Hispanics). Still, a great portion of the U.S. population is aging. A low birth rate along with an aging population means there are fewer people of working age and more retirees, making the financing of Social Security and Medicare tougher because these funds for the elderly are raised through taxes on the working population, as in most nations, says Gary Becker, professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
The problem, experts say, is that U.S. lawmakers and corporations aren't addressing many of the challenges facing families. Longman points to the continuing culture wars between work and family: "Everyone who wants to may join the paid labor force, but almost no one gets a family wage or enough help from government to defray the costs of raising children." He figures the critical moment will emerge during the next decade, "as millions of Baby Boomers start crashing past the boundaries of old age, and as today's teenagers find themselves saddled with massive student loans, rising taxes, and growing frustration over the difficulty of forming or affording a family."
The hope is that some savior will invent policies to ease parents' financial pain. "We need somebody somewhere to think of a new vision of what families can be," Skolnick says."People want to get past the family value wars."
Until then, as Longman puts it bluntly: "Child rearing is fast becoming a sucker's game. Though the psychic rewards remain, the economic returns to individual parents have largely disappeared, while the cost of parenthood is soaring."
Click here to join the debate on whether kids are worth the cost.
McCormack is senior producer for BusinessWeek.com's Investing channel
Here's why I'm not having children (not to offend those that do have children):
The Cost of Kids November 12, 2007, 12:10AM EST text size: TT
Is Raising Kids a Fool's Game?
Parenting is fulfilling, but the financial burden can be overwhelming—and then there's the crimp it puts in your leisure time
by Karyn McCormack
Like many parents, I'm suffering from sticker shock. It's not just the $375 monthly tuition for preschool. (And that's for just three hours, two days a week; five full days would cost me $1,000.) Little things add up, like the school's solicitation to donate to their school in Africa and monthly dues for Scholastic Book Club (how could you say no?). The school even put a price tag on potty training: If my daughter, who will turn 3 in December, was not able to use the toilet by herself by the end of September, I'd be charged $100 a month until she achieved this milestone. (She did it, whew!)
I know preschool is paying off when I hear her spell her name and see her progress in other skills (she has become quite the negotiator). And you can't put a price tag on the appreciation for life that I've gained from her. In the end, all of the sweat and tears (and dwindling cash flow) must be worth it, right?
In her 1994 book Pricing the Priceless Child (Princeton University Press), Princeton University sociology professor Viviana Zelizer describes how in the 19th century, children were "economic assets" that contributed to farm work and other important tasks. Then, during the early 20th century, the U.S. established laws removing many children from hard labor, sparking the "rise of the economically useless and emotionally priceless child," Zelizer says.
"As children have become less of an economic issue and people have fewer children and wait longer to have them, children have become precious, not in a economic sense but in an emotional sense," says Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families & Work Institute, a nonprofit research organization in New York and author of Ask the Children (William Morrow, 1999). "Having children is a meaningful thing to do in life—it's not just passing on a legacy."
A Future Investment?
Parents are invested in children emotionally by being more involved in their lives, Galinsky says. There's also hope that children will return the care when their parents are older and need assistance. "There's much more interdependence now," she says. "You're investing in your own future relationship."
All of that sounds nice, but what's it going to cost me? The Agriculture Dept.'s latest survey found that households in the top-third income bracket (with average pretax income of $118,200) will spend $289,380 by their child's 18th birthday—or about $17,000 a year (in 2006 dollars).
Parents' largest expense is housing, which makes up roughly a third of expenditures, given that it costs more for a larger home in a town with good schools. In terms of growth, the outlays for child care and education have climbed from just 1% of overall expenses in 1960 (when the USDA started tracking these costs) to 10% in 2006. In 1960 education costs averaged around $362 per year (out of total expenses of $25,229 for middle income families). Health care is also sucking up more of parents' hard-earned cash given that premiums and co-payments have been rising, says USDA economist Mark Fino.
Indeed, the USDA survey is probably understating the cost of raising kids. Considering extras like sports equipment, summer camps, private school, Disney vacations, and a full-time nanny, raising a child through age 17 could cost $1 million or more. Some parents throw extravagant birthday parties and won't hesitate to buy their kids the latest video games and cell phones and splurge on Spanish and painting lessons.
The College Killer
Perhaps these big spenders aren't worried about the soaring cost of college—usually the biggest expense of all and one that's left out of the USDA's price tag (along with all other expenses after age 17). According to reports from the College Board, a private four-year college runs an average of $23,712 per year (up 6.3% from the 2006/07 school year), while a public four-year college costs $6,185 (up 6.6% from last year). The "good news," says the College Board, "is more than $130 billion in financial aid is available."
Then, after college, many parents are welcoming their children back home until they find a job. In fact, 25% of employed parents have kids aged 18 to 29 living in their home at least half the time. Parents contribute $2,200 annually (on average, in 2001 dollars) to children aged 18 to 34, according to a 2003 University of Pennsylvania study. This transition to adulthood "is a very risky period," says Arlene Skolnick, a visiting scholar at New York University and research scholar at Counsel on Contemporary Families.
"It's a period when people can fall into the cracks," Skolnick says, especially if they don't acquire high-level skills to earn at least a middle-class salary to survive on their own. (Whereas after World War II, high school graduates could usually find a decent job and achieve a middle-class life.) Children that earn a bachelor's degree stand to earn over 60% more than those with only a high school diploma, the College Board says. Over a lifetime, the gap in earning potential between a high school diploma and a B.A. is more than $800,000, it says.
Along with college, the USDA report doesn't count "indirect" costs such as leaving the workforce to care for a child. "Studies have estimated that indirect costs, such as foregone earnings, oftentimes exceed direct costs, especially if one parent has to drop out of the workforce," says Fino at the USDA. "Many parents forgo promotions to spend more time with their children."
On top of all that, growth in wages for U.S. workers has been minuscule or stagnant, while inflation has crept higher. Average hourly earnings rose just 0.7% last year after declining in 2005 and 2004, versus the peak annual growth rate of 4.1% for 1972, according to the Labor Dept. Meanwhile, prices for food, energy, and other goods keep rising, as measured by the 3.2% rise in the consumer price index last year.
A Lifestyle Choice
It's costs such as these that make 28-year-old Bahar Zaker in Syracuse, N.Y., want to put off having kids, maybe forever. "We can't imagine how we would manage the costs of kids," says Zaker, who has been married for three years to a philosophy professor and is finishing her thesis on French surrealist art at the University of California. One big hurdle for her is the price of education, and she questions whether it pays off. "The costs of education are going up, and you're not always sure the value of the education is going up with them," she says. But she also admits that not having kids is a lifestyle choice. "We both like to travel," she says.
As more young folks like Zaker delay or don't have children, birth rates in Japan, Russia, South Korea, all of Europe, and parts of Asia have fallen below the 2.1 children per woman needed for population growth. Many industrialized countries such as France have introduced or increased economic incentives such as tax breaks, longer maternity leaves, and cash bonuses to get women to have children.
These programs have had mixed results. One reason they may not work comes from Phillip Longman in his book The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It (Perseus Books Group, 2004). Now that "children no longer provide any economic benefit to their parents, but are rather costly impediments to material success, people well adapted to this new environment will tend not to reproduce," Longman writes. "And many others who are not so successful will imitate them, and for good reason." Families might choose to have only one child so they can afford to splurge on one while maintaining their own comforts of living (um, that would be me).
The U.S., on the other hand, still has a birth rate of 2 and a growing population, thanks to immigrants, who on average have higher birth rates (particularly among Hispanics). Still, a great portion of the U.S. population is aging. A low birth rate along with an aging population means there are fewer people of working age and more retirees, making the financing of Social Security and Medicare tougher because these funds for the elderly are raised through taxes on the working population, as in most nations, says Gary Becker, professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
The problem, experts say, is that U.S. lawmakers and corporations aren't addressing many of the challenges facing families. Longman points to the continuing culture wars between work and family: "Everyone who wants to may join the paid labor force, but almost no one gets a family wage or enough help from government to defray the costs of raising children." He figures the critical moment will emerge during the next decade, "as millions of Baby Boomers start crashing past the boundaries of old age, and as today's teenagers find themselves saddled with massive student loans, rising taxes, and growing frustration over the difficulty of forming or affording a family."
The hope is that some savior will invent policies to ease parents' financial pain. "We need somebody somewhere to think of a new vision of what families can be," Skolnick says."People want to get past the family value wars."
Until then, as Longman puts it bluntly: "Child rearing is fast becoming a sucker's game. Though the psychic rewards remain, the economic returns to individual parents have largely disappeared, while the cost of parenthood is soaring."
Click here to join the debate on whether kids are worth the cost.
McCormack is senior producer for BusinessWeek.com's Investing channel
by the time i read all that my kids would be 23 and i wouldnt give a fuck about how much they cost.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
And people on anti depression medication. Well, that is an illness...right?
Well if the medication is being prescribed for depression then yes I guess it is an illness. Are they not being included because of the medication or because of the depression?
Although, not really relevant in my opinion, I guess. Either way it's discriminatory.
That's all besides the point. I said it originally and I just meant, the poster said she couldn't so I was hoping people would be a little considerate instead of just jumping on her back. (Smilie because I don't feel like arguing. )
I'm confused. Jumping on whose back?
I was just pointing out that people with illness are also discluded from adopting in a lot of countries. Not trying to argue with anyone.
Here's why I'm not having children (not to offend those that do have children):
The Cost of Kids November 12, 2007, 12:10AM EST text size: TT
Is Raising Kids a Fool's Game?
Parenting is fulfilling, but the financial burden can be overwhelming—and then there's the crimp it puts in your leisure time
by Karyn McCormack
Like many parents, I'm suffering from sticker shock. It's not just the $375 monthly tuition for preschool. (And that's for just three hours, two days a week; five full days would cost me $1,000.) Little things add up, like the school's solicitation to donate to their school in Africa and monthly dues for Scholastic Book Club (how could you say no?). The school even put a price tag on potty training: If my daughter, who will turn 3 in December, was not able to use the toilet by herself by the end of September, I'd be charged $100 a month until she achieved this milestone. (She did it, whew!)
I know preschool is paying off when I hear her spell her name and see her progress in other skills (she has become quite the negotiator). And you can't put a price tag on the appreciation for life that I've gained from her. In the end, all of the sweat and tears (and dwindling cash flow) must be worth it, right?
In her 1994 book Pricing the Priceless Child (Princeton University Press), Princeton University sociology professor Viviana Zelizer describes how in the 19th century, children were "economic assets" that contributed to farm work and other important tasks. Then, during the early 20th century, the U.S. established laws removing many children from hard labor, sparking the "rise of the economically useless and emotionally priceless child," Zelizer says.
"As children have become less of an economic issue and people have fewer children and wait longer to have them, children have become precious, not in a economic sense but in an emotional sense," says Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families & Work Institute, a nonprofit research organization in New York and author of Ask the Children (William Morrow, 1999). "Having children is a meaningful thing to do in life—it's not just passing on a legacy."
A Future Investment?
Parents are invested in children emotionally by being more involved in their lives, Galinsky says. There's also hope that children will return the care when their parents are older and need assistance. "There's much more interdependence now," she says. "You're investing in your own future relationship."
All of that sounds nice, but what's it going to cost me? The Agriculture Dept.'s latest survey found that households in the top-third income bracket (with average pretax income of $118,200) will spend $289,380 by their child's 18th birthday—or about $17,000 a year (in 2006 dollars).
Parents' largest expense is housing, which makes up roughly a third of expenditures, given that it costs more for a larger home in a town with good schools. In terms of growth, the outlays for child care and education have climbed from just 1% of overall expenses in 1960 (when the USDA started tracking these costs) to 10% in 2006. In 1960 education costs averaged around $362 per year (out of total expenses of $25,229 for middle income families). Health care is also sucking up more of parents' hard-earned cash given that premiums and co-payments have been rising, says USDA economist Mark Fino.
Indeed, the USDA survey is probably understating the cost of raising kids. Considering extras like sports equipment, summer camps, private school, Disney vacations, and a full-time nanny, raising a child through age 17 could cost $1 million or more. Some parents throw extravagant birthday parties and won't hesitate to buy their kids the latest video games and cell phones and splurge on Spanish and painting lessons.
The College Killer
Perhaps these big spenders aren't worried about the soaring cost of college—usually the biggest expense of all and one that's left out of the USDA's price tag (along with all other expenses after age 17). According to reports from the College Board, a private four-year college runs an average of $23,712 per year (up 6.3% from the 2006/07 school year), while a public four-year college costs $6,185 (up 6.6% from last year). The "good news," says the College Board, "is more than $130 billion in financial aid is available."
Then, after college, many parents are welcoming their children back home until they find a job. In fact, 25% of employed parents have kids aged 18 to 29 living in their home at least half the time. Parents contribute $2,200 annually (on average, in 2001 dollars) to children aged 18 to 34, according to a 2003 University of Pennsylvania study. This transition to adulthood "is a very risky period," says Arlene Skolnick, a visiting scholar at New York University and research scholar at Counsel on Contemporary Families.
"It's a period when people can fall into the cracks," Skolnick says, especially if they don't acquire high-level skills to earn at least a middle-class salary to survive on their own. (Whereas after World War II, high school graduates could usually find a decent job and achieve a middle-class life.) Children that earn a bachelor's degree stand to earn over 60% more than those with only a high school diploma, the College Board says. Over a lifetime, the gap in earning potential between a high school diploma and a B.A. is more than $800,000, it says.
Along with college, the USDA report doesn't count "indirect" costs such as leaving the workforce to care for a child. "Studies have estimated that indirect costs, such as foregone earnings, oftentimes exceed direct costs, especially if one parent has to drop out of the workforce," says Fino at the USDA. "Many parents forgo promotions to spend more time with their children."
On top of all that, growth in wages for U.S. workers has been minuscule or stagnant, while inflation has crept higher. Average hourly earnings rose just 0.7% last year after declining in 2005 and 2004, versus the peak annual growth rate of 4.1% for 1972, according to the Labor Dept. Meanwhile, prices for food, energy, and other goods keep rising, as measured by the 3.2% rise in the consumer price index last year.
A Lifestyle Choice
It's costs such as these that make 28-year-old Bahar Zaker in Syracuse, N.Y., want to put off having kids, maybe forever. "We can't imagine how we would manage the costs of kids," says Zaker, who has been married for three years to a philosophy professor and is finishing her thesis on French surrealist art at the University of California. One big hurdle for her is the price of education, and she questions whether it pays off. "The costs of education are going up, and you're not always sure the value of the education is going up with them," she says. But she also admits that not having kids is a lifestyle choice. "We both like to travel," she says.
As more young folks like Zaker delay or don't have children, birth rates in Japan, Russia, South Korea, all of Europe, and parts of Asia have fallen below the 2.1 children per woman needed for population growth. Many industrialized countries such as France have introduced or increased economic incentives such as tax breaks, longer maternity leaves, and cash bonuses to get women to have children.
These programs have had mixed results. One reason they may not work comes from Phillip Longman in his book The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It (Perseus Books Group, 2004). Now that "children no longer provide any economic benefit to their parents, but are rather costly impediments to material success, people well adapted to this new environment will tend not to reproduce," Longman writes. "And many others who are not so successful will imitate them, and for good reason." Families might choose to have only one child so they can afford to splurge on one while maintaining their own comforts of living (um, that would be me).
The U.S., on the other hand, still has a birth rate of 2 and a growing population, thanks to immigrants, who on average have higher birth rates (particularly among Hispanics). Still, a great portion of the U.S. population is aging. A low birth rate along with an aging population means there are fewer people of working age and more retirees, making the financing of Social Security and Medicare tougher because these funds for the elderly are raised through taxes on the working population, as in most nations, says Gary Becker, professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
The problem, experts say, is that U.S. lawmakers and corporations aren't addressing many of the challenges facing families. Longman points to the continuing culture wars between work and family: "Everyone who wants to may join the paid labor force, but almost no one gets a family wage or enough help from government to defray the costs of raising children." He figures the critical moment will emerge during the next decade, "as millions of Baby Boomers start crashing past the boundaries of old age, and as today's teenagers find themselves saddled with massive student loans, rising taxes, and growing frustration over the difficulty of forming or affording a family."
The hope is that some savior will invent policies to ease parents' financial pain. "We need somebody somewhere to think of a new vision of what families can be," Skolnick says."People want to get past the family value wars."
Until then, as Longman puts it bluntly: "Child rearing is fast becoming a sucker's game. Though the psychic rewards remain, the economic returns to individual parents have largely disappeared, while the cost of parenthood is soaring."
Click here to join the debate on whether kids are worth the cost.
McCormack is senior producer for BusinessWeek.com's Investing channel
You know, though, children shouldn't be considered price tags. They are not objects to be traded like dollars for a book.
I've looked at it sometimes that way, and I know I'm wrong/a hypocrite/pathetic loser etc. I couldn't afford a child right now, and it just means I have fear. Of course, couple that with my heart issue, and yadda yadda yadda. There are those that maybe can't afford to have a child, but they have family support, and they have belief that things will work out. I usually think they are stupid for doing it, but they have unconditional love, and in many cases they give it, too. Can that be priced like a pair of jeans? What's the definition of stupidity in this case - hope/enthusiasm/adventure?
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
the sun rises and sets on him and he gives me a reason to laugh and be happy every single day. just his smile alone brightens my spirits no matter what else is going wrong in my life. I cannot imagine my life without him. I cannot imagine going through this life and never experiencing the love I have for him. quote]
You have to be careful though. As a child whose parents relied on the kids to "make them happy", I personally know how burdened it feels to keep them happy or whatever. Telling or sharing with a child they they are everything to you or that they are your whole world, etc is a lot of pressure. Yes on the surface it sounds nice, but think of the flip side. Just a thought.
Also, I know the closest thing to what you parents out there feel to having kids--I am an AWESOME aunt and do so much for my 2 nephews. When I am done spending time with them, my heart is so full of joy and I am insanely happy. But I don't have to live with them full-time or raise them 24/7. It's a great trade-off. I am proud that I haven't given in to family pressure or societal influence to have kids because it's the common expectation to do so. I understand that so many kids out there on adoption/orphanage websites are looking for a "forever family".....it is absolutely heartbreaking to see kids of all ages smiling for the camera with an ad that lists their best qualities. In my perfect world, we would welcome these children instead of adding more to the world population.
BTW, I also adopted my dog from the pound, I recycle, and am a vegetarian. I try to do other things that are good for the planet too. No I am not perfect but thanks for your time.
I'm a super aunt, and or as my niece says "Super Aunt Knitting Maria" and I can just tell by the looks on my twin's face and her kids when they are talking together that the love I feel for them can't compare to the love she feels for them and vice versa. We were brought up in an abusive household, and it's just amazing to see my 3 siblings with kids interact with their kids. The cycle can be broken! Back to topic, though, being an aunt is not like being a parent.
I really want to be a mom. I'd call my siblings for questions, and I'd use them as examples. I'd love to be a mom. Just not happening, though.
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
I agree with you, Ms. Haiku. Being an aunt is not the same as being a mom. Not to diminish what being an aunt is; that can be a very special relationship. I never had an aunt to whom I was close, but I have a neices and nephews that are extremely important to me. I love them very very much, and in a different way than I love anyone else on earth. I've been an aunt since I was 5 years old!
I'm still going on it, because not many people know the sadness I feel that I'm not a mommy. It's like a cathartic affect for me since I don't know you all. Has to get out somewhere and then I just move on . . .
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
I'm still going on it, because not many people know the sadness I feel that I'm not a mommy. It's like a cathartic affect for me since I don't know you all. Has to get out somewhere and then I just move on . . .
Australian doctors proposed a carbon tax on couples for procreating. Current policy: To promote population growth, Australia pays each couple about $3,500 per baby. Counterproposal: "Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and thereby rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behavior, a 'Baby Levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle." Details: You get two kids free; thereafter, you pay a $4,400 tax at birth, plus $350 to $700 per year "for the life of the child." Rationales: 1) This is a conservative estimate of the cost of planting enough trees to offset your kid's carbon effects. 2) "Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment." 3) "We deserve no more population concessions than those in India and China." The good news: You'd get a carbon tax credit for using birth control. (Related: The deluded world of air conditioning.)
Australian doctors proposed a carbon tax on couples for procreating. Current policy: To promote population growth, Australia pays each couple about $3,500 per baby. Counterproposal: "Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and thereby rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behavior, a 'Baby Levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle." Details: You get two kids free; thereafter, you pay a $4,400 tax at birth, plus $350 to $700 per year "for the life of the child." Rationales: 1) This is a conservative estimate of the cost of planting enough trees to offset your kid's carbon effects. 2) "Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment." 3) "We deserve no more population concessions than those in India and China." The good news: You'd get a carbon tax credit for using birth control. (Related: The deluded world of air conditioning.)
it would never happen, but it IS an interesting premise. currently, parents get tax write-offs for their children, which on the one hand i understand.....but then on the other, i don't. haha
I'm still going on it, because not many people know the sadness I feel that I'm not a mommy. It's like a cathartic affect for me since I don't know you all. Has to get out somewhere and then I just move on . . .
:( I'm sorry too.....there is still time....I have quite a few friends who are new first time parents and the are in their 40's. They are all having soooo much fun! Crazy to see these high level career people with their newborns....I love it!
oxc
~*LIVE~LOVE~LAUGH*~
*May the Peace of the Wilderness be with YOU*
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.
— Unknown
I'm still going on it, because not many people know the sadness I feel that I'm not a mommy. It's like a cathartic affect for me since I don't know you all. Has to get out somewhere and then I just move on . . .
You can consider adopting..
'I want to hurry home to you
put on a slow, dumb show for you
and crack you up
so you can put a blue ribbon on my brain
god I'm very, very frightening
and I'll overdo it'
Totally. There are tons of foster kids looking for homes.
These kids do profiles listing interests, etc. So say an adult wants to share their passion for say, baking, they could actually look for child who loves the kitchen.
Requirements vary from state to state but most adults can qualify to adopt. You do not need to own your own home, have children already, or be wealthy, young, married, or a stay-at-home parent. Many parents have adopted who have health problems or disabilities that don’t interfere with their ability to care for children. The following characteristics are necessary to be a good adoptive parent: stability, maturity, dependability, flexibility, and an ability to advocate for children while working as a team player with your social worker and community services. And it really helps to have a sense of humor too! For more information see Who May Adopt, Be Adopted, or Place a Child for Adoption?"
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Comments
so are mine. also respecting choice for all. and i think anyone can say what they like, whether anyone takes someone else's opinion/persuasion to heart is an entirely different matter
i was not 'debating' anything with you, i was merely asking you a question. as in, no matter what reasonable or lame-ass reason...or 'questionable reason' anyone may find for not wanting children that simply if that's how someone thinks/feels...dontcha think it's a good idea that those with such beliefs/reasons/whatever shouldn't reproduce? just as those who are so inclined to reproduce? i think more than anything, as i've said a few times...it's good to CHOOSE, either....and not leave it up to fate or lack of BC to make the decision for ya is all.
btw - for those mentioning for many there is 'no choice'...yes, yes there is. even if one cannot have a biological child, they can still adopt! it's still 'being a parent'...and raising a child no matter what!
anyhoo, i had postd my personal choice/opinion on the matter and was enjoying the few posts of other people's 'whys' for having, or not having, children. i was not at any time trying to get into a 'debate'.....people's life choices are always of interest to me.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
this was my first thought, however, when I gave it more thought, adoption can be prohibitably expensive and difficult to do. people on waiting lists to adopt from within the US may never have their name come up, and even when it does, legal issues can arise. to adopt from abroad is a means around these issues, however, it can be CRAZY expensive. I heard one adoptive parent cite a number like $45,000 (don't quote me on that and I'm sure it's highly variable) plus the trip to china/russia/guatemala,etc. Furthermore, singles and gays may be prevented from adopting in a number of countries.
Along with people with illness.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
And I don't feel right when you're gone away
exactly.
i was just adding that the ability to procreate is a pretty cool thing and it's something not everyone gets to experience...i wasn't talking about 'being a parent'.
That's all besides the point. I said it originally and I just meant, the poster said she couldn't so I was hoping people would be a little considerate instead of just jumping on her back.
i agree with everything you said... life's too short and i'm in a great mood.
Here's why I'm not having children (not to offend those that do have children):
The Cost of Kids November 12, 2007, 12:10AM EST text size: TT
Is Raising Kids a Fool's Game?
Parenting is fulfilling, but the financial burden can be overwhelming—and then there's the crimp it puts in your leisure time
by Karyn McCormack
Like many parents, I'm suffering from sticker shock. It's not just the $375 monthly tuition for preschool. (And that's for just three hours, two days a week; five full days would cost me $1,000.) Little things add up, like the school's solicitation to donate to their school in Africa and monthly dues for Scholastic Book Club (how could you say no?). The school even put a price tag on potty training: If my daughter, who will turn 3 in December, was not able to use the toilet by herself by the end of September, I'd be charged $100 a month until she achieved this milestone. (She did it, whew!)
I know preschool is paying off when I hear her spell her name and see her progress in other skills (she has become quite the negotiator). And you can't put a price tag on the appreciation for life that I've gained from her. In the end, all of the sweat and tears (and dwindling cash flow) must be worth it, right?
In her 1994 book Pricing the Priceless Child (Princeton University Press), Princeton University sociology professor Viviana Zelizer describes how in the 19th century, children were "economic assets" that contributed to farm work and other important tasks. Then, during the early 20th century, the U.S. established laws removing many children from hard labor, sparking the "rise of the economically useless and emotionally priceless child," Zelizer says.
"As children have become less of an economic issue and people have fewer children and wait longer to have them, children have become precious, not in a economic sense but in an emotional sense," says Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families & Work Institute, a nonprofit research organization in New York and author of Ask the Children (William Morrow, 1999). "Having children is a meaningful thing to do in life—it's not just passing on a legacy."
A Future Investment?
Parents are invested in children emotionally by being more involved in their lives, Galinsky says. There's also hope that children will return the care when their parents are older and need assistance. "There's much more interdependence now," she says. "You're investing in your own future relationship."
All of that sounds nice, but what's it going to cost me? The Agriculture Dept.'s latest survey found that households in the top-third income bracket (with average pretax income of $118,200) will spend $289,380 by their child's 18th birthday—or about $17,000 a year (in 2006 dollars).
Parents' largest expense is housing, which makes up roughly a third of expenditures, given that it costs more for a larger home in a town with good schools. In terms of growth, the outlays for child care and education have climbed from just 1% of overall expenses in 1960 (when the USDA started tracking these costs) to 10% in 2006. In 1960 education costs averaged around $362 per year (out of total expenses of $25,229 for middle income families). Health care is also sucking up more of parents' hard-earned cash given that premiums and co-payments have been rising, says USDA economist Mark Fino.
Indeed, the USDA survey is probably understating the cost of raising kids. Considering extras like sports equipment, summer camps, private school, Disney vacations, and a full-time nanny, raising a child through age 17 could cost $1 million or more. Some parents throw extravagant birthday parties and won't hesitate to buy their kids the latest video games and cell phones and splurge on Spanish and painting lessons.
The College Killer
Perhaps these big spenders aren't worried about the soaring cost of college—usually the biggest expense of all and one that's left out of the USDA's price tag (along with all other expenses after age 17). According to reports from the College Board, a private four-year college runs an average of $23,712 per year (up 6.3% from the 2006/07 school year), while a public four-year college costs $6,185 (up 6.6% from last year). The "good news," says the College Board, "is more than $130 billion in financial aid is available."
Then, after college, many parents are welcoming their children back home until they find a job. In fact, 25% of employed parents have kids aged 18 to 29 living in their home at least half the time. Parents contribute $2,200 annually (on average, in 2001 dollars) to children aged 18 to 34, according to a 2003 University of Pennsylvania study. This transition to adulthood "is a very risky period," says Arlene Skolnick, a visiting scholar at New York University and research scholar at Counsel on Contemporary Families.
"It's a period when people can fall into the cracks," Skolnick says, especially if they don't acquire high-level skills to earn at least a middle-class salary to survive on their own. (Whereas after World War II, high school graduates could usually find a decent job and achieve a middle-class life.) Children that earn a bachelor's degree stand to earn over 60% more than those with only a high school diploma, the College Board says. Over a lifetime, the gap in earning potential between a high school diploma and a B.A. is more than $800,000, it says.
Along with college, the USDA report doesn't count "indirect" costs such as leaving the workforce to care for a child. "Studies have estimated that indirect costs, such as foregone earnings, oftentimes exceed direct costs, especially if one parent has to drop out of the workforce," says Fino at the USDA. "Many parents forgo promotions to spend more time with their children."
On top of all that, growth in wages for U.S. workers has been minuscule or stagnant, while inflation has crept higher. Average hourly earnings rose just 0.7% last year after declining in 2005 and 2004, versus the peak annual growth rate of 4.1% for 1972, according to the Labor Dept. Meanwhile, prices for food, energy, and other goods keep rising, as measured by the 3.2% rise in the consumer price index last year.
A Lifestyle Choice
It's costs such as these that make 28-year-old Bahar Zaker in Syracuse, N.Y., want to put off having kids, maybe forever. "We can't imagine how we would manage the costs of kids," says Zaker, who has been married for three years to a philosophy professor and is finishing her thesis on French surrealist art at the University of California. One big hurdle for her is the price of education, and she questions whether it pays off. "The costs of education are going up, and you're not always sure the value of the education is going up with them," she says. But she also admits that not having kids is a lifestyle choice. "We both like to travel," she says.
As more young folks like Zaker delay or don't have children, birth rates in Japan, Russia, South Korea, all of Europe, and parts of Asia have fallen below the 2.1 children per woman needed for population growth. Many industrialized countries such as France have introduced or increased economic incentives such as tax breaks, longer maternity leaves, and cash bonuses to get women to have children.
These programs have had mixed results. One reason they may not work comes from Phillip Longman in his book The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It (Perseus Books Group, 2004). Now that "children no longer provide any economic benefit to their parents, but are rather costly impediments to material success, people well adapted to this new environment will tend not to reproduce," Longman writes. "And many others who are not so successful will imitate them, and for good reason." Families might choose to have only one child so they can afford to splurge on one while maintaining their own comforts of living (um, that would be me).
The U.S., on the other hand, still has a birth rate of 2 and a growing population, thanks to immigrants, who on average have higher birth rates (particularly among Hispanics). Still, a great portion of the U.S. population is aging. A low birth rate along with an aging population means there are fewer people of working age and more retirees, making the financing of Social Security and Medicare tougher because these funds for the elderly are raised through taxes on the working population, as in most nations, says Gary Becker, professor of economics at the University of Chicago and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
The problem, experts say, is that U.S. lawmakers and corporations aren't addressing many of the challenges facing families. Longman points to the continuing culture wars between work and family: "Everyone who wants to may join the paid labor force, but almost no one gets a family wage or enough help from government to defray the costs of raising children." He figures the critical moment will emerge during the next decade, "as millions of Baby Boomers start crashing past the boundaries of old age, and as today's teenagers find themselves saddled with massive student loans, rising taxes, and growing frustration over the difficulty of forming or affording a family."
The hope is that some savior will invent policies to ease parents' financial pain. "We need somebody somewhere to think of a new vision of what families can be," Skolnick says."People want to get past the family value wars."
Until then, as Longman puts it bluntly: "Child rearing is fast becoming a sucker's game. Though the psychic rewards remain, the economic returns to individual parents have largely disappeared, while the cost of parenthood is soaring."
Click here to join the debate on whether kids are worth the cost.
McCormack is senior producer for BusinessWeek.com's Investing channel
by the time i read all that my kids would be 23 and i wouldnt give a fuck about how much they cost.
Well if the medication is being prescribed for depression then yes I guess it is an illness. Are they not being included because of the medication or because of the depression?
Although, not really relevant in my opinion, I guess. Either way it's discriminatory.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I'm confused.
I was just pointing out that people with illness are also discluded from adopting in a lot of countries. Not trying to argue with anyone.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I didn't really mean you, Jeanie.
dunk: HAHAHA
aaaah!
Nice work!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I've looked at it sometimes that way, and I know I'm wrong/a hypocrite/pathetic loser etc. I couldn't afford a child right now, and it just means I have fear. Of course, couple that with my heart issue, and yadda yadda yadda. There are those that maybe can't afford to have a child, but they have family support, and they have belief that things will work out. I usually think they are stupid for doing it, but they have unconditional love, and in many cases they give it, too. Can that be priced like a pair of jeans? What's the definition of stupidity in this case - hope/enthusiasm/adventure?
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
- bill hicks
mine is - in a good way
I really want to be a mom. I'd call my siblings for questions, and I'd use them as examples. I'd love to be a mom. Just not happening, though.
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
Actually, yes I can.
I agree with you, Ms. Haiku. Being an aunt is not the same as being a mom. Not to diminish what being an aunt is; that can be a very special relationship. I never had an aunt to whom I was close, but I have a neices and nephews that are extremely important to me. I love them very very much, and in a different way than I love anyone else on earth. I've been an aunt since I was 5 years old!
hahahaha reminds me of a jerry seinfeld bit: "I'm going to let you in on a little secret- no one wants to go to your wedding."
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
I'm sorry. :(
Australian doctors proposed a carbon tax on couples for procreating. Current policy: To promote population growth, Australia pays each couple about $3,500 per baby. Counterproposal: "Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and thereby rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behavior, a 'Baby Levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle." Details: You get two kids free; thereafter, you pay a $4,400 tax at birth, plus $350 to $700 per year "for the life of the child." Rationales: 1) This is a conservative estimate of the cost of planting enough trees to offset your kid's carbon effects. 2) "Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment." 3) "We deserve no more population concessions than those in India and China." The good news: You'd get a carbon tax credit for using birth control. (Related: The deluded world of air conditioning.)
it would never happen, but it IS an interesting premise. currently, parents get tax write-offs for their children, which on the one hand i understand.....but then on the other, i don't.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
:( I'm sorry too.....there is still time....I have quite a few friends who are new first time parents and the are in their 40's. They are all having soooo much fun! Crazy to see these high level career people with their newborns....I love it!
oxc
*May the Peace of the Wilderness be with YOU*
He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion.
— Unknown
You can consider adopting..
put on a slow, dumb show for you
and crack you up
so you can put a blue ribbon on my brain
god I'm very, very frightening
and I'll overdo it'
Totally. There are tons of foster kids looking for homes.
These kids do profiles listing interests, etc. So say an adult wants to share their passion for say, baking, they could actually look for child who loves the kitchen.
From http://www.adoptuskids.org/Child/ChildSearch.aspx
"Who can adopt?
Requirements vary from state to state but most adults can qualify to adopt. You do not need to own your own home, have children already, or be wealthy, young, married, or a stay-at-home parent. Many parents have adopted who have health problems or disabilities that don’t interfere with their ability to care for children. The following characteristics are necessary to be a good adoptive parent: stability, maturity, dependability, flexibility, and an ability to advocate for children while working as a team player with your social worker and community services. And it really helps to have a sense of humor too! For more information see Who May Adopt, Be Adopted, or Place a Child for Adoption?"
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
our current President has approved HUGE tax write-offs for adoption fees and the associated what-not's.
who would've thunk?
Does anyone out there have a baby they want to find a home for?
(smiling but I'm serious... stranger things have happened on this board.)