If money was no object, how many kids would you have?

[Anonymous]

Follow on question - how would you use that money to help?

[Anonymous]

4 - 2 now

[Anonymous]

We have 2 and are done done done. Money was not a factor in the decision in the least.

[Anonymous]

I think we would probably stay at 1. I might think about it for a minute though if money were really such not an object that we could have a full-time nanny traveling with us. Even still though, I think I would stay at 1.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully, one more, bringing us to a grand total of 2. It's not that we can't afford to care for another, it's just that IVF is freakin' expensive, with uncertain outcomes. With unlimited funds, we'd have kept trying for several more years, no matter the cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two, because it's not just about the money, but about the time, and we all get 24 hours in a day no matter how wealthy.

Besides, I like to cook and shop. I don't think I would outsource those, necessarily.

If you won the lottery, though, you could stop working. That would free up 8 to 10 hours a day for additional parenting.

New Poster. If I came into a bunch of money I don't think I'd want to be a SAHM, at least not now, maybe later on. Just not my personality...I would want to do something. I love my job but probably would quit, but would start a small business or whatever. Or maybe just become a personal trainer or yoga instructor, or get my PhD...I don't know, I wouldn't want not to any kind of work.

So in that sense I'd probably just stick with 2. I love being a parent, but parenting is only one aspect of myself and I'd like to continue to explore other areas.

[Anonymous]

Two or three. We have one now and may have two.

[Anonymous]

2 because no matter how much money I have, we are only two parents, and I wouldn't want my kids to think they have to compete amongst a flock for our love and attention. (I say that as a working mom, btw - and would mean it as much if I were a SAHM.)

[Anonymous]

4. We're currently expecting Nos. 2 and 3, and I think they'll pretty well wipe us out financially. I come from a big family, and always wanted that for myself. In my experience, the love grows as the family grows--I never felt like I was competing for love as a child, even when I did have to share attention. Hopefully we can do the same for our children.

[Anonymous]

We have four and not a high HHI (under 100K). Money isn't really a factor in our decision to have kids beyond ensuring we can meet their needs. We are done at 4.

[Anonymous]

3. I have one from my first marriage and I just had 1 with my second DH. I would love to have another to give DD a sibling closer to her age...and having another with DH would be great, but I'm 43, so unless we hit the lottery today or tomorrow, we will just continue to love and cherish the ones that we have.

[Anonymous]

Four. I would also quit my job and hire a bunch of domestics to focus on the parts of parenting I prefer.

[Anonymous]

We had twins late in life and for us, two is the right number. Money is not an issue (especially considering how much we spent to conceive the two of them).

[Anonymous]

PP here...and its not that we cannot afford to have another to give DD a sibling closer to her age, but having more money would allow for us to do more in other areas. For instance, we have decided not to try for another because we travel quite a bit for both work and leisure. If we had more money then we could hire a nanny to travel with us. It is much easier to travel with one LO versus two. That's our thinking right now anyway...who knows what the future holds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still just the 2. I don't have the emotional space for more.

Same here, for me its about the time and the emotional energy not the money.