Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the wealthy law firm partner families have four or five kids, and the lower middle class or working class families. Regular middle class families have one or two.

This. Those with 4+ kids are on the opposite ends of SES spectrum.

Well, certain groups tend to be heavily represented at the two tails in big cities...for example in NYC Orthodox Jews (though it tends to be the Modern Orthodox among the wealthy and the Hasidic among the poor) and Catholics are heavily represented in the tails.

I don’t know if it’s a status symbol but it’s definitely a rich person thing. We make ~700k and can only easily afford 3 and the type of lifestyle we want (nice house, private school, several vacations a year, 100% of college and grad school paid for, etc.).

Anonymous wrote:We have 3 kids and I’m a SAHM. DH earns a seven figure income. I always feel stretched thin between my 3 kids. Even though the kids are mostly home during this pandemic, I still feel like I don’t spend enough quality time with each of them. DH goes to work and definitely has a hard time spending time with them.

That being said, if I was younger, I would go for a fourth. I’m 42 and too old. I had my 3 kids when I was in my 30s.

I met Dh in grad school when I was 24, got married at 29, first child at 30. I didn’t exactly start late.

There are some women who make child bearing look easy and I am not one of them.

Why would you even ponder a 4th? Idiotic.

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the wealthy law firm partner families have four or five kids, and the lower middle class or working class families. Regular middle class families have one or two.

This. Those with 4+ kids are on the opposite ends of SES spectrum.

Anonymous wrote:We have 3 kids and I’m a SAHM. DH earns a seven figure income. I always feel stretched thin between my 3 kids. Even though the kids are mostly home during this pandemic, I still feel like I don’t spend enough quality time with each of them. DH goes to work and definitely has a hard time spending time with them.

That being said, if I was younger, I would go for a fourth. I’m 42 and too old. I had my 3 kids when I was in my 30s.

I met Dh in grad school when I was 24, got married at 29, first child at 30. I didn’t exactly start late.

There are some women who make child bearing look easy and I am not one of them.

Everything you write speaks to why you should never have a 4th child..even if you were younger.

Anonymous wrote:If you live in a LCOL area and want a lot of elite-college financial aid, extra kids in college at the same time provides big boosts to aid. And home prices/equity are lower (impacts aid), and one income is doable, so if you want all that, I have a house in “flyover country” to sell you.

True! Although if they don’t get in you have to come up with a lot of money for state school/cheaper private...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm most of the families with large numbers of this kids in this area are depending on either the public school or homeschooling to educate their kids.

Hence the freakout that DMV schools are all virtual for the year. They didn't budget for the costs of keeping these kids at home or hiring 'pods' to help teach them.

When you can afford to send 4+ kids to private school for 18 years then yes, its a status symbol.

That is an odd comment since the majority of all families depend on public schools for education, regardless of the number of children.

... and the homeschooling families sure aren't freaking out over virtual school.

If you live in a LCOL area and want a lot of elite-college financial aid, extra kids in college at the same time provides big boosts to aid. And home prices/equity are lower (impacts aid), and one income is doable, so if you want all that, I have a house in “flyover country” to sell you.

We have 3 kids and I’m a SAHM. DH earns a seven figure income. I always feel stretched thin between my 3 kids. Even though the kids are mostly home during this pandemic, I still feel like I don’t spend enough quality time with each of them. DH goes to work and definitely has a hard time spending time with them.

That being said, if I was younger, I would go for a fourth. I’m 42 and too old. I had my 3 kids when I was in my 30s.

I met Dh in grad school when I was 24, got married at 29, first child at 30. I didn’t exactly start late.

There are some women who make child bearing look easy and I am not one of them.

Anonymous wrote:In the mid-1900s 6-10 kids was common among Irish Catholic families. I don’t know if that is true today.

Many of the wealthy/educated Irish Catholics I know get started on kids/married later than they used to but spend their early 30s to early 40s having kids so end up with 4 or 5 kids. My good friend is Irish Catholic in nova. They got married in their early 30s and she had four kids, the last of which was born when she was 42.

I think kellyanne and Maria shriver fit in this group too.

It's a status symbol where I grew up in Cincinnati. And not just the Catholic families.

Anonymous wrote:Most of the families with 4+ kids are blended in every area I've been too. So its a status symbol of broken marriages.

I know one woman with 11 kids! She had 5 kids with the first husband, they divorced, and I guess she decided she needed just as many from the second to have him stay.

Definitely a status symbol.

We have 3 (might have 4) and it's because DH and I could financially afford more. We've always wanted a large family. If we were less well off, we likely would have only had 2. Having 3 kids means you can afford it.

In impoverished areas, it's a sign of divorced families or more government handouts.

I think there's actually a correlation between wealth and fewer kids, anecdotal evidence aside.