Anonymous wrote:a friend that had 3 told me when i only had 2 "if you enjoy really playing with your kids and being a part of their activities, stop at 2 because with 3 its impossible to parent that way for a very long time"

i didn't understand it at the time but its true. and thats not saying parents of 3 can't be as great of parents or thats a bad way of parenting, its purely what you find enjoyable and fulfilling about parenting

I have three and I think the above (also described in detail by the PP directly above this post) is very true. I’m not a parent who absolutely loves playing directly *with* my kids - it’s not my favorite part of parenting. I do love talking with them, getting to know them as people, being a sounding board, scaffolding them to greater independence, and those are all things that I can do with three kids. I have outstanding executive function (luckily) and that really helps, too.

I’m also not a perfectionist generally, nor when it comes to my parenting. I’m great at providing a solid, loving foundation for my kids. Elaborate crafts and projects, not so much. It’s really not one or the other, but you have to know what you enjoy about parenting and what kind of parent you want to be, and then be realistic about whether you can do that with three or however many kids.

a friend that had 3 told me when i only had 2 "if you enjoy really playing with your kids and being a part of their activities, stop at 2 because with 3 its impossible to parent that way for a very long time"

i didn't understand it at the time but its true. and thats not saying parents of 3 can't be as great of parents or thats a bad way of parenting, its purely what you find enjoyable and fulfilling about parenting

Anonymous wrote:I’m the OP of a thread similar to this one, but my takeaways are that the main cons are incremental cost (since stopping at two is considered a baseline in that it still provides the experience of multiple kids for both parents and children) and chaos. A lot of which is circumvented by having enough money for a large enough home and support with cleaning, childcare, possibly having one parent stay at home or work part time, birthday parties, camps, tutors, and private school (if needed for SN or wanted for other reasons.) of course many people have money for all of the above and choose to stop at 1 or 2 anyway. Costs will be relative I suppose based on your standards of living.

We have no shortage of money for the things you said so the cost hasn't been a negative factor. Its that your attention and time is so much more divided. that may be totally worth it in the long run and i'm sure it'll change over time, but just to give some specific examples

- I used to read to my older 2 in the early AM before #3 - now thats impossible to do that (or anything fun with them) because i'm holding the baby who is whining while cooking breakfasts while getting kids dressed etc. Its just meeting the basic needs to get people safely out the door in the morning versus time to enjoy them

- its harder to spend time as a family because there are so few activities that appeal to all - games and building things are just invitations for the toddler to wreck it, the 6yo has outgrown going to the nature center, the toddler needs full time watching at the playground so i can't kick a ball around with the other 2 anymore. etc etc etc. So DH and I split up the kids a lot instead of doing things as a family because even if we all go to a museum or something together, we just end up in different parts of it

- we miss games and school events and other things i wish i could be at because of conflicting schedules

- it became impossible to keep a serious full time job for one of us because of the sick days (they're really exponential because they're coming from multiple schools / activities / sources and then work their way through more kids) and the 6 dentist appointments a year and the 4 doctors appointments and the OT appointments for one etc etc

and on and on. I do throw a TON of money at it, we have so much help and outsource what we can. And I wouldn't necessarily change it. But i did not appreciate how much having a 3rd would cut down on the parts of parenting I find fun (getting to enjoy an activity with a kid, doing things as a full family all together, having the time to give each a longer bedtime 1:1 time, playing with them at home versus supervising) but there's no amount of money that makes the spread of needs based on being in so many different stages disappear unless you're just offloading a kid all the time

Anonymous wrote:Assuming the household has two parents, you go from man on man to zone defense.

I never understood this comment (and i had 3). With 2 it was already often tag team versus us always parenting together. 3 more switched it to both parents are needed all the time (when they're little and no one is at an activity or with other child care) for things to be enjoyable. I can take care of my 1/3/5 yos myself but no one is having fun during it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"What are the cons of having one kid?"

"The main con is that she costs more than having zero kids."

Statements that are technically correct can still make stupid arguments.

But… that is an important consideration. It’s just that for the first and often the second, the desire to have that incremental child often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

The desire to have three kids often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

wrong. I have three -- raising three in the DMV is a crazy expensive and a total hustle. 5 more years of daycare is another 150k, 4 more years of college is another 350k. If you want your kids to go to camp ... its 1500 a week! a week! Forget about traveling or eating out -- paying a restaurant bill for a family of 5 when they are all adult sized teenagers ... ooph. I wish I had really thought with my brain and not my heart because my retirement savings would be a lot larger.

I’m a PP who wishes I had more and it sounds like you’re the test case for someone who shouldn’t have had more than like, 1.

So yes, if you are like this person and don’t realize that someone needs to watch *all three* kids while you’re at work, and *all three* kids need to eat and you foot the bill til they’re 18, and that you live in an inherently expensive city, then this is your thread.

DP - you do realize that when people post threads here about having a third kid, a large portion of responses are ALWAYS along the lines of “imagine your family around the dinner table in 30 years! Imagine your grandkids! No one ever regrets having another child, they regret the one they didn’t have!” They largely ignore the practical considerations of having a third kid, including finances.

Setting aside your tone, something for parents who want three to consider are things like: are you willing to send your kid to cheaper camps? Public school (including college)? Are you cool with a used minivan? Those are the kinds of trade-offs that aren’t discussed enough and are worth putting to any parent considering another child. Many people get caught up in the emotions of having a third child and figure they’ll work out the money stuff, especially if they follow the advice often given here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"What are the cons of having one kid?"

"The main con is that she costs more than having zero kids."

Statements that are technically correct can still make stupid arguments.

But… that is an important consideration. It’s just that for the first and often the second, the desire to have that incremental child often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

The desire to have three kids often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

wrong. I have three -- raising three in the DMV is a crazy expensive and a total hustle. 5 more years of daycare is another 150k, 4 more years of college is another 350k. If you want your kids to go to camp ... its 1500 a week! a week! Forget about traveling or eating out -- paying a restaurant bill for a family of 5 when they are all adult sized teenagers ... ooph. I wish I had really thought with my brain and not my heart because my retirement savings would be a lot larger.

I’m a PP who wishes I had more and it sounds like you’re the test case for someone who shouldn’t have had more than like, 1.

So yes, if you are like this person and don’t realize that someone needs to watch *all three* kids while you’re at work, and *all three* kids need to eat and you foot the bill til they’re 18, and that you live in an inherently expensive city, then this is your thread.

DP, but I think you’re trivializing real trade offs. Everything is truly a fortune these days and to give three kids an UMC upbringing, it’s going to be $$$. You have to be able to afford a home in a decent school district if going public (I’m in a NY suburb where this is easily $1.7-$2M for a fairly average home these days) or go the private route. Camps, meals, childcare, preschool, cars, groceries, extracurriculars, tutors, travel, doctors and birthday parties are all a fortune. The fact of the matter is that you have to be well off to afford three kids, and those who aren’t but have large families are going to be lacking somewhere if any of the above is important to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"What are the cons of having one kid?"

"The main con is that she costs more than having zero kids."

Statements that are technically correct can still make stupid arguments.

But… that is an important consideration. It’s just that for the first and often the second, the desire to have that incremental child often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

The desire to have three kids often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

wrong. I have three -- raising three in the DMV is a crazy expensive and a total hustle. 5 more years of daycare is another 150k, 4 more years of college is another 350k. If you want your kids to go to camp ... its 1500 a week! a week! Forget about traveling or eating out -- paying a restaurant bill for a family of 5 when they are all adult sized teenagers ... ooph. I wish I had really thought with my brain and not my heart because my retirement savings would be a lot larger.

I’m a PP who wishes I had more and it sounds like you’re the test case for someone who shouldn’t have had more than like, 1.

So yes, if you are like this person and don’t realize that someone needs to watch *all three* kids while you’re at work, and *all three* kids need to eat and you foot the bill til they’re 18, and that you live in an inherently expensive city, then this is your thread.

Anonymous wrote:As one of three closely spaced kids, I can tell you that my experience as one of three was the reason I stopped at two myself. With three, two kids are ALWAYS fighting. Traveling is a pain-when I was a kid, us three kids either had to share one bed, or one of us (usually me) slept on the floor. Hotels are made for four. It’s much harder to get a table at a crowded restaurant for 5 because you need a table for 6. Three kids do not fit comfortably in the backseat of a standard sedan (speaking from personal experience).

Maybe if you had two, and then a third once the older two are out of car seats, it wouldn’t be so bad. But DH is the youngest of three by 9 years and that sucked in a different way.

This is why we had a fourth.

Travel is a lot more expensive due to not fitting in taxis, needing a suite or two hotel rooms, rental car with third row etc. We needed a bigger car and house. We’ll have three in college at the same time.

For the logistics of the early years and teen years to work, we’ve needed a SAHP. I was able to work part time when they were all at the same elementary school. The families we know with three kids and two full time working parents need to have a nanny or au pair through high school.

There is less bandwidth for one-on-one time with each child, and more zone parenting.

But overall, it’s fun, albeit chaotic, and three feels like a big family in a cozy, warm way. Plus, my parents are each one of three, as am I. Our siblings also have three. It fits with our extended family culture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"What are the cons of having one kid?"

"The main con is that she costs more than having zero kids."

Statements that are technically correct can still make stupid arguments.

But… that is an important consideration. It’s just that for the first and often the second, the desire to have that incremental child often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

The desire to have three kids often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

I guess this a a good question for those questioning having a 3rd or more.

Would you rather have more time, money, be an empty nester sooner or have another kid.

To us time and money were more important than having another child.

Plus with 3 kids it is very often 2 against one.

Anonymous wrote:I’m the OP of a thread similar to this one, but my takeaways are that the main cons are incremental cost (since stopping at two is considered a baseline in that it still provides the experience of multiple kids for both parents and children) and chaos. A lot of which is circumvented by having enough money for a large enough home and support with cleaning, childcare, possibly having one parent stay at home or work part time, birthday parties, camps, tutors, and private school (if needed for SN or wanted for other reasons.) of course many people have money for all of the above and choose to stop at 1 or 2 anyway. Costs will be relative I suppose based on your standards of living.

+1. It really depends on what your family set up is. Two parents with long hours, inflexible jobs, no local family, not wealthy enough to hire lots of extra help, a kid or two with SNs or medical issue? Probably isn’t going to have an easy time adding a third child to the mix. A family with flexible work schedules, local family support, extra money to hire help, neurotypical children? The cons are diminished.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"What are the cons of having one kid?"

"The main con is that she costs more than having zero kids."

Statements that are technically correct can still make stupid arguments.

But… that is an important consideration. It’s just that for the first and often the second, the desire to have that incremental child often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

The desire to have three kids often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

wrong. I have three -- raising three in the DMV is a crazy expensive and a total hustle. 5 more years of daycare is another 150k, 4 more years of college is another 350k. If you want your kids to go to camp ... its 1500 a week! a week! Forget about traveling or eating out -- paying a restaurant bill for a family of 5 when they are all adult sized teenagers ... ooph. I wish I had really thought with my brain and not my heart because my retirement savings would be a lot larger.

I’m the OP of a thread similar to this one, but my takeaways are that the main cons are incremental cost (since stopping at two is considered a baseline in that it still provides the experience of multiple kids for both parents and children) and chaos. A lot of which is circumvented by having enough money for a large enough home and support with cleaning, childcare, possibly having one parent stay at home or work part time, birthday parties, camps, tutors, and private school (if needed for SN or wanted for other reasons.) of course many people have money for all of the above and choose to stop at 1 or 2 anyway. Costs will be relative I suppose based on your standards of living.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"What are the cons of having one kid?"

"The main con is that she costs more than having zero kids."

Statements that are technically correct can still make stupid arguments.

But… that is an important consideration. It’s just that for the first and often the second, the desire to have that incremental child often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

The desire to have three kids often outweighs the loss of money. And time.

Anonymous wrote:"What are the cons of having one kid?"

"The main con is that she costs more than having zero kids."

Statements that are technically correct can still make stupid arguments.

But… that is an important consideration. It’s just that for the first and often the second, the desire to have that incremental child often outweighs the loss of money. And time.