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
| 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. |
Anonymous
| 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. |
Anonymous
| We stopped at three. Regardless of how much money you have, you still only have 24 hours in a day. |
Anonymous
|
Four. I would spend it on ART (since I’m not married), and then household help.
|
Anonymous
|
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. |
Anonymous
|
If we have endless money, I'd have one more, so 3 total.
I'd outsource the house work (cleaning) and some child care. I'd stop working too. But I do think 3 is the perfect number, but in our current set up it'd tax us past a comfortable limit of emotional/mental/financial bandwidth. With more money and less working I'd have more mental and financial bandwidth and could devote more energy to keeping our emotional sides running smoothly. |
Anonymous
|
It IS no object. I would prefer to not have any children. We have two.
We have cleaning people twice a week and a full time nanny. |
Anonymous
Yes, this. They're not collectibles, they're people. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
I'd probably have 6 or 7. With unlimited funds, it would be fun, and you could even make it easy.
Terrible for the planet, though! |
Anonymous
| If I were younger and DH were on board, I'd have 4. We have 3, and I feel very lucky even though I'd love another. |
Anonymous
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... |
Anonymous
|
I'd hire household help so I can focus 125% of my attention and engage with the kids and not be distracted with cleaning, meal prep, errands, etc.
And if unlimited money, we could do tons of fun things- mechanical bull in the living room for example (kids are obsessed with such an idea), great vacations, all the bells&whistles, etc. |
Anonymous
| No object for me either (at least not enough that it's a deciding factor for # of kids). I enjoy working and want to keep at it, plus the two I have take a lot of mental and emotional energy, especially the oldest. |
Anonymous
| I'm having twins in January which will make 4... and we're pretty sure this is it. If money was no object, I'd probably have 5. I'm already able to stay home, and actually enjoy being in charge of the cooking/cleaning. The only things I'd like more money for are college costs, more date nights/babysitters (maybe every few weeks or so), and family vacations. |