Tim Carney in the Post: The Ideal Number of Kids is Four (at a minimum)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

You live in a conservative catholic bubble where child neglect is the standard of care. (Carney is up front about it: the older kids take care of the younger kids and do a lot of housework.)

Meanwhile the vast majority of catholics use BC and have 1-3 kids.

Is there ever a time that you see an older child playing with a younger child that you don’t consider it neglect or abuse?

It's not abuse, but it can be suboptimal care in many cases. I have orthodox Catholic neighbors with 5+ kids who both WOHM and no nanny and it's like Lord of the Flies at their house. Their youngest two kids are constantly roaming the neighborhood when their older siblings are watching them looking to be cared for by other SAHPs or nannies of other kids.

Okay. You live by Greek Orthodox Catholics with two moms who both work outside the home.
And the children of these lesbian Catholics aren’t playing with other kids in the neighborhood, they are just looking for random adults to care for them.

Thank you for sharing. This is definitely an unusual family!

Reading comprehension fail. They are not Greek orthodox, they are orthodox Catholics.

PP used the term "neighbors "as well as the term "who both WOHM." Plural. Two heterosexual couples. Not a lesbian couple.

Maybe that Catholic school education hasn't served you so well.

She is confused because Orthodox Catholics are not a thing. It is a term some made up recently and it makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

You live in a conservative catholic bubble where child neglect is the standard of care. (Carney is up front about it: the older kids take care of the younger kids and do a lot of housework.)

Meanwhile the vast majority of catholics use BC and have 1-3 kids.

Is there ever a time that you see an older child playing with a younger child that you don’t consider it neglect or abuse?

It's not abuse, but it can be suboptimal care in many cases. I have orthodox Catholic neighbors with 5+ kids who both WOHM and no nanny and it's like Lord of the Flies at their house. Their youngest two kids are constantly roaming the neighborhood when their older siblings are watching them looking to be cared for by other SAHPs or nannies of other kids.

Okay. You live by Greek Orthodox Catholics with two moms who both work outside the home.
And the children of these lesbian Catholics aren’t playing with other kids in the neighborhood, they are just looking for random adults to care for them.

Thank you for sharing. This is definitely an unusual family!

My bad--they have 2 WOHP, not WOHMs. But yes they are unusual in that they're looking for random adults to care for them. It gets discussed at every neighborhood block party. Half the families complain that kid x and kid y are always at their house. Those younger kids are never at their own home and parents don't seem to notice.

The relevant point is that if you have 4+ kids and 2 WOHPs, people who require sleep don't have time to dedicate to those career and adequately parent. Even Amy Coney Barrett said she couldn't have parented her brood of 7 and had the career she had without help from both her aunt and her husband doing a lot of the childcare/housecare duties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

You live in a conservative catholic bubble where child neglect is the standard of care. (Carney is up front about it: the older kids take care of the younger kids and do a lot of housework.)

Meanwhile the vast majority of catholics use BC and have 1-3 kids.

Is there ever a time that you see an older child playing with a younger child that you don’t consider it neglect or abuse?

It's not abuse, but it can be suboptimal care in many cases. I have orthodox Catholic neighbors with 5+ kids who both WOHM and no nanny and it's like Lord of the Flies at their house. Their youngest two kids are constantly roaming the neighborhood when their older siblings are watching them looking to be cared for by other SAHPs or nannies of other kids.

Okay. You live by Greek Orthodox Catholics with two moms who both work outside the home.
And the children of these lesbian Catholics aren’t playing with other kids in the neighborhood, they are just looking for random adults to care for them.

Thank you for sharing. This is definitely an unusual family!

My bad--they have 2 WOHP, not WOHMs. But yes they are unusual in that they're looking for random adults to care for them. It gets discussed at every neighborhood block party. Half the families complain that kid x and kid y are always at their house. Those younger kids are never at their own home and parents don't seem to notice.

The relevant point is that if you have 4+ kids and 2 WOHPs, people who require sleep don't have time to dedicate to those career and adequately parent. Even Amy Coney Barrett said she couldn't have parented her brood of 7 and had the career she had without help from both her aunt and her husband doing a lot of the childcare/housecare duties.

I think part of the reason having 4+ is easier is because you give up on having two big careers and you and your spouse just focus on being parents.
I think with 2 and even 3, you and your spouse can kind of delude yourselves into thinking you can do everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

Chill our anonymous poster. Pre-birth control families were large. And some families in America with a SAHP still live like it's the 1950s. No one is saying that it all runs beautifully and some of those SAHM end up psychotic from too much postpartum depression and harming their children (see Andrea Yates), but it is POSSIBLE to have a large family and have them happy.

It may be POSSIBLE but Tim Carney & go literally think women should be forced into doing it. Get this through your skull: no birth control, no abortion.

My understanding is that they think people who are called to Catholic marriage AND parenthood should have large families. Of course many people have other callings in life.

No that’s not quite right- if you are Catholic and married, you have to be *open* to having children. BC is prohibited, NFP is the standard, but you are supposed to prayerfully discern when and if you have another child. You might discern to have fewer children because of debilitating morning sickness, post partum depression, significant special needs, or because there are two meaningful, demanding careers between you and your spouse.

As a mother of 5, my problem with this article is that he describes the “ideal” family size as being a large one. Obviously there are beautiful families of all sizes. Normally I wouldn’t quibble too much with word choice, but I think he should have argued that big families can be wonderful too and that they offer a glimpse into the value of landing the helicopter.

[Anonymous]

Lots of parents fulfillment and joy out of seeing their intensive time investment in 1 or 2 children pay off. When they win awards for academics or special skills and get admitted to selective schools or camps, you feel great about all the time you spent together helping them hone those talents and achieve those elite goals.

I know there can be high-achievers from large families, usually the oldest child, but you just can't spend as much time with your golden child when you have 4-5 ankle biters needing this and that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of parents fulfillment and joy out of seeing their intensive time investment in 1 or 2 children pay off. When they win awards for academics or special skills and get admitted to selective schools or camps, you feel great about all the time you spent together helping them hone those talents and achieve those elite goals.

I know there can be high-achievers from large families, usually the oldest child, but you just can't spend as much time with your golden child when you have 4-5 ankle biters needing this and that.

This is true for me. I have an only and I find every milestone and achievement and development so rewarding, whether it's learning to read or hearing she had terrific manners at a friend's house.

I see the appeal of more kids (I love this one dearly, why not have more kids to love). But I also recognize that with multiple kids, my relationship withy DD would change, and I like our dynamic a lot. There's something very pleasant about her being my only daughter and me being her only mother. I know my DH feels similarly.

I also don't find parenting overwhelming. To me, one is just right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of five here. It is 100 percent easier to have 5 kids than 3. I found 3 the absolute hardest. Now my older kids entertain and help with the younger kids. The year my third was born was the least happy year of my life. I am now the happiest I have ever been since becoming a mom with my fifth almost turning one. I am way more relaxed and it is 100 percent true that older kids help so much. For example on Saturday mornings I will wake up and my 12 year old has changed my toddler's diaper, turned on his cartoon, and gotten him a bowl of cheerios while I lounge in bed with DH.

What I am looking forward to is parents of 2-3 kids trying to explain why those of us with 4+ don't actually know what we are talking about when we say it's easier and we are happier than you all.

Of course parenting is easier if you check out and dgaf. Not really a flex, but at least 30% self-aware, and that's got to count for . . . something.

sorry you don't get to relax saturday mornings?

It's relaxing for me to hang out with my kids, actually. Not snark,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

DP. We are Catholic, have 5 kids, and know many families with similar numbers of children. Of course these parents competently care for their children. They might not cook elaborate meals or exercise every day or have perfectly decorated homes or be self actualized or any of the other things that DCUM believes parents should be doing. But they care for their children and maintain their homes.
Their lives are just very child centric. All big decisions (home, career, etc) are done with the children in mind.

I’m one of six and we are reasonably close as adults. But there is no question there was some neglect and as adults we have all had to grapple with that. I know very few kids raised in large families who chose that path themselves, including none of my siblings.

Same. Youngest of six and none of us had large families. My parents were great people but it was a lot. I was raised a lot by my siblings and that got tiresome. They all knew what was best for me, etc. Important emotional things fell through the cracks. We had plenty of money and wanted for nothing, including education but there just was not enough parenting to go around, my mom was a SAHM too. It’s not the same to get nurturing from siblings. You want your parents more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

Chill our anonymous poster. Pre-birth control families were large. And some families in America with a SAHP still live like it's the 1950s. No one is saying that it all runs beautifully and some of those SAHM end up psychotic from too much postpartum depression and harming their children (see Andrea Yates), but it is POSSIBLE to have a large family and have them happy.

It may be POSSIBLE but Tim Carney & go literally think women should be forced into doing it. Get this through your skull: no birth control, no abortion.

My understanding is that they think people who are called to Catholic marriage AND parenthood should have large families. Of course many people have other callings in life.

No that’s not quite right- if you are Catholic and married, you have to be *open* to having children. BC is prohibited, NFP is the standard, but you are supposed to prayerfully discern when and if you have another child. You might discern to have fewer children because of debilitating morning sickness, post partum depression, significant special needs, or because there are two meaningful, demanding careers between you and your spouse.

As a mother of 5, my problem with this article is that he describes the “ideal” family size as being a large one. Obviously there are beautiful families of all sizes. Normally I wouldn’t quibble too much with word choice, but I think he should have argued that big families can be wonderful too and that they offer a glimpse into the value of landing the helicopter.

Well NFP doesn’t really work so so much for “discerning.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of parents fulfillment and joy out of seeing their intensive time investment in 1 or 2 children pay off. When they win awards for academics or special skills and get admitted to selective schools or camps, you feel great about all the time you spent together helping them hone those talents and achieve those elite goals.

I know there can be high-achievers from large families, usually the oldest child, but you just can't spend as much time with your golden child when you have 4-5 ankle biters needing this and that.

It’s kind of pathetic to look for ROI in your children. Is that all your life is about? Intensely investing in your kids and looking forward to bragging about them when they perform well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

That’s just not true. I am in a group of higher order multiples, so many of us had 3 plus a sibling in that time frame and a couple had quadruplets. They are well cared for children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of parents fulfillment and joy out of seeing their intensive time investment in 1 or 2 children pay off. When they win awards for academics or special skills and get admitted to selective schools or camps, you feel great about all the time you spent together helping them hone those talents and achieve those elite goals.

I know there can be high-achievers from large families, usually the oldest child, but you just can't spend as much time with your golden child when you have 4-5 ankle biters needing this and that.

There is so much wrong with what you’ve just written. What you’ve described isn’t a healthy dynamic either.

[Anonymous]

[youtube] Lots of parents fulfillment and joy out of seeing their intensive time investment in 1 or 2 children pay off. When they win awards for academics or special skills and get admitted to selective schools or camps, you feel great about all the time you spent together helping them hone those talents and achieve those elite goals.

I know there can be high-achievers from large families, usually the oldest child, but you just can't spend as much time with your golden child when you have 4-5 ankle biters needing this and that

I disagree with so much of this - mainly your premise that there is some kind of parenting ROI based on your kid’s achievements - but to clap back at just one of your points, I am the parent of four high-achieving kids who each spent plenty of time with their parents. All were successful academically (all national merit commended or finalists, two valedictorians), all went to very selective colleges where two were recruited athletes and one received a full merit scholarship, all did volunteer work, one went to law school, all four are in touch multiple times a week via text or phone and visit each other in their different cities, etc. As parents, we have also experienced joy at their successes, but more enjoyed and valued the time we spent with them driving to school/music/athletic practices, watching them compete, sharing meals, etc. regardless of their level of success at chosen activities.

Of course even larger families can have more than one high achieving kid, since they are coming from the same genetic pool and usually have access to the same resource pool and parenting. Younger kids may also learn by examples set by older kids regarding setting goals, academic expectations , etc. And of course, each individual kid whether they have no sibling or three will have an individual outcome despite all these resources so there are no guarantees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of parents fulfillment and joy out of seeing their intensive time investment in 1 or 2 children pay off. When they win awards for academics or special skills and get admitted to selective schools or camps, you feel great about all the time you spent together helping them hone those talents and achieve those elite goals.

I know there can be high-achievers from large families, usually the oldest child, but you just can't spend as much time with your golden child when you have 4-5 ankle biters needing this and that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

Absolutely this. Go ahead and have 5 kids if you're going to have real adults taking care of them 90% of the time.

+1 This. If you've got the money to foist your kids on nannies great. If you have the money to have a SAHD or SAHM with talent for kids, great. But 2 working parents without means having all those kids because of reasons of faith (no birth control) or by accident is a recipe for disaster.

Even the best SAHM cannot take care of say 4 kids under 7 competently. Nobody can.

Says someone who thinks it’s fine to sends their kids to a daycare/preschool with a 8:1 ratio.

No judgment but I actually did not send my child to daycare until they were older in part because I didn’t like that ratio. Also daycare is 8 hrs/day, not all day, and the care workers have no duties other than attending to the babies. Very different from a mom with a newborn, preschooler, toddler, and a bunch of older kids to manage, plus housework.

I posted above numerous studies on large families having poor outcomes for children. It’s simple physics- just not enough parental resources that kids need to thrive.

Meh. Besides the daycare example, kindergarten teachers watch 24 kids plus for 8 hours a day. I think it's likely a competent SAHP could manage up 5-8 kids reasonably well. The SAHP may be tired but they don't have the stress of working out of the home and presumably the other parent would be around to help with the kids and housework when they're not at work.

Spoken like someone who has never lived in that kind of household. Kindergarten is 4-6 hours not all day. I think you literally have no understanding of this.

Chill our anonymous poster. Pre-birth control families were large. And some families in America with a SAHP still live like it's the 1950s. No one is saying that it all runs beautifully and some of those SAHM end up psychotic from too much postpartum depression and harming their children (see Andrea Yates), but it is POSSIBLE to have a large family and have them happy.

It may be POSSIBLE but Tim Carney & go literally think women should be forced into doing it. Get this through your skull: no birth control, no abortion.

My understanding is that they think people who are called to Catholic marriage AND parenthood should have large families. Of course many people have other callings in life.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Carney believes *his wife* was religiously obgligated not to use birth control get pregnant as often as possible, starting on their wedding night. Carney’s entire take on this is based on a fundamentalist belief that controlling fertility is sinful. Everything he says relates to that. Nothing he says relates to women choosing the type of family that works for them. He is against that. Literally against condoms and all forms of birth control. Do you get it now?

I’m pretty sure tim and his wife had all their kids early…they didn’t keep going for an infinite number. Six isn’t sixteen.