Couples consider waiting to have children

CHICAGO — Amanda Wegner already has a 2-year-old daughter and was looking forward to getting pregnant again soon. But her husband recently lost his job in advertising sales and her pay as a part-time magazine editor has fallen 20 percent.

Even before the double-whammy, the Madison, Wis., couple was feeling a financial pinch and now the two are worried about what a second child would do to household expenses.

"You already have one kid so you have a lot of stuff. But diapers aren't cheap; formula isn't cheap. There are lots of costs that come with a newborn," said Wegner, 28. "The reality is, unless things pick up or my husband finds another job, it's just not feasible."

It's an angst-filled debate raging in bedrooms around the country and on Internet sites such as Twitter Moms. Can couples afford to start a family or have another child when layoffs are rampant, employers are cutting benefits and the cost of raising and educating children has never been higher?

Or, as some proclaim, is it a decision that shouldn't be tied to finances or economic cycles?

With the advent of birth control, many U.S. families have been better able to time when they start having children or have more. And the evidence shows fertility rates fall during times of economic hardship, demographers say.

"There are two times in modern history when that was really noticeable," said Carl Haub, a demographer with the Population Reference Bureau in Washington, D.C.

One was the Great Depression, when the U.S. fertility rate (the number of children born per woman) fell to about 2.1, and the second was in 1976, when the rate hit a low of 1.7 after the oil crisis and a severe recession.

The fertility rate now is back up to 2.1 and has been stable for a while.

Haub doubts we will see a repeat of the 1970s Baby Bust, but he has no doubt many people will postpone childbearing. "When economic times are bad and people don't have much confidence in the outlook, down goes the birthrate."

There's good reason to be cautious.

For families with household incomes of $80,000, a child will add $10,000 a year in additional expenses in the form of part-time child care, extra groceries and diapers, and a minimal college-savings plan, according to estimates by Chicago financial planner Chris Long of Long & Associates.

That number can reach almost $30,000 for a family earning $150,000 if they choose to move to a bigger house and employ full-time day care. And it can soar to almost $80,000 per year for households with $300,000 in household income, depending on choices parents make such as private versus public school.

Of course, estimates vary, and lower-income families manage to have children despite the costs. Some may get help from family or government programs such as food stamps. Some may have family members who can provide free day care, and many may not be able to save anything toward college.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the cost of raising a child in a middle-income, married-couple family with two children tallied between $10,930 and $12,030 in 2007, depending on geography.

Unless families have that money socked away or can cut their expenses by that amount, they likely will end up going into debt, a particularly bad place to be right now. Parents can make choices that will lower the cost, but many of Long's clients feel children must have their own bedrooms and the best possible education. Add to that the cost of traveling sports programs, summer camps, music lessons and other enrichment activities, and raising a child becomes an even bigger investment.

Then come the bills for a college education.

Jennifer Gniadecki is sitting on the fence. She and her husband had planned on having four children, and they are halfway there. The Homewood, Ill., couple were getting ready to start Phase 2, but her husband recently lost his job as a media and search analyst with a marketing firm.

Now they don't have health insurance because they can't afford the $1,100-a-month premiums to continue his coverage.

Gniadecki, who prides herself on being "a planner," finds herself in the unusual position of not knowing what to do. "I haven't decided yet, and I think that is bringing me more stress than my husband's layoff," she said.

In the meantime, Gniadecki will sign up her two girls, both under age 5, for the state's All Kids insurance program.

She isn't afraid of being stretched financially, she says, because that's the way it was after their second child was born.

For now, Gniadecki is hoping she may have enough freelance work as a corporate writer to keep herself and her husband busy. She has so much work scheduled for January and February that even if half of it comes through, she will make more money than she did in any month of 2008.

That means the big family- planning decision will be postponed until February.

But the pressure hasn't dampened Gniadecki's desire for more kids. "We would like to repopulate the world with smart people," she said.