Anonymous wrote:I'm all for DC bashing (the weather really does suck), but I do think any major metropolitan area is going to have many of the same issues you describe. Competitive environment for kids (although I think this is really hit or miss and you can find pockets of normal peopel anywhere), bad traffic, longer hours, expensive housing.

I grew up in a second (or even third) tier city and sure, the pace of life was slower. But to be very blunt, it was incredibly homogenous and provincial. And I don't think being smart or accomplished was all that valued by parents or my peers. In fact, in high school I tried to actively hide the fact that I was smart and tried not to use words that were too big. Because I would get made fun of.

I guess my point is that it's all trade offs. And grass is always greener.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

Didn't you hear PP? Since she has a lot of flexibility in her schedule, on a good day the commute can be as low as one hour!

It is a short commute for those who think their only option to move where the commute would be much longer than that. Most of the people I work with may be geographically closer but have worse commutes. And I said that a typical day is 1 hour, a good day is 45 minutes. And we both were working in DC prior to the new gigs and our commutes were about 30 minutes. Depending on where you work (and as we have experienced that location can change despite best efforts to live close to your job), yes it is a viable option that is a better commute than many other areas in the region.

If you really think that is your only option, you are not very creative. Unless you work in an equidistant location between two amazing jobs, you have plenty of options of better commutes. I hate it when people claim that they have no options when in reality, they just don't care if they waste much of their lives commuting. This is not to say that there aren't people that don't have options, you just should not count yourselves among them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

Didn't you hear PP? Since she has a lot of flexibility in her schedule, on a good day the commute can be as low as one hour!

It is a short commute for those who think their only option to move where the commute would be much longer than that. Most of the people I work with may be geographically closer but have worse commutes. And I said that a typical day is 1 hour, a good day is 45 minutes. And we both were working in DC prior to the new gigs and our commutes were about 30 minutes. Depending on where you work (and as we have experienced that location can change despite best efforts to live close to your job), yes it is a viable option that is a better commute than many other areas in the region.

Anonymous wrote:[

Didn't you hear PP? Since she has a lot of flexibility in her schedule, on a good day the commute can be as low as one hour!

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I am naive but I haven't found it that difficult (although so far we are just expecting, but I like to plan out budgets). We make well under 300K, heck we even make under 200K and live in S. Arlington (so obviously not D.C. proper). We have an apt in a walkable neighborhood (2 bedroom 1200 square feet) with a school I won't hesitate to send me kid too (and yes I realize some may disagree but I went to school in state that is ranked at the bottom of the US when it comes to education and I managed to survive and get into college/law school).

Anyway, so we can't afford to buy a house right away, but we are able to put a signifigant amount into savings. That amount will of course dwindle when we start paying for day care but we will still put money into savings. Before we had kids we made sure that we had all of our consumer debt paid off (yes I drive a 13 year old car). We will likely be able to buy a SFH (with 20% down) in Arlington within the next 5-6 years (I will be 35). So yes, I may not live a glamorous lifestyle and no, I can't have that house immediately and yes it takes a lot of hard work (for example to pay off consumer debt we went on a spending freeze for 4 months) but it is possible.

Of course, I also find people to be nice here (we have monthly get togethers at my apt complex) and don't care abotu the traffic becuase it is 10 times better than back home. Of course we managed to find a place where both of us can take the bus from our front door to the front door of our work (me in 20 mins, DH in 45). I mean I will admit that backhome some of my friend's sibilings are buying houses at the age of 21 for 120K but I am still incredibly happy.

Now, yes if you make a total of under 100K I think it might suck to be in this area. But honsetly, anything above that and you need to learn to budget (and yes I have 207K in student loans too and somehow I manage).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

Just because you do not make the same decisions as others does not mean that they are wrong. I choose to have one child, partially because I couldn't not afford to live where I live and send my children to school here or travel extensively if I had more than one. That is not the only reason, but it is a major consideration. This is not just because I am selfish. I think this would be best for my child. I love being able to show my child the world and exposing him to different cultures everyday. I am able to dedicate my time and energy to his education (both formal and otherwise) and to the community, and I am able to give him happy parents. In my opinion, this is the very best that I, given who I am, can give my child. Moreover, having one child and maintaining our walkable life aligns with my strong beliefs about sustainability and the environment. You may be different, and that is fine too. But, it is not fair to think that those who are making the decision to have one child are thinking only of themselves or treating their child like a pet.

Well said! My child (besides going to a good school) lives in the city, has a nice house, has been to Europe several times and is bilingual. He can tell you about how different people are from around the world. OH THE HORROR!!!! I'm sorry I didn't have a second child so I couldn't afford these things for him. Yes, I should drag him out to Manasas, send him to public school with a bunch of white kids all the same, take no vacations where he learns other cultures and have a sibling for him to fight with.

Good point! I'll get right on that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

Just because you do not make the same decisions as others does not mean that they are wrong. I choose to have one child, partially because I couldn't not afford to live where I live and send my children to school here or travel extensively if I had more than one. That is not the only reason, but it is a major consideration. This is not just because I am selfish. I think this would be best for my child. I love being able to show my child the world and exposing him to different cultures everyday. I am able to dedicate my time and energy to his education (both formal and otherwise) and to the community, and I am able to give him happy parents. In my opinion, this is the very best that I, given who I am, can give my child. Moreover, having one child and maintaining our walkable life aligns with my strong beliefs about sustainability and the environment. You may be different, and that is fine too. But, it is not fair to think that those who are making the decision to have one child are thinking only of themselves or treating their child like a pet.

Well said! My child (besides going to a good school) lives in the city, has a nice house, has been to Europe several times and is bilingual. He can tell you about how different people are from around the world. OH THE HORROR!!!! I'm sorry I didn't have a second child so I couldn't afford these things for him. Yes, I should drag him out to Manasas, send him to public school with a bunch of white kids all the same, take no vacations where he learns other cultures and have a sibling for him to fight with.

Good point! I'll get right on that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

Just because you do not make the same decisions as others does not mean that they are wrong. I choose to have one child, partially because I couldn't not afford to live where I live and send my children to school here or travel extensively if I had more than one. That is not the only reason, but it is a major consideration. This is not just because I am selfish. I think this would be best for my child. I love being able to show my child the world and exposing him to different cultures everyday. I am able to dedicate my time and energy to his education (both formal and otherwise) and to the community, and I am able to give him happy parents. In my opinion, this is the very best that I, given who I am, can give my child. Moreover, having one child and maintaining our walkable life aligns with my strong beliefs about sustainability and the environment. You may be different, and that is fine too. But, it is not fair to think that those who are making the decision to have one child are thinking only of themselves or treating their child like a pet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitol Hill is the BOMB! We love, love, love our relatively spacious open-plan 3 bed rowhouse with a nice-sized backyard, commute (25 minutes walking door to door) to interesting jobs, our stumbling distance neighborhood park, and the many restaurants and shops within walking distance. And, two GS 15s make plenty of money to send our one child to private school if we decide we're unhappy with our well-regarded (walking distance) public elementary.

Okay, we're very lucky - I admit it! And, a big negative for us is the lack of any family nearer than a lengthy plane ride away . . .

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.