Apparently we spend an average of £10,000 on our DCs in the first year of life

[SPBInDisguise]

One of those non-news items - the cost of raising a child is now £200,000 or something like that, which I can believe. But £10,000 in the first year?! I suppose childcare for maybe 9 months could come close, but this is an average, not a top figure!

That figure doesn't add up. Most people don't use childcare for the first 6-12 months so the costs would be minimal. With ds we bought everything new but even including bedroom furniture our costs were less than £1k for all the equipment.

We ended up formula feeding so that was an extra cost but from what I remember it was less than £10 a week, nappies were about the same.

Once ds got to school the costs went right up as he wanted to join football and martial arts etc.

I think it included stuff like people changing their car before a baby, cost of being on maternity leave etc.

They put in odd stuff like driving lessons and buying your child a car when they are 17 too

Have you got a link to the story? I agree it does sound very high

exactly - even in FT childcare from 3 months (which I assume is rare) the figure might approach that!
Our only 'big' costs were pram, cot and car seat, together well under £1000. Well GPs bought pram and cot for us, but even if they hadn't

Will try and find one Noah
Cmot - I did wonder ifit included a new car! That would make much more sense. Hadn't thought of mat leave, of course.
Although presumably if you already have a car and just trade it in for a more child friendly one, the cost should be the difference, and it might actually save you money! Bet they haven't done that though!

I hardly spent anything on DD in the first year - I breastfed her, I received lots of handdown clothes and equipment and masses of presents.

IMO children don't cost much at all in the first three years, unless you have a clothes habit or use childcare.

Once they start school, costs soar.

Although we haven't spent all that much on DD2, her first 12 months will cost quite a bit when you include £ I've lost by being on maty leave - probably more than the £10,000 quoted.

story here

It's a load of rubbish. It's like putting a price on having a dog (they porbably added that in thinking about it - little Jamie had to have a dog don;t you know....!). Load of old rubbish. Most people get new cars at some point in their life (not necessarily new, but a replacement), and it could be nothing at all to do with children. And think of the money you save on going out on the town - bet they didn't factor that in....! Oh and of course people always get a house with the amount of bedrooms that they really need - so there are no couples with big 4 bed houses, with an office, and a den etc (I know a few locally), nor big famillies with 4 kids and only 3 bedrooms, tiny kitchen and one reception room (like me and my fellow slum dwellers).

yes, I think if you factor in mat leave (for those that take it) then it's more reasonable. Hadn't thought of that - I don't think of that as one of the costs of having a child, but I suppose it is.

Oh if they are taking into account the drop in salary then our costs were well over £10k. In 5 years I have already lost over £100k in salary payments so if thats the case I'm surprised the costs are not even higher!

Does this include childcare?

If not I don't see how it's possible to spend this much.

but not everyone will have mat leave, some will only take 6 monhs (and be on 90% for the 1st 6 weeks) so it prob is about right

But how can you say that maternity leave is a cost of having a child? You get £100 a week for doing no work. If someone took a year sabbatical to write a book or build a village in Africa, they would be unpaid. So it's a nonsense to say that that is a cost of having a child!

but it would be part of the cost of writing the book

It's a loss of earnings, rather than a cost. You don't pay out that money. In fact, you could go back to work after a couple of weeks if you wanted and pay the childcare (which would be a cost). Otherwise, it is just leave you are taking from work, and getting paid for (often much more than £100 a week too)

loss of earnings due to maternity leave = an opportunity cost

who spent my share then? [stern look]

Hadn't thought of the cost of not being at work - if you didn't have a child then you would have extra money that you don't have because you have the child and the associated time off.

That's insane. Even with maternity leave and childcare (I went back to work part-time at 5.5 months) I don't think we approached that.

And childcare, plus me being part-time, are really the only big costs we've had so far. He's really not that expensive!

(Of course, if we lose the deposit on our rented flat cos of him throwing up on the carpet, I may retract that sentence)

lol Rhian
Actually we bought a bigger house when DS was 8 months. Obviously we needed it because of DS and we planned another. If that sort of thing is included then DS cost us much much more than 10k in his first year

Lol. We moved to a two-bed flat when DS was one, so he could get his own room - but moved further out of the city centre, so our rent and council tax both went down!

I would also question the people who did the research - are they the same people who will be selling you the expensive insurances and child plans ....

Somehow, I don't look at my child as some sort of investment or tlly up what I have spent on either - they get what they need when they need it and I am quite happy to do it ...

wonder whether this is all on first children too - cos the cost of the pram/cot/car seat should be split between my two. Realise that's not the case for everyone.
Also, they seem to get pound coins from little old ladies - wonder whether these are deducted