Tim Carney in the Post: The Ideal Number of Kids is Four (at a minimum)

[Anonymous]

Yea I am super confused about how non-ultra-rich big families pay for college too. I would actually love a big family myself but I don't see how we can afford more than three in terms of college savings. We are not poor and I am all for sending my kid to a state school--I don't mean private school or out-of-state tuition. I think we could make everything else work but college just doesn't add up. Would love to hear from some of the larger-family posters here how you make it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole article and 6 pages of comments and still no discussion of the cost of raising 6 kids. In dc? That’s at least $24k/year for daycare. No.

Several people have mentioned this! It's an obvious issue Carney doesn't even mention except to say there are certain activities like travel sports his family doesn't do because of the size of the family.

Though I will note that no family with 6 kids is going to do daycare. They either have a SAHM or a nanny (potentially both). Still expensive and in a high COL area like DC, not accessible to the vast majority of families. But it is at least efficient -- none of these families are putting 6 kids in daycare.

To me the cost issues aren't even about the early childhood childcare costs, but more the compounding costs of having this many kids that will just add up and up and up. Yes, you will be able to get some efficiencies out of it with handmedowns and toys the kids share. You can have kids share bedrooms too, this was very normal up until only recently so I really don't have an issue with that. But what about other costs that cannot be split among kids. I hope your kids have good teeth because 6 sets of braces is going to be expensive and time consuming. Heck, even just having kids with cavities is going to really add up with that many. Your food costs are going to be high and just go waaaaay up as those kids become teens, even if you never eat out (which is also no prohibitively expensive -- you aren't getting out of a Chipotley for less than $150 with a family of 8). Even if you eschew more expensive activities like travel sports, are any of your kids going to do very normal things like learn an instrument? Participate in model UN? Girl Scouts? These are not bespoke activities only embraced by progressive helicopter parents, many people view these as formative experiences.

How do you allocate college costs among all these kids? Sometimes parents have to have tough conversations with kids about what they can afford in terms of college, but the degree to which individuals in a family like this are going to have to sacrifice for the "greater good" is extreme. And how do you balance the fact that kids are different, have different goals, different willingness to work, different abilities. What if you have a kid who works incredibly hard to earn a spot at a pricier school, and you know they would do great there, but if you send them you will have too little for younger kids to have that opportunity? How do you decide? How do you explain that? What if you have a kid who needs special therapy or treatment, and those costs or the time dedicated to those needs mean other kids have to go without in other areas, as well as without extra time with their parents?

Huge families made sense when it was common for families to lose children to childhood illness, when no one went to college, when families needed all the hands they could get to take care of the house and the land. They made sense when there was a good likelihood that your oldest kids would be heading off to war and might not come back. Now, they really don't make sense unless you have a lot of resources that most people don't have, and an unusual will to live a different sort of life than most people live these days. I don't begrudge people who want and have large families, but to advocate for it as though it's desirable or even possible for most people? You just sound stupid.

Very smart post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the eldest girl in a big family (5 kids) and I think my parents tried hard not to force me to raise my younger siblings. I loved having a younger sister in particular and enjoyed taking care of her. What I did not enjoy was never ever getting any focused attention from my dad and very little from my mom. One sibling had significant issues and any bandwidth went to dealing with him (and it wasn’t enough). I wanted a different experience for my own kids, which is why I only have 2.

This was my experience in a big family. I was one of the kids kind of lost in the middle -- not the youngest or the oldest, a "good" kid who got good grades and didn't complain. I had several experiences early on where it was made clear to me that needing any extra attention -- to deal with recurrent nightmares, to help with social adjustment to school, etc. -- would be seen as an annoying distraction from all the other kids. So I learned to have no problems. Ever. In some ways this did make me resilient and independent, just like Carney suggest. It also means that as an adult, I am allergic to asking for help or even just telling someone when something is going on. I apologize for myself compulsively and have very low self esteem, something that has made both relationships and my career difficult. A few years ago I realized that I just carry around this longing to be seen and hear and understood, and I don't think anyone will ever be able to satisfy it because what I really want is to be a child and to be loved and seen in the way kids all want to be loved and seen. But I'm not a child and I'll never be one again so I just have to live with that feeling of absence.

I don't think all kids from big families feel that way, but I do. And I happen to know that another of my siblings feels the same. So I'm skeptical that large families can really meet the needs of every single kid. And it might seem like no big deal if 1 out of 6, or 2 out of 8, have this feeling of loss. But if you are the one experiencing it, it's deeply painful, a wound that will never heal.

so much of what you wrote resonated with me. it’s truly not something that ever gets discussed! I don’t think I’ve ever really met another one of us in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole article and 6 pages of comments and still no discussion of the cost of raising 6 kids. In dc? That’s at least $24k/year for daycare. No.

um, no daycare obv. mom stays at home. kids go to catholic school with a steep sibling discount. no activities, vacations, or extras.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yea I am super confused about how non-ultra-rich big families pay for college too. I would actually love a big family myself but I don't see how we can afford more than three in terms of college savings. We are not poor and I am all for sending my kid to a state school--I don't mean private school or out-of-state tuition. I think we could make everything else work but college just doesn't add up. Would love to hear from some of the larger-family posters here how you make it work.

they don’t pay for college - that’s the plan.

[Anonymous]

We have four. The article was self promoting and a bit fluffy. At least package in a few retractions Timmy.

College Savings - warfare. We are not funding education we are starting a revolution. It will take $450k at least to fight this cause. How do we do that? $80k by 4th birthday. Then plowing ahead consistently. This is non negotiable. If they don’t use all of the $450k then it becomes an “educational trust” so to speak for their kids - theoretically- in 30+ years.

Daycare - again warfare. I see the costs as mere insurance payments in the sea of sanity. You’ll take my child and regulate him for 8HRs!? Here - take the money!

Vehicles - my armored division is our minivans. We had 3 at one point. Now down to 2 and a large SUV. But the minivan makes anything possible.

Household - we have a gigantic house in a close in neighborhood because we could afford it. Kids all have their own rooms. Yard has a fence. Cleaners come weekly because it feels great to be clean. Lawn care and maintenance and most everything else is all outsourced to open up time for kids.


Activities - I don’t understand how people don’t do sports. Or things. Like - what do you do? Sit around all day? The challenge is stacking/splitting up during activities (multiple minivans). But it works. I’m a big proponent of Scouts, of competitive play and of skill development. So we’ll try to keep up the pace and as always, ill let DCUM know how I’m doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Backward reasoning.

1. The reason mothers of 4 are generally happier than mother of 3, is that they wanted a large family all along, and got it. Not that they ended up with a large family by accident, and then found out that it was "easier".

2. I know lots of people who had to parent their little siblings. Most of them don't have kids of their own, because of the psychological toll it took on their childhoods.

3. While I would have loved a large family, my oldest was born with special needs. Parenting him was a full time job, and I missed my fertile window to expand beyond 2. But I certainly wouldn't have forced my oldest kids to parent the younger kids!

4. This man is a moron.

+1. To all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But how does the 12 yr old feel about it?

great - she's happy as a clam and is often offering to help even when I don't need it.

You won't know she is happy as a clam until she grows up. She might be an extreme people pleaser.

Yep.

-eldest daughter in big family

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/well/family/birth-order-siblings.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I met Tim before he had his first kid. Let’s just say he doesn’t really have a choice but to claim six kids are just great because that’s what he signed up for. I feel a bit sorry for his wife who likely felt like her only purpose at 21 was to have babies, as the middle child of 8. Still he’s not a bad guy, just sort of annoying and smug. And dead wrong on abortion of course.

If he’s dead wrong on abortion, he is a bad guy by definition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ Over the past few decades, scientific research has shown that children in larger families perform worse in school, score lower on cognitive tests, and attain fewer years of education than kids in smaller families”

https://bigthink.com/the-present/large-family-worsens-kids-cognitive-development/#

Which is probably because most parents who have tons of kids aren’t that smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of five here. It is 100 percent easier to have 5 kids than 3. I found 3 the absolute hardest. Now my older kids entertain and help with the younger kids. The year my third was born was the least happy year of my life. I am now the happiest I have ever been since becoming a mom with my fifth almost turning one. I am way more relaxed and it is 100 percent true that older kids help so much. For example on Saturday mornings I will wake up and my 12 year old has changed my toddler's diaper, turned on his cartoon, and gotten him a bowl of cheerios while I lounge in bed with DH.

What I am looking forward to is parents of 2-3 kids trying to explain why those of us with 4+ don't actually know what we are talking about when we say it's easier and we are happier than you all.

It’s definitely easier to “parent” when you’re exploiting your older kids.

+1

It’s funny to read this pair because my mom was the oldest of 4 and had a mom who had a really successful career, which came at the expense of my mom taking on a heavy load of raising her 3 younger siblings. I imagine it is great for the parents to have a built in babysitter so you can have a fire career and lounge in bed on Saturday mornings while your tween changes diapers.

Instead I stopped at 3 because that is the number I can parent in the manner in which I want to parent, which does not rely upon any of them acting as a caregiver to one another. I am very happy with my family and 3 feels like the perfect number for us. Maybe the mom of 5 is “happier” like she claims, but she is also smugger and downplaying the effects of a 12 year old (who was presumably in school M-F) spending their weekend morning taking care of a baby instead of meeting up with friends, heading to a soccer game, relaxing in front of their own cartoons, reading in bed, etc.

[Anonymous]

I'm one of four kids raised in a Catholic family from very educated parents. My parents put other parents today in shame. And no, my older siblings did not raise me. We were all close in age.

The difference is that we all worked together. My brothers mowed the lawn and my sisters and I made dinner. We all had chores. Of course this all seems silly now with electronics. I'm so glad I grew up when we did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the eldest girl in a big family (5 kids) and I think my parents tried hard not to force me to raise my younger siblings. I loved having a younger sister in particular and enjoyed taking care of her. What I did not enjoy was never ever getting any focused attention from my dad and very little from my mom. One sibling had significant issues and any bandwidth went to dealing with him (and it wasn’t enough). I wanted a different experience for my own kids, which is why I only have 2.

This was my experience in a big family. I was one of the kids kind of lost in the middle -- not the youngest or the oldest, a "good" kid who got good grades and didn't complain. I had several experiences early on where it was made clear to me that needing any extra attention -- to deal with recurrent nightmares, to help with social adjustment to school, etc. -- would be seen as an annoying distraction from all the other kids. So I learned to have no problems. Ever. In some ways this did make me resilient and independent, just like Carney suggest. It also means that as an adult, I am allergic to asking for help or even just telling someone when something is going on. I apologize for myself compulsively and have very low self esteem, something that has made both relationships and my career difficult. A few years ago I realized that I just carry around this longing to be seen and hear and understood, and I don't think anyone will ever be able to satisfy it because what I really want is to be a child and to be loved and seen in the way kids all want to be loved and seen. But I'm not a child and I'll never be one again so I just have to live with that feeling of absence.

I don't think all kids from big families feel that way, but I do. And I happen to know that another of my siblings feels the same. So I'm skeptical that large families can really meet the needs of every single kid. And it might seem like no big deal if 1 out of 6, or 2 out of 8, have this feeling of loss. But if you are the one experiencing it, it's deeply painful, a wound that will never heal.

I am from a big family too and feel the same way you do (that I just want to be loved and seen and known and understood bc I never was as a child). I have low self esteem also and never ask for help due to being a kid who needed to be ok and have no needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think up to a point it's fine and good to have older kids help with younger ones, provided the older boys have to help, too. Those are good life skills to learn.

I suspect the reason moms with four or more are happier is that most American don't have four kids unless they are some weird religion OR they LOVE having kids. So if you're choosing to have four kids, you probably dig being a mom. I don't think it's that having four kids makes you happier.

I am the youngest of three and I think it's a bad number. Too much two on one triangulations happen. And my somewhat parentified older sister is still bossy and annoying even though we are all adults now. She still expects to be in charge.

Tim Carney sure as heck didn't carry four kids and give birth to them himself. Ugh.

My mom goes around telling people to have even numbers of kids. She had three girls.

I have 2 of the same gender close in age and then a large age gap followed by a child of the opposite gender. My older 2 play together and are close due to age/interest similarities. And the baby of the family is so much younger and into her own things that we just don’t get the 2:1 dynamics some posters are talking about. I could see how 3 close together could lead to infighting, but I think 3 with a gap is great. I know several other families with a similar breakdown who are really happy with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But how does the 12 yr old feel about it?

great - she's happy as a clam and is often offering to help even when I don't need it.

You won't know she is happy as a clam until she grows up. She might be an extreme people pleaser.

I am 100 percent certain she's happy, because I somehow miraculously still parent despite having 5 kids. She's an A+ student with a blossoming social life and extracurriculars and even went on a solo trip with just DH and myself for her birthday. Often in the evenings with sit alone with just her and chat about life. Because again, it's a myth you can't find time to parent despite having many kids. Right now she's laughing in the front yard playing with 2 of her 4 siblings.

But I am not surprised, again, that the people with 1 or 2 kids think they know better than those of us with big families.

NP. I was your twelve-year-old, including the straight As, the doing the work of the parents, and the offering to help. Don’t delude yourself.

FWIW, I grew up in a community filled with large families. I know almost nobody from that community who has had a large family. I know literally no eldest daughters (like me) who have. Not a single eldest daughter of a large family that I know has had more than two kids.

Eldest daughter of five kids here chiming in to agree this poster is delusional. I stopped at 2 kids for a reason. I love my parents but they definitely were not able to give me the attention I needed.