I’m not sure how the cost of having twins versus two singletons would compare across a twenty-two year span (factoring in the present value of money and a compound savings rate, of course)…
…but buying two pack-n-plays, two cribs, double the diapers, double the milk, double the shoes – not spread out over any span of time – sure makes it seem like multiples cost more.
Of course there are those precious economies of scale that never cease to delight me, most often found in the produce aisle. My girls split a banana every morning, and they often share oranges, and apples, and pears.
I’ve often pondered about feeding one child…either Mommy would up her fruit intake considerably, or I guess we’d stick to a lot of collectives (like grapes and berries) or things that save well (like melon and pineapple). [Do such ponderings mean I need a hobby???]
Twins also provide for the optimal utilization of bucket swings at the park, at least up to a certain age. One smaller baby would get so easily lost in one of those swings, I imagine…but back-to-back with her twin sister, our girls are snug as a bug (also resulting in one of my very favorite twin pics!).
This week I was overjoyed to realize another (rare) two-for-one special.
We made our semi-annual trip to buy shoes for the girls. They’ve consistently been a half-size off from each other, but they’ve been growing at least a size every six months.
This go-round, though, they both only grew a half size…SO…we only had to buy one new pair!
Having “fairness” issues like I do, though, I immediately started to feel a little guilty…but even my guilty side loves a bargain.
I bought the same style of new shoes for Baby A as the girls have been wearing, so she and her sister will still match. I’m thinking a pair of new shoelaces for Baby B, and no one will be the wiser.