Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every family I know with four or more kids is raising their children in an environment with fewer resources and less attention than a 1 or 2 child family.

There are only 24 hours in a day and only 2 parents max. It’s a bad move and you’re doing a disservice to your children having this many kids. It was fine when it was normal to have that many kids but it no longer is.

Why was it fine back then and not now? The kids still had fewer resources and less attention back then. I think maybe 2 children is fine but having only 1 causes its own issues. Honestly there’s issues with any number of kids, and some of these families with a lot of kids at least have massive financial resources to throw at problems and they know it.

It wasn’t fine but people had lower standards and didn’t have birth control.

Your children will judge their childhood and life in comparison to modern day standards and how their peers are living.

There is a family across the street from me where their children don’t have birthday parties and aren’t enrolled in any activities. This is a disadvantage for their kids. Their children aren’t getting the opportunity to learn different sports. The children are also overweight which is unusual in my community and has some correlation to not being enrolled in any athletics. Because there are five children the kids travel less frequently because who wants to take 5 kids on vacation? The mom can’t work so she has no outlet outside of the family. The kids have less privacy and room to study. They don’t leave their home often since it requires two vehicles. It’s a rotten deal for the kids. They have plenty of money too.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every family I know with four or more kids is raising their children in an environment with fewer resources and less attention than a 1 or 2 child family.

There are only 24 hours in a day and only 2 parents max. It’s a bad move and you’re doing a disservice to your children having this many kids. It was fine when it was normal to have that many kids but it no longer is.

Why was it fine back then and not now? The kids still had fewer resources and less attention back then. I think maybe 2 children is fine but having only 1 causes its own issues. Honestly there’s issues with any number of kids, and some of these families with a lot of kids at least have massive financial resources to throw at problems and they know it.

Anonymous wrote:We have to have a DCUM thread on this one, even though we all know how it's going to go. I think it might be legally required. Anyway, here's the opinion piece from Tim Carney of the American Enterprise Institute, about how having four or more kids is actually ideal and easier for parents and better for kids.

Anonymous wrote:Every family I know with four or more kids is raising their children in an environment with fewer resources and less attention than a 1 or 2 child family.

There are only 24 hours in a day and only 2 parents max. It’s a bad move and you’re doing a disservice to your children having this many kids. It was fine when it was normal to have that many kids but it no longer is.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. That's how she gets your attention - by being the perfect little parent helper.

I’m the youngest of four. My oldest siblings didn’t have to “raise” me but my sister, who’s the oldest, was desperate for a baby sister and in so many pictures when I was a baby, she’s holding me with a huge grin. We’re still super close today and she has three kids of her own. She loved being a big sister - I think you’re projecting a lot of your own defensiveness onto larger families. The second born in my family is one of my brothers, and he’s an amazing father also to three kids. He’s actually a lot more involved than his wife and is always doing fun things with his kids. They both grew up to love kids. My other brother and I - numbers three and four - have less patience with kids because we didn’t really grow up with young kids around us.

Oldest daughter of a large family here. You sweet summer child. You have no idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people who I’m sure are good people and good parents and have all good intentions still have more kids than they should/can really handle. Unless you have a really amazing community that’ll help you raise your kids (grandparents, aunts, uncles, close friends, who live near by and will actually be really involved) AND you have a lot of $$ to outsource things like cooking, cleaning and can still save for college and fund all other kid expenses, I just do not see how it is practical to have more than 2 kids. Vast majority of ppl do not have that kind of community support and don’t have that kind of $.

The world is also just more complex than it used to be when larger families were common. One thing I think about as a parent is a need to be a guide and to help my kids learn to navigate stuff that didn't even exist when I was a child. I think sometimes people who have big families have this Mayberry vision in their heads of a pile of kids playing outdoors and going camping and making their own fun. Sure, all of that can happen. But every one of those kids is ALSO going to have to navigate modern technology, social media, a world where everything (money, jobs, community, politics) is more complex and layered than it was back when huge families were much more common. I know there is this hope that by creating this wholesome, big family experience in childhood, kids will have the skills and resilience to figure that stuff out. But is that true? I don't think it works for everyone. Many kids need more explicit guidance than that.

Anonymous wrote:Some people who I’m sure are good people and good parents and have all good intentions still have more kids than they should/can really handle. Unless you have a really amazing community that’ll help you raise your kids (grandparents, aunts, uncles, close friends, who live near by and will actually be really involved) AND you have a lot of $$ to outsource things like cooking, cleaning and can still save for college and fund all other kid expenses, I just do not see how it is practical to have more than 2 kids. Vast majority of ppl do not have that kind of community support and don’t have that kind of $.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In my large family of origin, the boys were given the expensive private educations and the girls went to state schools so you can economize that way. There were more girls than boys.

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.

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.

I pay more than that for preschool for just 1 toddler.

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.

Agree. That's how she gets your attention - by being the perfect little parent helper.

I’m the youngest of four. My oldest siblings didn’t have to “raise” me but my sister, who’s the oldest, was desperate for a baby sister and in so many pictures when I was a baby, she’s holding me with a huge grin. We’re still super close today and she has three kids of her own. She loved being a big sister - I think you’re projecting a lot of your own defensiveness onto larger families. The second born in my family is one of my brothers, and he’s an amazing father also to three kids. He’s actually a lot more involved than his wife and is always doing fun things with his kids. They both grew up to love kids. My other brother and I - numbers three and four - have less patience with kids because we didn’t really grow up with young kids around us.

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.