How many kids would you have if money were no object? What would you spend it on?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| we have three. i find attention to be more of an obstacle than money. i would have up to five children but only if i could spread them over 15 or so years. i started too late for that. |
Anonymous
| Max number would still be 2. That's the max number of kids I feel that I could be a good parent to and still be sane. For me, i t has nothing to do with money. Dh would probably say 3-4. |
Anonymous
|
If money and age were no object, I'd love to have four -- two boys, two girls -- so we get to have both genders and the kids also all get to have same-gender siblings. As it is we have two. We debated a third but our youngest will graduate college when DH is 65 and the impact on delaying retirement (as well as affording college for a 3rd) was a big consideration.
My two are close in age, I'd have liked to have another two close in age when they were in ES. I'd have stayed a SAHM as I was when my 2 were little (went back to work FT when #2 started K), spent money on the same things we do now just doubling the cost -- travel, extracurricular activities, tutoring, college -- and we'd need to move to a larger house, which would also likely double our house cleaner expense! |
Anonymous
|
OP again. This is so interesting! I’ve been fantasizing about being able to take my bigger kids to do fun stuff without having to lug the baby along, or just say “hey I’m running to the grocery store, anyone want to come with?” rather than making them stop doing whatever they’re doing, or lie down for a nap without having to sync up naptimes... It’s not so much money as attention, I agree, but paying someone to do some of the less-“quality” stuff would give me more time and energy to make more of our time together quality time.
Actually, I think the ideal (if money were no object) would be if DH took a couple years off and we homeschooled, traveled, each had time for our own projects in addition to doing stuff with the kids, etc. |
Anonymous
|
I have 3.
If money were no object, I'd like to have 4 or 5. We would definitely hire a night nurse for the first 6 months! Fwiw, we're stopping at 3 because we like to travel (we spend 50-60k on traveling with our 3 kids as it is) and we want to pay for their college educations. |
Anonymous
| I have two boys. I absolutely hated every aspect of being pregnant. Medically and financially, it wouldn't be sound advice to have another. If money were no object, I might try for another depending on the odds of success and health of the baby and me. So, I would adopt at least one. I've always wanted to adopt. I would consider adopting an older child and siblings. I come from a small family and I always hated having no siblings. I'd hire a housekeeper that cleans the house once a week and does laundry. I think that having the kids and I do the rest, like cooking, dishes, and general upkeep are good life skills and there's no better way to learn than on-the-job. I'd also buy the highest quality of whatever I could afford. I'd buy the baby monitor with the better picture or the teak wood convertible crib or the castle-themed bunk beds with storage. I would travel with my family and enrich their lives as much as I could. I would worry less about how I'm going to afford medical expenses (DS1 has issues that need to be addressed) and that's good for everyone. I would still work in some capacity. It wouldn't need to be a high stress corporate job, but it would need to be something meaningful to me. |
Anonymous
| One. |
Anonymous
| I'd have four: two boys and two girls. This way every child has the experience of a brother and a sister. |
Anonymous
This is such a good factor to bring up. I want 3 but only because we started in our mid 20s. Big (6 year) gap between the first two, hoping to have a 3 year gap before the 3rd. |
Anonymous
But you can hire people to do EVERYTHING ELSE, which frees you up for parenting. My friend is married to an i-banker. They have three kids. They also have a live-in couple where the wife is responsible for grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning, laundry and occasional babysitting. The husband does handy jobs for the house, takes care of the garden and chauffeurs kids when needed. My friend is free to focus on the parenting part of the puzzle. She's still very busy but it's infinitely easier. |
Anonymous
|
I'd have 2. I'd buy a big house with a nice yard in a great neighborhood where they could play. I'd also work part time so I could spend more time with them.
I'll probably still have 2 kids anyway (we only have 1 now) but I'll have to work full time and stay in our little house with no yard space. |
Anonymous
| I currently have 1, trying for #2. It's hard for me to imagine having the ability to take care of more than 2 kids in the way that I would like (with my time and attention) even if I had a nanny, housekeeper, personal chef, and gardener. So if money was no object, I would probably stick with 2, but I would hire the aforementioned help. And send my kids to private school! |
Anonymous
Who the F wants another couple living in your home??? |
Anonymous
| 5, and I would have an anazing French nanny who would also cook. |
Anonymous
| Probably 2. Maybe 3, but I always pictured myself with 2. Probably not happening as having 1 with no grandparents and no help, no friends almost ended my marriage. Sad but very grateful for the awesome one I have now. |