We both came from families of 3 kids. Now we have 3 kids. Doesn't seem that crazy!

We have 3 teens and live in an UMC suburb. Very mixed views in terms of politics and religion (politically 50/50ish, wide range of religions and non-religious people, not many super devout people).

Of the families with kids that we know in our area I’d guess:
50% have 2 kids
30% have 3 kids
15% have 1 kid
5% have 4 or more kids ( almost all of these are 4 kids, not more)

Also a lot of #3 or #4 kids are oopsies, for those who talked about that when the kids were little. 🤣

I’d say 2 is still more common overall but 3 is definitely close behind.

No. In our circles, 2 is the norm. 3 kids also happen, typically if the second pregnancy results in twins.

For religious women who do get married and have kids, the birth rate is actually more stable than you’d expect over the past few decades. The issue is that fewer women get married and fewer women are religious so the pool is shrinking.

We live in a wealthy zip code and I feel like 3 is quite common. Having one child is very uncommon. I agree that 4+ seems to be more religious families (but not always the case).

I also feel like I’m seeing more 1 kid families.

I'm about to have my second and I'm totally done after this one. It's a lot harder to be pregnant when you already have a kid.

I think it’s common for UMC and UC families with a SAH parent. The 4+ kids seems to be more religion driven

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Families need about 2.7 children per parent on average to avoid eventual extinction of their lineage in mathematical models, which is higher than the classic replacement rate of about 2.1 children per woman. This means that if most families have three or more children, their family line is statistically more likely to continue across many generations compared to families with fewer children.

That's the plot of Idiocracy.

Basic understanding of Galton–Watson process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3 is the UMC flex

1000% if you have the social and financial to support this is the biggest flex in the DMV.

Or…you can just live with 3 and not spend a lot of money.

Ha! Not in the DMV. OP you need money to raise 3 kids in this area. If you are under 40the is a major flex for the UMC/UC communities.

I don’t doubt some people think this is a flex...

Anonymous wrote:Families need about 2.7 children per parent on average to avoid eventual extinction of their lineage in mathematical models, which is higher than the classic replacement rate of about 2.1 children per woman. This means that if most families have three or more children, their family line is statistically more likely to continue across many generations compared to families with fewer children.

That's the plot of Idiocracy.

Families need about 2.7 children per parent on average to avoid eventual extinction of their lineage in mathematical models, which is higher than the classic replacement rate of about 2.1 children per woman. This means that if most families have three or more children, their family line is statistically more likely to continue across many generations compared to families with fewer children.

Anonymous wrote:We have 5. Two neighbors have 4 each. Big families are in and a way we can show how wealthy we are. All the kids go to private school, travel sports/dance etc. Moms have the right large SUVs (no vans). Dad drives the "fun" car (jeep 392 or similar) to work.

This is what I see too.

We have 5. Two neighbors have 4 each. Big families are in and a way we can show how wealthy we are. All the kids go to private school, travel sports/dance etc. Moms have the right large SUVs (no vans). Dad drives the "fun" car (jeep 392 or similar) to work.

Only me and one of my close friends have three kids. Most of my close friends have two. I actually feel like people are having fewer kids than they used to.