Can you really afford that second child?

I had a conversation with a friend not too long ago who had one child in her mid-thirties and stopped there. She and her husband had an overwhelming desire to have one child, she said, but the desire for a second child just wasn’t strong enough to outweigh the cost. And that was that. I didn’t question her choice—everyone should do what’s right for them, especially when it comes to kids. But it was the first time I’d really given much thought to the idea that having children is also an economic decision. And for some people, the cost-benefit analysis just doesn’t work out—especially with a poor economy and shaky job stability. In one survey, 44 percent of women said they’re reducing or delaying childbearing because of the economy.

“Years ago, people didn’t really think about how many children they were having—they just kind of had them,” says Susan Newman, author of Parenting an Only Child. “There are still people who say money isn’t the issue, but they are fewer and farther between now.” And that’s because raising a child is more expensive than it’s ever been. Heck, even having a child is no financial walk in the park. By the time you get through the bills for prenatal care and the birth itself, you may already be cash poor. And let’s not even get into the price tags for adoption and fertility treatments.

It’s not like having one kid is cheap. One child means that cozy one-bedroom apartment is no longer going to cut it—unless, like some New Yorkers I know, the baby gets the bedroom and you sleep in the living room, but I’m not so into that. According to Bundle data, married parents in the U.S. spend an average of 40 percent more annually on entertainment, 16 percent more on groceries and 40 percent more on clothing and shoe shopping. (Those tiny little shoes? They don’t have tiny price tags.)

• ALSO ON BUNDLE: 7 embarrassing money problems… solved

But with two children, you’re really committed. From birth through age 17, the U.S. government estimates that you’ll blow through about $286,000 on the younger child in a two-child household. Oh, and that doesn’t include college. And that’s only if you and your honey make less than about $98,000 in household income. Make more than that and you’ll spend nearly half a million dollars. No, I’m not kidding. (Nor is Bundle writer Jeremy Vohwinkle in his piece on having a $222,000 baby.)

Adding to the price tag: parents with open wallets. “One of the factors that raises the economic demand on parents is the highly competitive nature of parenting today,” Newman says. “Parents are willing to pay for the Little League coach, the extra tutoring, and that all gets added in.” In other words, this is an era where every child plays a sport and a musical instrument practically from birth, and an SAT tutor is just one more necessary teen accessory. Then there’s the fact that thirty years ago, kids didn’t have laptop computers, cell phones, iPods or iPads. They had bikes. (At least, I had a bike.)

The biggest piece of that $286,000 pie goes toward housing, but the next-highest category is child care and education—something that was barely a blip on the cost radar back in 1960, when fewer women worked. “In interviewing parents of children who aren’t having more babies, one of the things that came up repeatedly is the cost of daycare,” Newman says. And the cost of daycare is an issue, she says, because women need to work. The one-income household is scarcer now than it was several decades ago, and managing a multi-kid household when both parents work full-time is like trying to simultaneously juggle a kitchen sink, a balloon and a kitten.

For some parents, the struggle—both financial and logistical—isn’t worth it. For instance, Vanessa Martin, a 32-year-old mom in California, has a demanding career, as does her husband. And although she came from a family of five, she and her husband have decided to call it quits with one son. “I’ve come to the conclusion that a second child is not within our means,” she says. “I know I can provide my son with a high quality of life and maintain ours. But I think a second child would break us.”

Not everyone feels that way, however. I spoke to one family that’s paying more for childcare and preschool for their three kids than the wife brings home in salary. “It’s a whopper,” says Steven Hammer, 37, who lives in Dallas with his wife, Lauren. “Writing out the checks every month is pain inducing.” Nonetheless, Lauren loves her job, and she’s not quitting anytime soon.

Then there’s the other half of the pie: education. My brother and sister-in-law found themselves in a bind this fall when their 6-year-old started the first grade in California’s budget-strapped public schools. She was in a class of 33 kids in a school offering no art, music, or physical education classes. In the end, they put her in a private school offering all the extras, plus computers and a 20-kid class. “We are going to eat Ramen noodles and Spaghetti O’s for the next two years,” my sister-in-law, Katie, says.

But for all the talk of money and the economy and delaying the popping out of babies, are more American families opting to have one child instead of several? Actually, no. In 1990, about 17 percent of women age 40 to 44 (who presumably are done with their childbearing) had one child. In 2006, guess what? Still seventeen percent. Even though a large percentage of women are putting off childbirth now, that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t jump back on the kid train in a couple of years if the economy improves. “There has certainly been a short-term response to the recession,” says Laura Lindberg, senior research associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research organization. “But it’ll be a while before we see if those pauses shift family size down the road.”

The other interesting thing is that when you ask Americans about ideal family size, the number of people choosing “one” hasn’t changed since 1936, when the Pew Research Center started popping the question. In 1936, two percent said one child. In 2009? Three percent. The clear winner is two kids, at 46 percent (trailed by three kids at 26 percent).

Money isn’t entirely out of the picture, though. When parents were asked why they decided to have their first child, 47 percent cited “adequate financial resources.” But 76 percent said “joy of children.”

So in the end, how are people deciding? Probably about the same way they always decided, with a stronger emphasis on finances in a somewhat shoddy economy. Only time will tell whether finances will push more American families to stop at one child. For now, it’s certainly not stopping us—my husband and I are expecting our second child in the spring.

MSN