What are the bad parts about having three kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have three and wish we'd had a fourth.

I read these responses of the cons, and I just think so many of them are bullshit. To address the objective, practical ones...we've sometimes brought an air mattress to hotel rooms if we thought they couldn't bring a cot. More often, though, we'll have a "suite" with two queens and a pullout couch.

Yeah, we have a minivan. But once they're all out of car seats, we can also squeeze into our standard, five-passenger vehicle when necessary or convenient.

The relationship issues among them have only been beneficial. My oldest has anxiety, and that's been challenging for all of us at times, but having two siblings makes it better for everyone, not worse.

Parenting has been fun, overall.

I’m 14:50 and agree that overall, parenting is fun. It’s also work. Your response implies that money isn’t a concern for your family - which is great - but it’s also not true for most of us. Things like childcare, college savings, car purchases, etc., can and do add up.

Also, if you’re the kind of person who easily dismisses financial concerns as “bullshit” and states that the relationship dynamics of three “have only been beneficial,” you’re likely missing some details. Overall, I think the dynamics of three have been preferable for our kids, but I don’t know that for a fact. Refusing to acknowledge any trade-offs of the decision to have three kids vs. two makes your judgment sus, as my kids would say.

Lol. These responses always make me laugh. It’s like saying “the trade-off of having a mansion in Chevy Chase vs a shack in Silver Spring is that you have less money.” Uh yeah…no s*** sherlock. People choose to invest in what they want.

What is it with your profanity, PP? It’s so juvenile.

Also, the point went over your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have three and wish we'd had a fourth.

I read these responses of the cons, and I just think so many of them are bullshit. To address the objective, practical ones...we've sometimes brought an air mattress to hotel rooms if we thought they couldn't bring a cot. More often, though, we'll have a "suite" with two queens and a pullout couch.

Yeah, we have a minivan. But once they're all out of car seats, we can also squeeze into our standard, five-passenger vehicle when necessary or convenient.

The relationship issues among them have only been beneficial. My oldest has anxiety, and that's been challenging for all of us at times, but having two siblings makes it better for everyone, not worse.

Parenting has been fun, overall.

I’m 14:50 and agree that overall, parenting is fun. It’s also work. Your response implies that money isn’t a concern for your family - which is great - but it’s also not true for most of us. Things like childcare, college savings, car purchases, etc., can and do add up.

Also, if you’re the kind of person who easily dismisses financial concerns as “bullshit” and states that the relationship dynamics of three “have only been beneficial,” you’re likely missing some details. Overall, I think the dynamics of three have been preferable for our kids, but I don’t know that for a fact. Refusing to acknowledge any trade-offs of the decision to have three kids vs. two makes your judgment sus, as my kids would say.

Lol. These responses always make me laugh. It’s like saying “the trade-off of having a mansion in Chevy Chase vs a shack in Silver Spring is that you have less money.” Uh yeah…no s*** sherlock. People choose to invest in what they want.

"People choose to invest in what they want" implies that everyone has the same amount of money to start. This is obviously not true.

Lots of people stop at 2 kids even though, in their ideal world, they'd have more, because they know it would stretch them financially past what the are comfortable with. Just like plenty of people choose to buy a more affordable home in Silver Spring over stretching for the jumbo mortgage on a mansion in Chevy Chase, because for them it would mean stretching to the tippy top of their budget and they are uncomfortable with that.

If you can easily afford three kids, or a mansion in Chevy Chase, you may not understand that it's not about where you "choose to invest" -- it's about being realistic about what you can really afford and not wanting to put your family in a precarious financial position. It's not just about choice, it's also about limitations on your choices.

[Anonymous]

I have three.

Some other factors not mentioned:

When they are younger, it can strain your leave if they all get sick at different times.
More kids mean more stress when things aren't as expected (i.e. dealing with special needs or medical issues)
The logistics of scheduling doctors, dentists, orthodontists, therapists, etc. is that much more difficult with three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have three and wish we'd had a fourth.

I read these responses of the cons, and I just think so many of them are bullshit. To address the objective, practical ones...we've sometimes brought an air mattress to hotel rooms if we thought they couldn't bring a cot. More often, though, we'll have a "suite" with two queens and a pullout couch.

Yeah, we have a minivan. But once they're all out of car seats, we can also squeeze into our standard, five-passenger vehicle when necessary or convenient.

The relationship issues among them have only been beneficial. My oldest has anxiety, and that's been challenging for all of us at times, but having two siblings makes it better for everyone, not worse.

Parenting has been fun, overall.

I’m 14:50 and agree that overall, parenting is fun. It’s also work. Your response implies that money isn’t a concern for your family - which is great - but it’s also not true for most of us. Things like childcare, college savings, car purchases, etc., can and do add up.

Also, if you’re the kind of person who easily dismisses financial concerns as “bullshit” and states that the relationship dynamics of three “have only been beneficial,” you’re likely missing some details. Overall, I think the dynamics of three have been preferable for our kids, but I don’t know that for a fact. Refusing to acknowledge any trade-offs of the decision to have three kids vs. two makes your judgment sus, as my kids would say.

Lol. These responses always make me laugh. It’s like saying “the trade-off of having a mansion in Chevy Chase vs a shack in Silver Spring is that you have less money.” Uh yeah…no s*** sherlock. People choose to invest in what they want.

"People choose to invest in what they want" implies that everyone has the same amount of money to start. This is obviously not true.

Lots of people stop at 2 kids even though, in their ideal world, they'd have more, because they know it would stretch them financially past what the are comfortable with. Just like plenty of people choose to buy a more affordable home in Silver Spring over stretching for the jumbo mortgage on a mansion in Chevy Chase, because for them it would mean stretching to the tippy top of their budget and they are uncomfortable with that.

If you can easily afford three kids, or a mansion in Chevy Chase, you may not understand that it's not about where you "choose to invest" -- it's about being realistic about what you can really afford and not wanting to put your family in a precarious financial position. It's not just about choice, it's also about limitations on your choices.

It sounds like you live in a bubble. Lots of “poor people” have big families. And most wouldn’t say that their kids are hurting because of it. You might! Because you think kids need more than they do. And that’s fine, have your 2 kids. But quit pretending that all kids need private school and organic groceries and piano lessons. The vast vast majority of people around the world didn’t grow up with probably a quarter of what you make, had many siblings, and did just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have three and wish we'd had a fourth.

I read these responses of the cons, and I just think so many of them are bullshit. To address the objective, practical ones...we've sometimes brought an air mattress to hotel rooms if we thought they couldn't bring a cot. More often, though, we'll have a "suite" with two queens and a pullout couch.

Yeah, we have a minivan. But once they're all out of car seats, we can also squeeze into our standard, five-passenger vehicle when necessary or convenient.

The relationship issues among them have only been beneficial. My oldest has anxiety, and that's been challenging for all of us at times, but having two siblings makes it better for everyone, not worse.

Parenting has been fun, overall.

I’m 14:50 and agree that overall, parenting is fun. It’s also work. Your response implies that money isn’t a concern for your family - which is great - but it’s also not true for most of us. Things like childcare, college savings, car purchases, etc., can and do add up.

Also, if you’re the kind of person who easily dismisses financial concerns as “bullshit” and states that the relationship dynamics of three “have only been beneficial,” you’re likely missing some details. Overall, I think the dynamics of three have been preferable for our kids, but I don’t know that for a fact. Refusing to acknowledge any trade-offs of the decision to have three kids vs. two makes your judgment sus, as my kids would say.

Lol. These responses always make me laugh. It’s like saying “the trade-off of having a mansion in Chevy Chase vs a shack in Silver Spring is that you have less money.” Uh yeah…no s*** sherlock. People choose to invest in what they want.

"People choose to invest in what they want" implies that everyone has the same amount of money to start. This is obviously not true.

Lots of people stop at 2 kids even though, in their ideal world, they'd have more, because they know it would stretch them financially past what the are comfortable with. Just like plenty of people choose to buy a more affordable home in Silver Spring over stretching for the jumbo mortgage on a mansion in Chevy Chase, because for them it would mean stretching to the tippy top of their budget and they are uncomfortable with that.

If you can easily afford three kids, or a mansion in Chevy Chase, you may not understand that it's not about where you "choose to invest" -- it's about being realistic about what you can really afford and not wanting to put your family in a precarious financial position. It's not just about choice, it's also about limitations on your choices.

Also, this is exactly what I was pointing out. “Comfortable with” is relative. Lots of people would prefer 4-6 kids and no money for vacations. Lots of people want business class seats to Switzerland and 1 kid. That’s ok. Quit denigrating people’s choices based on income.

[Anonymous]

Love my 3. But logistics are hard, when there are multiple activities. Especially hard when one still naps.

[Anonymous]

Assuming the household has two parents, you go from man on man to zone defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have three and wish we'd had a fourth.

I read these responses of the cons, and I just think so many of them are bullshit. To address the objective, practical ones...we've sometimes brought an air mattress to hotel rooms if we thought they couldn't bring a cot. More often, though, we'll have a "suite" with two queens and a pullout couch.

Yeah, we have a minivan. But once they're all out of car seats, we can also squeeze into our standard, five-passenger vehicle when necessary or convenient.

The relationship issues among them have only been beneficial. My oldest has anxiety, and that's been challenging for all of us at times, but having two siblings makes it better for everyone, not worse.

Parenting has been fun, overall.

I’m 14:50 and agree that overall, parenting is fun. It’s also work. Your response implies that money isn’t a concern for your family - which is great - but it’s also not true for most of us. Things like childcare, college savings, car purchases, etc., can and do add up.

Also, if you’re the kind of person who easily dismisses financial concerns as “bullshit” and states that the relationship dynamics of three “have only been beneficial,” you’re likely missing some details. Overall, I think the dynamics of three have been preferable for our kids, but I don’t know that for a fact. Refusing to acknowledge any trade-offs of the decision to have three kids vs. two makes your judgment sus, as my kids would say.

Lol. These responses always make me laugh. It’s like saying “the trade-off of having a mansion in Chevy Chase vs a shack in Silver Spring is that you have less money.” Uh yeah…no s*** sherlock. People choose to invest in what they want.

"People choose to invest in what they want" implies that everyone has the same amount of money to start. This is obviously not true.

Lots of people stop at 2 kids even though, in their ideal world, they'd have more, because they know it would stretch them financially past what the are comfortable with. Just like plenty of people choose to buy a more affordable home in Silver Spring over stretching for the jumbo mortgage on a mansion in Chevy Chase, because for them it would mean stretching to the tippy top of their budget and they are uncomfortable with that.

If you can easily afford three kids, or a mansion in Chevy Chase, you may not understand that it's not about where you "choose to invest" -- it's about being realistic about what you can really afford and not wanting to put your family in a precarious financial position. It's not just about choice, it's also about limitations on your choices.

It sounds like you live in a bubble. Lots of “poor people” have big families. And most wouldn’t say that their kids are hurting because of it. You might! Because you think kids need more than they do. And that’s fine, have your 2 kids. But quit pretending that all kids need private school and organic groceries and piano lessons. The vast vast majority of people around the world didn’t grow up with probably a quarter of what you make, had many siblings, and did just fine.

DP - actually, being raised in poverty robustly increases risk for a whole host of negative outcomes. So, whether someone acknowledges that or not, it’s what the research shows. And no, I’m not suggesting eugenics or anything of the sort; your flippancy around the issue of poverty is problematic. It’s not “just fine.” It’s also telling that you swing wildly between saying that most poor kids do “just fine” and criticizing PP for claiming that all kids need private school (which wasn’t actually said).

-Parent of three kids with the nerve to live in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

We have 3 and our biggest concern is money. We want to leave each one some real estate and they are all in private school. On our “good” income, it’s stressful. If we were making more money or had kinds in public, I would not feel this way. I think my kids are much better people because they are 3… even the fighting is good in my opinion. We just spent quite a bit of time with a family with an only (same age as one of my kids) and the difference is huge. While she had a great vocabulary and was quiet and respectful (my kids need to work on both those things), the social maturity and happiness in general was striking.

Just my opinion, but to each its own. We are very happy we have 3.

[Anonymous]

The worst part about having three kids, is that it's not four kids (or more!)

[Anonymous]

I have 3. Wish I’d had 4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have three and wish we'd had a fourth.

I read these responses of the cons, and I just think so many of them are bullshit. To address the objective, practical ones...we've sometimes brought an air mattress to hotel rooms if we thought they couldn't bring a cot. More often, though, we'll have a "suite" with two queens and a pullout couch.

Yeah, we have a minivan. But once they're all out of car seats, we can also squeeze into our standard, five-passenger vehicle when necessary or convenient.

The relationship issues among them have only been beneficial. My oldest has anxiety, and that's been challenging for all of us at times, but having two siblings makes it better for everyone, not worse.

Parenting has been fun, overall.

I’m 14:50 and agree that overall, parenting is fun. It’s also work. Your response implies that money isn’t a concern for your family - which is great - but it’s also not true for most of us. Things like childcare, college savings, car purchases, etc., can and do add up.

Also, if you’re the kind of person who easily dismisses financial concerns as “bullshit” and states that the relationship dynamics of three “have only been beneficial,” you’re likely missing some details. Overall, I think the dynamics of three have been preferable for our kids, but I don’t know that for a fact. Refusing to acknowledge any trade-offs of the decision to have three kids vs. two makes your judgment sus, as my kids would say.

Lol. These responses always make me laugh. It’s like saying “the trade-off of having a mansion in Chevy Chase vs a shack in Silver Spring is that you have less money.” Uh yeah…no s*** sherlock. People choose to invest in what they want.

"People choose to invest in what they want" implies that everyone has the same amount of money to start. This is obviously not true.

Lots of people stop at 2 kids even though, in their ideal world, they'd have more, because they know it would stretch them financially past what the are comfortable with. Just like plenty of people choose to buy a more affordable home in Silver Spring over stretching for the jumbo mortgage on a mansion in Chevy Chase, because for them it would mean stretching to the tippy top of their budget and they are uncomfortable with that.

If you can easily afford three kids, or a mansion in Chevy Chase, you may not understand that it's not about where you "choose to invest" -- it's about being realistic about what you can really afford and not wanting to put your family in a precarious financial position. It's not just about choice, it's also about limitations on your choices.

Also, this is exactly what I was pointing out. “Comfortable with” is relative. Lots of people would prefer 4-6 kids and no money for vacations. Lots of people want business class seats to Switzerland and 1 kid. That’s ok. Quit denigrating people’s choices based on income.

DP. The OP was asking about “bad parts about having three kids.” I love my three kids but lets not pretend there aren’t cons as well as pros to a family of five. Cost is absolutely one of them.

[Anonymous]

We don’t have unlimited money so we would probably have to wave goodbye to private school, business class, education and trust fund, or some combination thereof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As one of three closely spaced kids, I can tell you that my experience as one of three was the reason I stopped at two myself. With three, two kids are ALWAYS fighting. Traveling is a pain-when I was a kid, us three kids either had to share one bed, or one of us (usually me) slept on the floor. Hotels are made for four. It’s much harder to get a table at a crowded restaurant for 5 because you need a table for 6. Three kids do not fit comfortably in the backseat of a standard sedan (speaking from personal experience).

Maybe if you had two, and then a third once the older two are out of car seats, it wouldn’t be so bad. But DH is the youngest of three by 9 years and that sucked in a different way.

Also one of three. My mom always said the house was more peaceful when any one of us was out of the house.

[Anonymous]

"What are the cons of having one kid?"

"The main con is that she costs more than having zero kids."

Statements that are technically correct can still make stupid arguments.