Twins are hurting the economy

[thyme4change]

www.npr.org/2014/11/29/362557764/millennials-might-be-generation-twin-is-that-a-bad-thing?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2054

Two questions about this article:

Rosenzweig's career is built on studying twins. But if he's being honest, he thinks twins are bad economic news.

First, there are the health care costs. Twins are more likely to be born prematurely, which can lead to all sorts of expensive medical problems.

And then there's the family stress of bringing home two babies.

"The birth of twins, it's usually greeted with a great deal of shock: a two-person stroller, two cribs, two of everything, basically,"

First question - how is additional spending hurting the economy?  I thought our whole economy thrives on spending.  If my neighbor with twins bought 2 cribs for her twins, and I bought 1 crib for my kids - which one of us put more money into the economy?  Which one of us paid an additional salary?  And if the argument is that then that parent has less to spend elsewhere - doesn't that just mean that the dollars go here or the dollars go there?  Seems sort of the same for the economy.

Birth weight matters, too: Rosenzweig did a study based on hundreds of female twins in Minnesota that looked at the effect of birth weight on lifetime earnings.

This is one of those studies I would love to see.  Is it that some people with far lower birth weight had significant earning problems and that brings down the average, or is every pound at birth really a factor in learning trigonometry 15 years later?  

Any thoughts?

[TheHaitian]

Good for the economy or not, don't care.

But it will be terrible for our pockets, savings account (if any) and 401k accounts.

Yet here we are still hoping for twins for when the times comes.

- 2 of everything all the way up to undergraduate/grad school: the economy should be Kissing my black ass. And with the wife I have; the economy might as well make it a "wet" kiss!

[phil5185]

It also means a doubling of other costs, like college tuition. Raising all the extra millennial twins has been hard on many family budgets.

No - not "doubling" costs. Most families will have the second child anyway, usually about 2 years later.  And the 2 college tuitions is 2 college tuitions whether it is strung over 4 yrs or strung over 6 yrs.

[justme]

Maybe the extra spending is not outweighed by the possible millions of nicu and resulting therapies and early interventions?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Nov 30, 2014 12:52:54 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

It also means a doubling of other costs, like college tuition. Raising all the extra millennial twins has been hard on many family budgets.

No - not "doubling" costs. Most families will have the second child anyway, usually about 2 years later.  And the 2 college tuitions is 2 college tuitions whether it is strung over 4 yrs or strung over 6 yrs.

But those families are not buying a second crib, a second car seat, a second high chair.  These things tend to get reused, but with 2 you are buying duplicates NOW.  

[gooddecisions]

That article makes no sense. It claims that twins are bad for the economy because parents have to spend more. Spending more is good for the economy. I suppose you could make a straw-man argument that it would be bad for the household budget, but even that's a stretch unless you were only ever planning to have one child. For what it's worth, I'm a twin and was born a very healthy 8.2 lbs vaginally at 40 weeks, my twin was 7.9. Doctors always seem to push for 37 week c-sections these days, I guess because "studies." We shared a room, toys, clothes and later a car. I don't think we cost our parents any more than any other family with multiple kids. Maybe even less- because one hospital birth is cheaper than 2.

[gooddecisions]

As far as things like cribs and high chairs, they can be purchased very, very cheaply second-hand. As far as car seats, children have to use them until they are at least 4 years old these days. So, unless you put off having another for 4 years, you'll have to buy a second anyway before promoting the first to a booster- and even then, there is a good chance that first car seat will be "expired."

[Deleted]

Nov 30, 2014 13:02:07 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Nov 30, 2014 12:52:54 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

No - not "doubling" costs. Most families will have the second child anyway, usually about 2 years later.  And the 2 college tuitions is 2 college tuitions whether it is strung over 4 yrs or strung over 6 yrs.

But those families are not buying a second crib, a second car seat, a second high chair.  These things tend to get reused, but with 2 you are buying duplicates NOW.  

Those are pretty small costs in the grand scheme of things though.  A few hundred in extra baby stuff and you lose out on hand me down clothes too, but the big hitters don't really matter you end up paying double no matter what.  Childcare, food, activities, college... You might even come out better with college with twins because the EFC would be divided by two the entire 4 years.  Daycare sometimes offers multi-child discounts too.  My boss with triplets gets a huge discount on tuition for high school.  It's something like 30% for 3 or more kids in the same time.

[giramomma]

Nov 30, 2014 13:02:07 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Nov 30, 2014 12:52:54 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

No - not "doubling" costs. Most families will have the second child anyway, usually about 2 years later.  And the 2 college tuitions is 2 college tuitions whether it is strung over 4 yrs or strung over 6 yrs.

But those families are not buying a second crib, a second car seat, a second high chair.  These things tend to get reused, but with 2 you are buying duplicates NOW.  

Actually, cribs can be staggered. You can also stagger a second high chair or get a space saver high chair like we did. Car seats are the only thing that cannot be staggered.

And, not everything gets recycled when you have more than one kid. I thought I was being so smart by buying gender neutral clothing for my first. My first was a spring baby, my second, a late fall baby. So that didn't work well.

With number 3, we've replaced some things: the space saver high chair, and a toy kitchen that was falling apart.

I prefer to string my costs out. The thought of having to pay 15K in braces alone, over 2.5 years makes me rather ill.  There's a point where you really can't cash flow expenses. We saved a crapton before kids, which is very helpful right now. It's the only thing that saving us financially right now.

[TheHaitian]

The only way I see it as bad for the economy is that a parent is most likely to stay home with the kids if they are twins depending on income level.

A family might be able to swing 1 daycare bill at a time, 2 will be a stretch for the average American family.

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't know how it effects economy, but if I had had twins, I would be spending  ALOT!!!! for my  therapy.  And I mean A LOT!!

Other than that....I can't imagine "baby" costs being that much higher. 

As a matter of fact,  a lot of "kids activity" places offer much higher discounts if you have twins vs if you just have two or more kids bc the assumption is that having twins is much more expensive.

[thyme4change]

Nov 30, 2014 12:56:19 GMT -5 justme said:

Maybe the extra spending is not outweighed by the possible millions of nicu and resulting therapies and early interventions?

But, at some point, isn't someone making money off these medical procedures.  To go to extreme, if every baby were perfectly healthy, there would be no NICU nurses or doctors, no special equipment (manufacturing jobs, sales jobs, etc.)  It seems like jobs would go away.  Sure - it costs a lot, but those costs are spread around and I pay a fraction of a penny for anyone who had a NICU baby and had the same insurance company as me.  Is it really a net loss to the macro-economy?  Or does their health needs create jobs, which bolster the economy?

Re-reading it, it isn't a great article.  

[justme]

Nov 30, 2014 14:48:32 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Nov 30, 2014 12:56:19 GMT -5 justme said:

Maybe the extra spending is not outweighed by the possible millions of nicu and resulting therapies and early interventions?

But, at some point, isn't someone making money off these medical procedures.  To go to extreme, if every baby were perfectly healthy, there would be no NICU nurses or doctors, no special equipment (manufacturing jobs, sales jobs, etc.)  It seems like jobs would go away.  Sure - it costs a lot, but those costs are spread around and I pay a fraction of a penny for anyone who had a NICU baby and had the same insurance company as me.  Is it really a net loss to the macro-economy?  Or does their health needs create jobs, which bolster the economy?

Re-reading it, it isn't a great article.  

It was the only thing I could think of that's a negative. I thought if the kids had enough problems they went on Medicaid. Which since it's a government program it's not creating wealth, improving the economy. And since they pay low the hospitals write a lot off.

Not always the case but the only situation I could see it be bad for the economy.

[Deleted]

I'm the great-aunt of two sets of twins, both pairs of female fraternal twins. In both cases their parents had trouble conceiving so I suspect modern medicine was involved.

Mixed results on their impact on the economy. First of all, I'm sure it was great revenue for whatever fertility clinics the parents used, and also a big profit center for the baby who stayed in the NICU almost a month even though she hit 7 lbs. fairly early and her sister, who was smaller at birth, was home in about a week. I'm not sure what compelled them to keep her in there since there were no problems that I know of.  (Other than the fact that the parents were both employed with good benefits.)

My niece did quit her job, but she was becoming bored with it and her husband, who'd made partner at a young age in a Big 6 firm, had a really demanding job with a lot of travel.  The mother of the other twins, a niece by marriage, has a Ph.D. in chemistry and went back to work.

I'd say overall it was good for the economy.  One lost income, lots of additional expenses.

[thyme4change]

Nov 30, 2014 14:52:50 GMT -5 justme said:

Nov 30, 2014 14:48:32 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

But, at some point, isn't someone making money off these medical procedures.  To go to extreme, if every baby were perfectly healthy, there would be no NICU nurses or doctors, no special equipment (manufacturing jobs, sales jobs, etc.)  It seems like jobs would go away.  Sure - it costs a lot, but those costs are spread around and I pay a fraction of a penny for anyone who had a NICU baby and had the same insurance company as me.  Is it really a net loss to the macro-economy?  Or does their health needs create jobs, which bolster the economy?

Re-reading it, it isn't a great article.  

It was the only thing I could think of that's a negative. I thought if the kids had enough problems they went on Medicaid. Which since it's a government program it's not creating wealth, improving the economy. And since they pay low the hospitals write a lot off.

Not always the case but the only situation I could see it be bad for the economy.

But even with Medicaid - staff are still being paid, which is pushing dollars through the economy.  The "New Deal" was a big exercise in stimulating the economy through government spending - from taxes or debt.  It still moves money through the system.

[justme]

Nov 30, 2014 14:59:26 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Nov 30, 2014 14:52:50 GMT -5 justme said:

It was the only thing I could think of that's a negative. I thought if the kids had enough problems they went on Medicaid. Which since it's a government program it's not creating wealth, improving the economy. And since they pay low the hospitals write a lot off.

Not always the case but the only situation I could see it be bad for the economy.

But even with Medicaid - staff are still being paid, which is pushing dollars through the economy.  The "New Deal" was a big exercise in stimulating the economy through government spending - from taxes or debt.  It still moves money through the system.

Except, economically it's not adding to the economy and the government spending money is widely regarded on the economic community as not helping the economy (with the new deal and Keynesian economics pretty much disproved expect by those that benefit from the government spending more). All government spending is transfer payments. They took money from consumers that would have spent it and spent it themselves. They aren't adding anything to the economy just shifting the dollars around.

[Deleted]

Nov 30, 2014 13:18:55 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

The only way I see it as bad for the economy is that a parent is most likely to stay home with the kids if they are twins depending on income level.

A family might be able to swing 1 daycare bill at a time, 2 will be a stretch for the average American family.

Yeah, but that doesn't have to be twins.  Anyone with more than one is probably going to be dealing with more than one daycare bill at a time.  My kids are 8 years apart and I still had childcare for both for a few years.  Most people tend to have them less than 3 years apart so there's a lot of overlap in daycare there.

[TheHaitian]

Nov 30, 2014 16:31:00 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Nov 30, 2014 13:18:55 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

The only way I see it as bad for the economy is that a parent is most likely to stay home with the kids if they are twins depending on income level.

A family might be able to swing 1 daycare bill at a time, 2 will be a stretch for the average American family.

Yeah, but that doesn't have to be twins.  Anyone with more than one is probably going to be dealing with more than one daycare bill at a time.  My kids are 8 years apart and I still had childcare for both for a few years.  Most people tend to have them less than 3 years apart so there's a lot of overlap in daycare there.

True but you pay less for a toddler than you pay for an infant, and if the gap is big for one kid you might only have to worry for after car (Pre-K, etc).

It is one thing to pay (just pulled one up) an additional $450/week after getting used to the rate for baby #1 and the their rate dropping $100-200/week... It is totally another think to go from $0/week to $900/week for 2.

And everyone mentions discounts, a friend had to move from NY to VA because after his wife got pregnant with twins (they already had a 2 year old) ... All the daycare was offering them was a $50/off each of the twins every week. So $100 off a $900 bill might sound good to the daycare provider but was a drop in the bucket for them.

So they moved to VA where her parents that were retired could watch the kids.

[gooddecisions]

Nov 30, 2014 17:00:10 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Nov 30, 2014 16:31:00 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Yeah, but that doesn't have to be twins.  Anyone with more than one is probably going to be dealing with more than one daycare bill at a time.  My kids are 8 years apart and I still had childcare for both for a few years.  Most people tend to have them less than 3 years apart so there's a lot of overlap in daycare there.

True but you pay less for a toddler than you pay for an infant, and if the gap is big for one kid you might only have to worry for after car (Pre-K, etc).

It is one thing to pay (just pulled one up) an additional $450/week after getting used to the rate for baby #1 and the their rate dropping $100-200/week... It is totally another think to go from $0/week to $900/week for 2.

And everyone mentions discounts, a friend had to move from NY to VA because after his wife got pregnant with twins (they already had a 2 year old) ... All the daycare was offering them was a $50/off each of the twins every week. So $100 off a $900 bill might sound good to the daycare provider but was a drop in the bucket for them.

So they moved to VA where her parents that were retired could watch the kids.

It's true. I'm pretty disappointed in the multiple kid discount. They offer 5% off the oldest child's tuition. It works out to about a $1000 discount on a $32,000 annual bill. My kids are 30 months apart. Two or more in daycare sucks. Regardless, twins are weird and kind of creepy.

[bobosensei]

I didn't read the article, but I would think that yes, twins could hurt the economy.  Sure money is being spent in some cases to buy duplicate baby items and I agree that most of the people would have a second child anyway and so would eventually be spending more for another kid anyway, but I imagine that there is a psychological component to having twins that causes many of the parents to buckle down on the other part of their budget more than if they only had a single birth.  I'm not talking about having to buckle down because they are buying two of everything, but rather having a fear of how much more they will be spending than if they had a single child that causes them to stop all discretionary spending even if they could afford it.

[Deleted]

Unless it's a greater outflow of taxpayer money, I don't get how twins hurt the economy.  Increased spending should stimulate the economy.