Best age range for two

[Anonymous]

I think there are 2 distinct schools of thought on this.

Camp 1 says get the baby stage over so have them very close together. I think this is particularly ideal if you have one spouse that is either not working or has cut back their career. It gets you that revenue back faster, but you have to buckle down and either stay home or pay dual daycare for a few years.

Camp 2 says spread them out a bit to enjoy them more. I am in this camp because DH and I both work FT in executive level positions. I really enjoyed spending so much time with my first. And now I get to spend lots of time with my second because my first is pretty self-sufficient. We will spend less years with dual-daycare costs, but it does drag on for longer.

Either way, I would not base your decision around the siblings having a closer relationship. That is determined so much more by personality than age. In my mom's family, the kids are 18 years apart from oldest to youngest, and those two have the best relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4 years apart. Not having 2 in diapers. There is no overlap in HS and college years. Kids don't compete with each other the same way close siblings do and they have a great relationship

qq

If you have overlap during the college years, you might get more aid than you would have otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asap. Getting pregnant ASAP, get the baby years over with at once and watch them grow with a strong bond

If you know two is limit, then I think two under two is best. Gets the baby stuff done, it’s gonan be chaos anyway, and you may as well cram the sleepless years together.

dp I don't understand this thought process "getting things done" Don't you want to have some memory and enjoyment of each stage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there are 2 distinct schools of thought on this.

Camp 1 says get the baby stage over so have them very close together. I think this is particularly ideal if you have one spouse that is either not working or has cut back their career. It gets you that revenue back faster, but you have to buckle down and either stay home or pay dual daycare for a few years.

Camp 2 says spread them out a bit to enjoy them more. I am in this camp because DH and I both work FT in executive level positions. I really enjoyed spending so much time with my first. And now I get to spend lots of time with my second because my first is pretty self-sufficient. We will spend less years with dual-daycare costs, but it does drag on for longer.

Either way, I would not base your decision around the siblings having a closer relationship. That is determined so much more by personality than age. In my mom's family, the kids are 18 years apart from oldest to youngest, and those two have the best relationship.

I agree, but I would add that another reason to be in "Camp 2" is for those of us who feel stretched close to our limits by dealing with our first as a baby/toddler... for us, we did not feel ready to try for a second until our first was 3. I think we will be a lot happier and saner and better parents with a 4-year gap than dealing with two littles at the same time. For folks who want to tackle having two close together and get through the early years all in a row, more power to them, but I just don't identify with that approach at all-- I craved having a little breathing room inbetween to recover before plunging back in with the second.