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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd stick with the 2 I have. For me having kids is way more difficult than I ever imagined but it's really not about the $. I don't think I could mentally handle more kids. And I don't want to outsource childcare so having the $ to hire an awesome nanny wouldn't change my mind.

This.

[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 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.

Who the F wants another couple living in your home???

+1
no thanks

[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 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.

Who the F wants another couple living in your home???

+1
no thanks

It's in the attached apartment, with separate everything, and they are truly invisible when they aren't working. It's a staffed household. I doubt the royals are miffed by live-in staff.

[Anonymous]

Only 2. I am not a particularly strong person constitution wise. Having two kids and BFing them till they were three years old took a lot from me.

On the other hand, if I had started having kids in my 20s and I had money, I could have gone for 3 kids.

[Anonymous]

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

Same

[Anonymous]

I have a teenager now, and would love for him to have had younger siblings. If money was no object I would have had more, and been a SAHM mom. Once they were in preschool, what I would have wanted most was Alice from the Brady Bunch. Someone who cooked, and cleaned, but would also watch one kid if I took the other to soccer practice, or take the one to soccer practice if I was knee deep in math homework with a sibling. A lawn care service and a pool boy, would be nice too, assuming my unlimited funds stretched to a nice house with a short commute and a large yard and a pool. Right now, in my 2 bedroom apartment, I don't need those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd have four: two boys and two girls. This way every child has the experience of a brother and a sister.

This is what I would have too.

[Anonymous]

We have four but would have a fifth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd have four: two boys and two girls. This way every child has the experience of a brother and a sister.

This is what I would have too.

We have two and two and it does feel like nice balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have three under six and think I may be done. I hate being pregnant, constantly tired and sore and grouchy, and it makes me a worse mom. But if we had infinite money, and I had a full-time nanny who would also tidy, cook, etc., and I could hand her a baby and go off to play with the big kids or take a nap or whatever? Hell yeah, I’d have more. Maybe five.

Whoop de do, wouldn't we all!

[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 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.

Who the F wants another couple living in your home???

+1
no thanks

It's in the attached apartment, with separate everything, and they are truly invisible when they aren't working. It's a staffed household. I doubt the royals are miffed by live-in staff.

i dont want "invisible" people cooking in my kitchen and driving my kids. I've had multiple nannies and cleaners and it was only bearable because DH was abroad at the time and nannies were also a company of sort. having servants can be a necessary evil but is not pleasant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Who the F wants another couple living in your home???

+1
no thanks

It's in the attached apartment, with separate everything, and they are truly invisible when they aren't working. It's a staffed household. I doubt the royals are miffed by live-in staff.

i dont want "invisible" people cooking in my kitchen and driving my kids. I've had multiple nannies and cleaners and it was only bearable because DH was abroad at the time and nannies were also a company of sort. having servants can be a necessary evil but is not pleasant.

Then maybe living in a staffed household is not your thing, and you prefer a larger degree of involvement in your day-to-day details. Everyone's different. And no one is cooking in her kitchen, the cook is cooking in the staff kitchen behind closed doors, and the food gets brought in and out. Re: driving the children, if one child has a game and another a playdate, someone has to be a second driver because there is no need to compromise like us people with limited means do. But everyone is different, if this life is not for you, it's not for you. I would personally love to have servants! It's not like my children care who washes and folds their clothes. If I was free from household work, I could dedicate myself to actual parenting.

[Anonymous]

I have 3 and would have a fourth, but adopt because no one could pay me enough to go through pregnancy and breastfeeding again. I would want another boy so I’d have 2 of each.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Who the F wants another couple living in your home???

+1
no thanks

It's in the attached apartment, with separate everything, and they are truly invisible when they aren't working. It's a staffed household. I doubt the royals are miffed by live-in staff.

i dont want "invisible" people cooking in my kitchen and driving my kids. I've had multiple nannies and cleaners and it was only bearable because DH was abroad at the time and nannies were also a company of sort. having servants can be a necessary evil but is not pleasant.

Then maybe living in a staffed household is not your thing, and you prefer a larger degree of involvement in your day-to-day details. Everyone's different. And no one is cooking in her kitchen, the cook is cooking in the staff kitchen behind closed doors, and the food gets brought in and out. Re: driving the children, if one child has a game and another a playdate, someone has to be a second driver because there is no need to compromise like us people with limited means do. But everyone is different, if this life is not for you, it's not for you. I would personally love to have servants! It's not like my children care who washes and folds their clothes. If I was free from household work, I could dedicate myself to actual parenting.

i have cleaners but 'compromising' is a part of actual parenting. and it looks like you never had servants - i did and it's not what it's cracked out to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have three under six and think I may be done. I hate being pregnant, constantly tired and sore and grouchy, and it makes me a worse mom. But if we had infinite money, and I had a full-time nanny who would also tidy, cook, etc., and I could hand her a baby and go off to play with the big kids or take a nap or whatever? Hell yeah, I’d have more. Maybe five.

Whoop de do, wouldn't we all!

Apparently not, from this thread, are you lost