<p>The figures are in: The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates it takes $286,860 to raise a child in a middle-class New Jersey family.
Give or take a few thousand for tutors, video games and bail.
No offense, but the USDA brainiac who devised this method of cost calculations must’ve had his head trampled in a cattle drive.</p>
<p>The calculations end at age 18. That’s like computing the cost of operating a car from the showroom to the end of the dealer’s driveway.
We’ve asked the USDA to name one kid from New Jersey who, in the midst of the economic stink bomb hovering over the nation, has left
home at 18 and ventured out on his or her own. Just one. (We’ll wait.)</p>
<p>Okay, there was that kid who entered the NBA Draft and made millions. And, God bless his high-top sneakers, is taking care of his mom.
But here’s how it usually happens: At 18, after 12 years of goofing off and wearing his pants lower than his socks, Junior decides he wants to be a civil engineer. (He can’t spell it, but wants to be it.)
And because they don’t give full scholarships for skateboarding on handrails or memorizing every line from “Talledega Nights,” Mom and Dad will have to pick up the college tab.
Tuition. Room and board for the freshman year and then, after parents are tricked into believing living off-campus will be cheaper, they spring for an apartment, which needs furnishings, kitchenware and a monthly visit from Roto Rooter to fish out mystery items that some drunken idiot flushed during a keg party.
After the kid graduates from college (In four years? Nah, try six.), with a minor in Borrowing and Bankruptcy, parents had better get ready, because Junior is coming home — for the free rent, stocked fridge, premium cable and unlimited hot water.
In this economy, Junior probably won’t find a full-time job any time soon.
So, parents, don’t fall for the silly USDA arithmetic. That bureaucrat should go back to school. Just not on his parents’ dime.</p>
Which might be a good analogy, if you were raising your kids until they turned 167.</p>
<p>
Except it was done right. The statistic is until age 18, and that’s what they did. If the statistic was “how much does it cost to raise a kid,” and then they did until 18, some of your complaints might fit.</p>
While I do not have the stats for NJ I doubt they are that much different … for a lot of families their support of their kids ends at the end of high school.</p>
<p>Chiming in from the working class…yes, I know high school kids who have to work to pay for food and clothes and chip in on the rent. Sometimes their families are falling apart, parents take off, they have bed space at a relatives, and yes, after high school they just go to work. Or the military. About one third of our high school’s graduates go to four year colleges. I imagine many don’t make it through to graduate. Not every kid has rich parents.</p>
<p>Makes sense, therefore, that it only goes up to age 18.</p>
<p>Flipping through the actual report is interesting. There’s a pie chart near the end that compares expenditures and percentages in different categories (e.g. housing) between 1960 and 2010. Total for a child born in 1960 was $186k in 2010 dollars. Housing percentage was the same then as now (31%). Percentage going to food, transportation, “miscellaneous” and clothing dropped–clothing percentage went from 11% to 6%. </p>
<p>The big increases from 1960 to now were in health care (doubled from 4% to 8%), child care and education (from 2% to 17% :eek:)</p>
<p>I started working at 14 and from then on purchased my own clothes and materialistic items including cars, phones, etc… the only thing my parents gave me was food and a roof over my head (as well as their unconditional love of course!). When I went to college I started buying my own food and that was that. Sure they still pick up little things for me here and there but I’m an indepdendent adult on my own now.</p>
<p>qdogpa–I have to say, when I read that, I thought it was one of O’Brien’s worst written columns. Even trying to be funny, her jabs at the study just seemed silly. Not sure what her point was. I think she’s mostly been better the past few years, but this was seriously weak.</p>