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

[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

[b]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.

[/b
Do these people live in another country? I can't imagine that level of servants and such a massive house here? What do they pay for that kind of staff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I grew up with help, and we have a live-in housekeeper now. I don't think of her as a servant, btw. It sounds like you're not comfortable with the idea of extensive help. That's OK. Some people are, and that's OK also. People have different ideas of what actual parenting looks like, and that's OK as well.

[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

[b]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.

[/b
Do these people live in another country? I can't imagine that level of servants and such a massive house here? What do they pay for that kind of staff?

They live in London. It's not a big deal and it doesn't take a super massive house. Lots of bigger houses here have in-law or nanny suites, which is basically two rooms, a bathroom, and a small kitchen with a separate entrance. Not too hard to imagine. I have no idea what they pay but the couple has been with them for seven years so I imagine it works for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The bolded is funny! I never wanted to go the grocery store when my mom asked and neither do my kids!

[Anonymous]

I would stop at the one I have, regardless of money. I love him and he's a lot of fun, but I want to continue to work full time (I actually like being a lawyer) and don't have the energy to do that well plus take care of multiple kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I grew up with help, and we have a live-in housekeeper now. I don't think of her as a servant, btw. It sounds like you're not comfortable with the idea of extensive help. That's OK. Some people are, and that's OK also. People have different ideas of what actual parenting looks like, and that's OK as well.

you described this couple as "invisible". if somebody lives with you (and yes - separate quarters are still part of living with you) and you think of them as 'invisible' then they are your servants. i want my privacy ie no "invisible" people in my home day after day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

you described this couple as "invisible". if somebody lives with you (and yes - separate quarters are still part of living with you) and you think of them as 'invisible' then they are your servants. i want my privacy ie no "invisible" people in my home day after day.

We differ. Anyway, it sounds as if this setup is not right for you, and that's OK. This thread was about the ways money can be used to lighten the load of multiple children, and I don't think you can argue that hiring out the housework - as opposed to childcare - is one of the ways of using money to make things easier. Not all ways will work for all the people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

you described this couple as "invisible". if somebody lives with you (and yes - separate quarters are still part of living with you) and you think of them as 'invisible' then they are your servants. i want my privacy ie no "invisible" people in my home day after day.

We differ. Anyway, it sounds as if this setup is not right for you, and that's OK. This thread was about the ways money can be used to lighten the load of multiple children, and I don't think you can argue that hiring out the housework - as opposed to childcare - is one of the ways of using money to make things easier. Not all ways will work for all the people.

NP but you sound like an acquaintance I have who lives in DC. People joke that she and her husband basically have a live in slave to take care of the kids and do all the housework. It seems a strange set up to me unless you are from a culture that finds this to be normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One to experience giving birth. There are many children waiting for a home and I would adopt a sibling group.

Don't bother having a biological child just for the sake of experiencing childbirth. It's not all it's hyped up to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

you described this couple as "invisible". if somebody lives with you (and yes - separate quarters are still part of living with you) and you think of them as 'invisible' then they are your servants. i want my privacy ie no "invisible" people in my home day after day.

We differ. Anyway, it sounds as if this setup is not right for you, and that's OK. This thread was about the ways money can be used to lighten the load of multiple children, and I don't think you can argue that hiring out the housework - as opposed to childcare - is one of the ways of using money to make things easier. Not all ways will work for all the people.

NP but you sound like an acquaintance I have who lives in DC. People joke that she and her husband basically have a live in slave to take care of the kids and do all the housework. It seems a strange set up to me unless you are from a culture that finds this to be normal.

If you are addressing me, we have a live-in housekeeper to take care of the housework. Parenting is on us. I am not from this country and find outsourcing housework completely normal. Not strange. I think it's a function of SES class vs. culture, unless your culture has an undertone of guilt for the good things you have. We don't have a driver but I understand driving nannies and au pairs are all the rage so believe me, driving kids IS getting outsourced one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

I mean, most of you women posting here outsource scrubbing of bathrooms, so what is the great qualitative difference between that and laundry? That and cooking? That and grocery shopping? None.

[Anonymous]

I’d have 4, which is the number of kids I’ve always wanted. I currently have three sons, and would love one more if I had plenty of extra money to ensure I could pay for all their education, extra curricular activities, still save for retirement and still travel as a family of 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One to experience giving birth. There are many children waiting for a home and I would adopt a sibling group.

Don't bother having a biological child just for the sake of experiencing childbirth. It's not all it's hyped up to be.

OMG - no kidding. This has to be one of the most underwhelming part of becoming a parent. If you're up for adopting, godspeed to you and do not worry that you have missed something awesome about childbirth. Rare is the 'golden' memory of birthing a baby. Most of it is just plain old pain & suffering that you endure to get the reward - the baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One to experience giving birth. There are many children waiting for a home and I would adopt a sibling group.

Don't bother having a biological child just for the sake of experiencing childbirth. It's not all it's hyped up to be.

OMG - no kidding. This has to be one of the most underwhelming part of becoming a parent. If you're up for adopting, godspeed to you and do not worry that you have missed something awesome about childbirth. Rare is the 'golden' memory of birthing a baby. Most of it is just plain old pain & suffering that you endure to get the reward - the baby.

NP, but it is certainly a unique experience. Not for everyone, not at all necessary to becoming a parent, but it is *something*.

[Anonymous]

One, just like I have now, and we have no extra money, I promise. If I had none, I'd spend the "extra" money on... I don't know, I waited a long time to have the one, and we didn't have a lot of extra money before, either.