How many kids would you have if money were no object? What would you spend it on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would stop at 2 no matter what. Money isn't the issue for me, it's all the damn kids!!

I also agree it's not about hiring people to help you and this just gets more and more true the older they get. They want YOU, not a nanny. And even just two people wanting a lot from me is frankly, emotionally and mentally overwhelming some times. Another one might have killed me. And my marriage.

But with unlimited money, think of how much more time in the day you'd have for yourself, even if you gave them the time they want. I read an interview with Gwyneth Paltrow recently that described how awesome her kids are ... money lets you be calm, and centered, and focused on yourself, and still have time to play with your kids. For example, she's cooking herself a meal she wants while her housekeeper stands next to her cooking for the kids. No one is ignoring the kids, but she doesn't have to compromise, or make two meals...

This lifestyle requires having strangers in your home constantly. I’d hate to have to cook my dinner with someone other than a family member in the room. Having a nanny is more than enough. Constantly having household help in my home would drive me crazy.

[Anonymous]

i have 2 now. if I had unlimited funds, I would have another, quit my job AND have a nanny. probably keep our current house, write a few articles I've had in the back of my head for awhile, do some volunteering, plan some epic vacations. hell funds were truly unlimited, I would set up my parents and my inlaws better for their retirement, set up college funds for my kids and nieces and nephews, and establish a charitable foundation to work on projects my DH and I could agree on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would stop at 2 no matter what. Money isn't the issue for me, it's all the damn kids!!

I also agree it's not about hiring people to help you and this just gets more and more true the older they get. They want YOU, not a nanny. And even just two people wanting a lot from me is frankly, emotionally and mentally overwhelming some times. Another one might have killed me. And my marriage.

But with unlimited money, think of how much more time in the day you'd have for yourself, even if you gave them the time they want. I read an interview with Gwyneth Paltrow recently that described how awesome her kids are ... money lets you be calm, and centered, and focused on yourself, and still have time to play with your kids. For example, she's cooking herself a meal she wants while her housekeeper stands next to her cooking for the kids. No one is ignoring the kids, but she doesn't have to compromise, or make two meals...

This lifestyle requires having strangers in your home constantly. I’d hate to have to cook my dinner with someone other than a family member in the room. Having a nanny is more than enough. Constantly having household help in my home would drive me crazy.

I was just going to post this same response. I'm the original poster who said my kids can emotionally and mentally overwhelm me. We have plenty of money and I had a FT nanny for years, including during my maternity leave for my second kid. Of course it helps a ton. But it's another person in your life and all their issues and managing them and they're just there all the time. I guess it would work out great if you're so, so rich you have someone else who hires and manages your household help?? But I don't want to cook side by side with hired help or raise my kids side by side with hired help. And I don't want to have other people in my house all the time.

And people like GP say whatever they need to say to sell their brand. Hers is a lifestyle brand. Of course she's going to make her lifestyle sound great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would stop at 2 no matter what. Money isn't the issue for me, it's all the damn kids!!

I also agree it's not about hiring people to help you and this just gets more and more true the older they get. They want YOU, not a nanny. And even just two people wanting a lot from me is frankly, emotionally and mentally overwhelming some times. Another one might have killed me. And my marriage.

But with unlimited money, think of how much more time in the day you'd have for yourself, even if you gave them the time they want. I read an interview with Gwyneth Paltrow recently that described how awesome her kids are ... money lets you be calm, and centered, and focused on yourself, and still have time to play with your kids. For example, she's cooking herself a meal she wants while her housekeeper stands next to her cooking for the kids. No one is ignoring the kids, but she doesn't have to compromise, or make two meals...

This lifestyle requires having strangers in your home constantly. I’d hate to have to cook my dinner with someone other than a family member in the room. Having a nanny is more than enough. Constantly having household help in my home would drive me crazy.

I also think I'd still stop at 2, but my kids are still very young (1 and 3) so ask me again in a few years when I don't have 2 mommy's boys who are so attached to me they would literally crawl back inside of me if they could. I probably would just pay moms of newborns to let me snuggle their babies so I could get my fix. No mom guilt, no problem!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would stop at 2 no matter what. Money isn't the issue for me, it's all the damn kids!!

I also agree it's not about hiring people to help you and this just gets more and more true the older they get. They want YOU, not a nanny. And even just two people wanting a lot from me is frankly, emotionally and mentally overwhelming some times. Another one might have killed me. And my marriage.

But with unlimited money, think of how much more time in the day you'd have for yourself, even if you gave them the time they want. I read an interview with Gwyneth Paltrow recently that described how awesome her kids are ... money lets you be calm, and centered, and focused on yourself, and still have time to play with your kids. For example, she's cooking herself a meal she wants while her housekeeper stands next to her cooking for the kids. No one is ignoring the kids, but she doesn't have to compromise, or make two meals...

This lifestyle requires having strangers in your home constantly. I’d hate to have to cook my dinner with someone other than a family member in the room. Having a nanny is more than enough. Constantly having household help in my home would drive me crazy.

+yeah, the idea of hiring nannies, housekeepers, cooks, etc to help with childcare and household mgmt just really does not appeal to me. So no matter how much money we had, I would still prefer to do childcare, cooking, cleaning ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would stop at 2 no matter what. Money isn't the issue for me, it's all the damn kids!!

I also agree it's not about hiring people to help you and this just gets more and more true the older they get. They want YOU, not a nanny. And even just two people wanting a lot from me is frankly, emotionally and mentally overwhelming some times. Another one might have killed me. And my marriage.

But with unlimited money, think of how much more time in the day you'd have for yourself, even if you gave them the time they want. I read an interview with Gwyneth Paltrow recently that described how awesome her kids are ... money lets you be calm, and centered, and focused on yourself, and still have time to play with your kids. For example, she's cooking herself a meal she wants while her housekeeper stands next to her cooking for the kids. No one is ignoring the kids, but she doesn't have to compromise, or make two meals...

This lifestyle requires having strangers in your home constantly. I’d hate to have to cook my dinner with someone other than a family member in the room. Having a nanny is more than enough. Constantly having household help in my home would drive me crazy.

+yeah, the idea of hiring nannies, housekeepers, cooks, etc to help with childcare and household mgmt just really does not appeal to me. So no matter how much money we had, I would still prefer to do childcare, cooking, cleaning ourselves.

This appeals to me very much! The modern western nuclear family is a departure from how most humans have historically lived. People used to (and in some parts of the world still do) rely heavily on extended families, neighbors and friends, or servants if they can afford it. As to the question, I wouldn't give birth again because I had so many complications and I absolutely hated pregnancy. I have 2. If I were very wealthy I might consider adopting another.

[Anonymous]

I'd have as many as I could until I turned 40. Wait a sec, that's exactly what I did do! In our case, that was five. If we'd started sooner, we'd definitely have had more.

[Anonymous]

2. It’s all I can divide my time between. Currently my 8yr old son is in the hospital in Baltimore. He will be there for at least another week. My 10 yr old daughter is not allowed to visit him due to her age.

I can’t outsouce mommy love. I can’t outsouce the ability to comfort him. Nor can I outsource the comforting of my daughter as she is scared for her brother.

With 2, and the support of friends and family, we are making this work. But I can’t imagine doing this with more children.

[Anonymous]

We have five. With unlimited funds, I think I still would have stopped at five. I was 34 when I had my youngest. That was my absolute cut-off. I didn't want to be an older mom. I know lots of women do it, but it's not what I wanted at all. I had the time and energy for five. I'm not sure I could have done it with more. We didn't do daycare or nanny. Most of the child care fell on me and while I loved it, I know my limits.

[Anonymous]

3 perhaps, I have 2 and they're amazing, but oh so labor intensive. If I had a full time nanny/housekeeper etc., I guess I could maybe handle a 3rd.

[Anonymous]

I’d stick with the two that we have. You couldn’t pay me to have more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would stop at 2 no matter what. Money isn't the issue for me, it's all the damn kids!!

I also agree it's not about hiring people to help you and this just gets more and more true the older they get. They want YOU, not a nanny. And even just two people wanting a lot from me is frankly, emotionally and mentally overwhelming some times. Another one might have killed me. And my marriage.

But with unlimited money, think of how much more time in the day you'd have for yourself, even if you gave them the time they want. I read an interview with Gwyneth Paltrow recently that described how awesome her kids are ... money lets you be calm, and centered, and focused on yourself, and still have time to play with your kids. For example, she's cooking herself a meal she wants while her housekeeper stands next to her cooking for the kids. No one is ignoring the kids, but she doesn't have to compromise, or make two meals...

This lifestyle requires having strangers in your home constantly. I’d hate to have to cook my dinner with someone other than a family member in the room. Having a nanny is more than enough. Constantly having household help in my home would drive me crazy.

+yeah, the idea of hiring nannies, housekeepers, cooks, etc to help with childcare and household mgmt just really does not appeal to me. So no matter how much money we had, I would still prefer to do childcare, cooking, cleaning ourselves.

This appeals to me very much! The modern western nuclear family is a departure from how most humans have historically lived. People used to (and in some parts of the world still do) rely heavily on extended families, neighbors and friends, or servants if they can afford it. As to the question, I wouldn't give birth again because I had so many complications and I absolutely hated pregnancy. I have 2. If I were very wealthy I might consider adopting another.

Yet another reason I'm glad I'm living now instead of a long time ago! Sure if my extended family was enjoyable to be around and actually helped each other and liked each other, then it would be great to have that community in which to raise my kids. But, they're not so kind of helpful and so I'm glad I'm not restricted to living in some type of commune with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2. It’s all I can divide my time between. Currently my 8yr old son is in the hospital in Baltimore. He will be there for at least another week. My 10 yr old daughter is not allowed to visit him due to her age.

I can’t outsouce mommy love. I can’t outsouce the ability to comfort him. Nor can I outsource the comforting of my daughter as she is scared for her brother.

With 2, and the support of friends and family, we are making this work. But I can’t imagine doing this with more children.

PP, best wishes for a speedy recovery for your son!

[Anonymous]

We would have two rather than one. We can’t afford more than one unless we seriously jeopardize college and retirement savings.

[Anonymous]

If money were no object... maybe 3 or 4. But it is so we have 1