Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After we had two I realized risking having a third that could potentially have special needs wasn’t just a risk I was taking on, but a risk for our whole family. In the most obvious way, it would impact my kids and the time and resources we had for them. We’ve seen it happen with two sets of friends. Their healthy/non-sn child gets significantly less of their parents attention, and that’s manifested in not so good ways. Their needs often come second.

I thought about this too, but why is this more of a factor for a third than a second?

Honestly, I hadn’t thought about it when I had my second because I was younger. The risk as you know goes up with age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did you decide to stop at 2 kids or decide to have more? We are on the fence about baby #3.

You are fine with zero. One is enough. Two is a splurge. Third is insanity. You matter. Your marriage matters. Your parents matter. Your existing kid dd matter. Don't stretch yourself physically, mentally, logistically and financially too thin. You'll have get lots of rips to mend.

this.
it makes me insane when people complain about finances with 3+ kids. Of course it's human nature to reproduce, and of course it makes sense to have more than one child for the sake of the child but more than 2 is for very wealthy ppl or those who live in flyover/ v low COL. anything else is a little tunnel vision unless you dont care if your kids spend their lives in debt.

What’s very wealthy? I’m a pp who agonized over having a third. If we weren’t planning to send kids to private school, 3 would be totally doable financially. Our HHI is around 500k. We live in NY where that’s not really enough to send three kids to private school and live decently while meeting other savings goals. If I sent my kids to public school - living in an expensive school district- it would be fine cost wise. It’s private school that really makes a significant dent on the cost of raising kids.

pp - yes same. we are in nyc and thus need to be in private. Our HHI is $750-$1mm depending on the year but after nearly 50% income tax and $65 per kid on private that clicks WAY down and still need to pay mortgage, maintenance, property tax and save enough for retirement and to help them. the thing that bugs me is when people have a bunch of kids and assume they are financially done with their responsibility once the kid is 18. In NYC you are either at over $1.5 or $8m+ net worth or you should not be having more than 2 kids. to be fair nearly all the families i know with 3+ are at that income level.

Well this is out of touch

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After we had two I realized risking having a third that could potentially have special needs wasn’t just a risk I was taking on, but a risk for our whole family. In the most obvious way, it would impact my kids and the time and resources we had for them. We’ve seen it happen with two sets of friends. Their healthy/non-sn child gets significantly less of their parents attention, and that’s manifested in not so good ways. Their needs often come second.

I thought about this too, but why is this more of a factor for a third than a second?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did you decide to stop at 2 kids or decide to have more? We are on the fence about baby #3.

You are fine with zero. One is enough. Two is a splurge. Third is insanity. You matter. Your marriage matters. Your parents matter. Your existing kid dd matter. Don't stretch yourself physically, mentally, logistically and financially too thin. You'll have get lots of rips to mend.

this.
it makes me insane when people complain about finances with 3+ kids. Of course it's human nature to reproduce, and of course it makes sense to have more than one child for the sake of the child but more than 2 is for very wealthy ppl or those who live in flyover/ v low COL. anything else is a little tunnel vision unless you dont care if your kids spend their lives in debt.

What’s very wealthy? I’m a pp who agonized over having a third. If we weren’t planning to send kids to private school, 3 would be totally doable financially. Our HHI is around 500k. We live in NY where that’s not really enough to send three kids to private school and live decently while meeting other savings goals. If I sent my kids to public school - living in an expensive school district- it would be fine cost wise. It’s private school that really makes a significant dent on the cost of raising kids.

pp - yes same. we are in nyc and thus need to be in private. Our HHI is $750-$1mm depending on the year but after nearly 50% income tax and $65 per kid on private that clicks WAY down and still need to pay mortgage, maintenance, property tax and save enough for retirement and to help them. the thing that bugs me is when people have a bunch of kids and assume they are financially done with their responsibility once the kid is 18. In NYC you are either at over $1.5 or $8m+ net worth or you should not be having more than 2 kids. to be fair nearly all the families i know with 3+ are at that income level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did you decide to stop at 2 kids or decide to have more? We are on the fence about baby #3.

You are fine with zero. One is enough. Two is a splurge. Third is insanity. You matter. Your marriage matters. Your parents matter. Your existing kid dd matter. Don't stretch yourself physically, mentally, logistically and financially too thin. You'll have get lots of rips to mend.

this.
it makes me insane when people complain about finances with 3+ kids. Of course it's human nature to reproduce, and of course it makes sense to have more than one child for the sake of the child but more than 2 is for very wealthy ppl or those who live in flyover/ v low COL. anything else is a little tunnel vision unless you dont care if your kids spend their lives in debt.

What’s very wealthy? I’m a pp who agonized over having a third. If we weren’t planning to send kids to private school, 3 would be totally doable financially. Our HHI is around 500k. We live in NY where that’s not really enough to send three kids to private school and live decently while meeting other savings goals. If I sent my kids to public school - living in an expensive school district- it would be fine cost wise. It’s private school that really makes a significant dent on the cost of raising kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up one of 3 and though UMC comfortable lifestyle, I could always see how stressed my parents were. They tried but they simply couldn’t be there for all 3 of us in the way they wanted/we needed. They were spread too thin.

I wanted to be able to give each child lots of attention and really be there for each kid emotionally in a way my parents never were for me and my siblings so I found someone who’s an excellent partner/parent and we have 2 kids so we can 1-1.

I grew up one of four and my parents were very devoted to meeting our needs. It helped that my mom had the financial flexibility to have a flexible career that enabled her to be very present with all 4 of us. My dad (retired now) worked a ton but we had lots of quality time growing up despite the demands of his career in big law.

I think threshold is so personal and based on unsocial circumstances. My husband does not earn as much as my father did, so there is more pressure on my career and I know I could not raise four kids. I am nervous about going for a third but it’s very much in my heart. I hear you though- there are definitely benefits to staying at 2 from a bandwidth perspective. I do also think that with multiple siblings, often sibling relationships are a rich source of emotional support and wellbeing, so in a good case scenario, I think wellbeing evens out.

Anecdotally most two sibling families I know aren’t particularly close. Most adult kids from larger families are closer as adults. But could just be the particular environment I was raised in.

Anonymous wrote:I grew up one of 3 and though UMC comfortable lifestyle, I could always see how stressed my parents were. They tried but they simply couldn’t be there for all 3 of us in the way they wanted/we needed. They were spread too thin.

I wanted to be able to give each child lots of attention and really be there for each kid emotionally in a way my parents never were for me and my siblings so I found someone who’s an excellent partner/parent and we have 2 kids so we can 1-1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did you decide to stop at 2 kids or decide to have more? We are on the fence about baby #3.

You are fine with zero. One is enough. Two is a splurge. Third is insanity. You matter. Your marriage matters. Your parents matter. Your existing kid dd matter. Don't stretch yourself physically, mentally, logistically and financially too thin. You'll have get lots of rips to mend.

this.
it makes me insane when people complain about finances with 3+ kids. Of course it's human nature to reproduce, and of course it makes sense to have more than one child for the sake of the child but more than 2 is for very wealthy ppl or those who live in flyover/ v low COL. anything else is a little tunnel vision unless you dont care if your kids spend their lives in debt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did you decide to stop at 2 kids or decide to have more? We are on the fence about baby #3.

You are fine with zero. One is enough. Two is a splurge. Third is insanity. You matter. Your marriage matters. Your parents matter. Your existing kid dd matter. Don't stretch yourself physically, mentally, logistically and financially too thin. You'll have get lots of rips to mend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we did a third, we’d have to get a second hotel room, one kid would sit by themselves during a flight, amusement parks, one kid would need to bring a friend or ride alone, car space would be tight. I’m happy with my two.

Most airplanes I go on are three seats across each way. So it’s 3 + 2. No kid sitting alone.

Yes, it does make travel more expensive. But I wouldn’t not have a second kid because of being uneven at an amusement park. It’s fine not to want a third kid, but to not have a third to avoid one parent ride solo on a roller coaster during an annual Disney trip is probably not a good reason. The truth is that all of these are reasons you like having two - they’re not reasons to NOT have a third. And that’s fine.

Yes for economy. Not so for business.

Chuckle. My family of 5 just flew business and my husband got to sit alone. Everyone was happy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After we had two I realized risking having a third that could potentially have special needs wasn’t just a risk I was taking on, but a risk for our whole family. In the most obvious way, it would impact my kids and the time and resources we had for them. We’ve seen it happen with two sets of friends. Their healthy/non-sn child gets significantly less of their parents attention, and that’s manifested in not so good ways. Their needs often come second.

I thought about this too, but why is this more of a factor for a third than a second?