孩子18歲以後撫養成本更高

Parents and would-be parents might be relieved to hear that last week's widely reported government figure estimating the cost of raising a child - around $300,000 over the first 17 years for middle-income, two-parent families - is, according to several economists, wide of the mark.

上月中旬，美國農業部(U.S. Department of Agriculture)公佈了撫養一個孩子的估計成本──中等收入雙親家庭撫養子女到18歲的成本約爲300,000美元，然而據多位經濟學家稱，這一廣泛報道的政府數據錯得離譜，父母們和即將成爲父母的人聽到這裏或許會感到鬆了一口氣。

The bad news is it may be a severe underestimate. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's report leaves two things out of account. For a start, it doesn't reflect unpaid time spent on parenting, including income forgone by parents who cut back on work hours to care for their children.

壞消息是，這個數字其實是可能嚴重低估了。美國農業部的報道沒有計入兩個項目。首先，它沒有反映出撫養孩子所花的無報酬時間，包括減少工作時間以照顧子女的父母放棄的收入。

Plus, the hit to parents' wallets doesn't end when the child turns 18, as the parents often still provide housing and food as well as pay for college. These could add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional costs.

而且，當子女到18歲以後，父母的荷包還要繼續出血，因爲父母經常仍要爲他們提供食宿和支付大學學費。這些費用會增加數十萬美元的成本。

"The real costs of raising a child for a moderate-income family" - including forgone income, college for those who attend, and the so-called opportunity cost of not investing the money - "would be closer to $900,000 to age 22 than the reported $300,000 expenditures to age 18," says John Ward, an economist and the president of John Ward Economics, based in Prairie Village, Kan., which consults on legal disputes for plaintiffs and defendants.

堪薩斯州普萊瑞村（Prairie Village）的John Ward Economics公司的總裁、經濟學家約翰•沃德（John Ward）說，"中等收入家庭撫養一個子女的實際成本"──包括放棄的收入、大學學費、以及沒有將這些錢進行投資而導致的所謂的機會成本──"到子女22歲時將接近900,000美元，而不是媒體報道的撫養到子女18歲時的300,000美元。"John Ward Economics爲原告和被告的法律糾紛提供諮詢服務。

(The $300,000 estimate takes into account expected inflation. In 2011 dollars, the price tag for a middle income family is $234,900.)

（300,000美元的估計考慮了預期通貨膨脹。按照2011年的貨幣購買力，中等收入家庭養育一個子女的估計成本爲234,900美元。）

USDA economist Mark Lino, chief author of the annual study, acknowledges the report excludes college and forgone income. These expenses and others after a child turns 18, he says, typically aren't included in calculating state guidelines for child-support and foster-care payments - a principal use of the report.

美國農業部的經濟學家、該項年度研究的主要作者馬克•利諾（Mark Lino）承認，該報告沒有考慮大學學費和父母放棄的收入。該報告的主要用途是爲美國州政府處理子女撫養費用相關問題時提供指引，利諾說，這些費用和子女18歲以後的其他費用在州政府制定相關指導方針時通常不包括在內。

"We have traditionally only looked at direct, out-of-pocket expenditures," he says.

他說，"我們傳統上只考察直接的、現付的支出。"

The USDA numbers represent how much parents spend on their children, and not necessarily how much they should spend, which Dr. Lino says would be "very subjective." His staff derives its spending data from the federal Consumer Expenditure Survey, produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, assigning child expenses in various categories to households including children.

美國農業部的數字表示父母對子女的支出金額，而不一定是他們應該支出的金額，利諾博士稱後者是"非常主觀的。"他手下的研究人員根據美國勞工統計局（Bureau of Labor Statistics）編寫的聯邦《消費者支出調查》（Consumer Expenditure Survey）得出這一支出數據，計算出有子女家庭的各類子女撫養費用。

Since the first USDA report, in 1960, the data and approach have evolved. As the nation's farming population has declined, the report no longer breaks out spending on farms, though it includes separate estimates for rural areas and urban areas in different parts of the country.

自從1960年美國農業部第一份此類報告出臺以來，相關數據和統計方法一直在演變。當美國的農業人口下降時，該報告不再單列農場家庭的支出，但它仍包括對全國不同區域的農村地區和城市地區的分別估計。

In 2008, Dr. Lino's staff made two broader shifts that pulled the estimate in different directions. Pushing the figure higher, the USDA began including in its estimate of child-care and education costs only households that bore such costs. Previously, it averaged in households without direct expenses for child care and education as zeros. The change led to an increase in the cost estimate of 33% for the category.

2008年，利諾博士手下的研究人員作出兩項主要變化，推動估計數字向不同方向變動。令數字升高的是，美國農業部開始在子女照顧與教育成本的估計數據中只計入承擔此類成本的家庭。之前在計算平均值時，將沒有子女照顧與教育直接費用的家庭計爲零。這一變化導致此類家庭的估計成本提高了33%。

A change in calculating housing expenses had the opposite effect. Before 2008, each child was assigned the same share of housing costs as any other member of the household. Since then, the cost per child has been set at the marginal cost of an additional bedroom, lowering the housing cost by between 22% and 45%, depending on the region.

住房費用計算方法的變化影響則與之相反。2008年以前，對每個子女和任何其他家庭成員賦予的住房成本份額相同。從那以後，每個子女的住房成本被定爲增加一間臥室的邊際成本，根據地區的不同，房屋成本的降低幅度在22%至45%之間。

The education cost would be far higher if college were included, even accounting for children who don't attend college, pay for it themselves or attend low-priced institutions. Several economists, including Jane Venohr, a research associate at the Denver-based Center for Policy Research think tank who studies child support, say the USDA's approach, by cutting off at age 18, is consistent with most states' child-support guidelines. She adds, however, that guideline details vary widely across the country, and that most states don't base their guidelines entirely on the USDA estimate.

如果加上大學學費，教育成本將高得多，即使算上沒有上大學的子女，以及自己支付學費或上低學費大學的子女。多位經濟學家──包括位於丹佛（Denver）的政策研究中心（Center for Policy Research）智庫的研究助理、研究子女撫養問題的簡•費諾爾（Jane Venohr）──都稱，美國農業部以18歲爲界的方法與多數州的子女撫養指導方針一致。然而，她還說，不同地區的指導方針詳情差異很大，多數州的指導方針並非完全基於美國農業部的估算。

Lonnie Berger, associate professor of social work at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, says post-18 expenditures matter in adding up all costs to parents. Given the prolonged dependency of many adult children in the current economy, "ideally, such an accounting would extend at least through the early to mid 30s," Prof. Berger says.

威斯康星大學麥迪遜分校（University of Wisconsin, Madison）的社會工作學副教授朗尼•伯傑（Lonnie Berger）說，加總父母全部支出時，18歲以上子女的支出很重要。伯傑教授說，鑑於目前經濟中許多成年子女的依賴期延長，"理論上，這種計算至少應延長至子女30歲出頭時。"

Nancy Folbre, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, argued in her 2008 book "Valuing Children' that forgone wages should be included in the cost of raising children. She found that parents' time cost is larger, on average, than direct spending, at least until children reach age 12. The best explanation of why time cost hasn't been included, she says, is that 'we still don't have the data we need to provide really accurate estimates."

馬薩諸塞大學阿姆赫斯特分校（University of Massachusetts, Amherst）的經濟學家南希•福爾佈雷（Nancy Folbre）在她2008年出版的著作《孩子的價值》（Valuing Children）中稱，父母放棄的工資應包括在撫養子女的成本中。她發現，平均而言，父母的時間成本高於直接支出，至少直到子女12歲以前是如此。她說，對沒有計入時間成本的最好解釋是，"我們仍缺少提供真正準確的估計所需的數據。"

Even the federal American Time Use Survey, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, doesn't directly measure how much time all adults in a household are spending caring for their children.

即使是勞工統計局的《美國人時間使用調查》（American Time Use Survey）也沒有直接衡量出家庭中所有成人照顧子女所花的時間。

Lest this all sound like a dismal accounting of child-rearing by the dismal science, Prof. Berger says the cost approach excludes the many benefits of having children, not all of them quantifiable, such as happiness and personal satisfaction. Cost estimates such as the USDA's exclude "any intrinsic benefit that parents realize from child rearing, which would be extremely difficult to monetize," Prof. Berger says.

爲了避免這聽上去像"悲觀科學"對撫養子女作出的悲觀計算，伯傑教授說，成本方法並沒有包括擁有子女的許多收益，並非所有收益都是可以量化的，例如快樂與個人滿足感。伯傑教授說，諸如美國農業部報告這樣的成本估計都沒有包括"父母從撫養子女中獲得的內在收益，這可能極難貨幣化。"

It should be remembered that parents may also get tangible returns from their adult children in time, such as financial resources and caregiving, Prof. Berger adds.

伯傑教授說，應該記住，父母最終還能從成年子女那裏獲得了有形回報，例如金錢資源和看護。